< 12 January	14 January >

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1hourflex[edit]

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

Fails guideline Notability (organizations and companies). This article has a number of links at the bottom, but on close inspection, they are all links to dubious sites, and the purported news articles are all single-sourced. The sole source is either a press release directly from 1hourflex, or quotes from a 1hourflex spokesman. There is no evidence that any of these websites are reputable, nor that they are practicing actual journalism. There is not a single mention of 1hourflex in any newspapers, magazines, books, serious TV programs, or other respected media. Dbratland (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles which cannot our source requirements meet,
we will not hesitate to delete. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If there were an article about the company itself, I might be on the fence about it. But for this article, it's pretty clear. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 04:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable per WP:COMPANY, dubious refs per WP:Reliable sources, borderline WP:SPAM, which this got speedied for in Sept. by same creator. MuffledThud (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "links to dubious sites," "There is not a single mention of 1hourflex in any newspapers, magazines, books, serious TV programs, or other respected media"

Biofuelsdigest is the LARGEST online website of the biofuels industry.

Cleantech is another LEADING media for the greentech industry.

The company has been nominated Top 100 Greentech Company along with companies such as TESLA (Which I believe that one AT LEAST you know!)

Also, visit the company´s press website and you´ll see it is presenting in TOP VENUES in Abu Dhabi, Berlin, Miami, etc: check www.1hourflex.com/press.asp and see for yourself!

In the event in Abu Dhabi will be present even the Prince of Spain: http://www.worldfutureenergysummit.com/. Now how can I not notable company achieve that?

You obviously are very unaware of the biofuels industry: so please let others judge on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galonga (talk • contribs) 14:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biofuels Digest is a blog, and a newsletter, with a staff of one, Jim Lane. It is not a serious journal; it is a conduit for transcribing press releases. Every article is breathless cheerleading and boosting for the biofuels industry, with zero criticism or investigation of any of the companies being promoted. While Biofuels Digest may claim to be the largest, best, most read, or whatever, there is no independent evidence of that. It's just another form of advertising and public relations. --Dbratland (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising: The company claims that it can convert any car to run on ethanol ("E85") in less than 1 hour. Being named to "top 100" lists argues against notability. I'm no mathematician, but to me this suggests that there are 99 other similar businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "I'm no mathematician, but to me this suggests that there are 99 other similar businesses"

Besides not being a mathematician you are illiterate as well, as it was said that the company was named along with others such as TESLA which has nothing to do with E85 conversion (and which of course you do not know as well: your loss)

Why don´t you just read the company´s press website www.1hourflex.com/press.asp and CHECK THE LINKS there, you lazy bums?

But no, instead you just keep making dumb GUESSES and making a fool of yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galonga (talk • contribs) 17:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:CIVIL, and don't hurl insults at other editors. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's absolutely nothing in google books, scholar or news archive about "1hourflex". Obscure web sites do not impart much notability. Pcap ping 18:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DON´T YOU IDIOTS VISIT THE COMPANY´S WEBSITE WWW.1HOURFLEX.COM/PRESS.ASP AND YOU´LL SEE THE COMPANY IS EVEN PRESENTING ITS TECHNOLOGY IN AN EVENT WITH EVEN THE PRINCE OF SPAIN

BUT YOU GUYS ARE SUCH IDIOTS THAT PROBABLY DON´T EVEN KNOW WHO THAT GUY IS OR CARE

INSTEAD KEEP FOCUSING ON "GOOGLE BOOKS", IF BIOFUELSDIGEST IS A BLOG, ETC

YOU GUYS ARE JUST CRAZY TO PRESS THE DELETE BUTTON TO SHOW SOME "AUTHORITY" SINCE YOU DON´T GET ANY IN YOUR LIVES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galonga (talk • contribs) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IF YOU GUYS ARE SUCH EXPERTS IN WHAT MEDIA IS "NOTABLE" WHEN IT COMES TO BIOFUELS THEN WHY DON´T YOU PRODUCE A COUPLE THAT YOU THINK FITS THE BILL?

CAN´T DO THAT? FOUND ONE BUT COINCIDENTALLY ALREADY HAD AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE COMPANY? I THOUGHT SO... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galonga (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the editor commenting above realises that this discussion will be found in the future by any prospective customers of 1hourflex searching for information about the company. I certainly wouldn't consider for a moment doing business with anyone whose promoters are so abusive and illiterate. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: upon his return from blocked-ville, I would suggest that Galonga take a reading trip through wiki-land. Start with WP:CIVIL to learn how to hold a discussion with other editors; you may find that you are the only one who appears hopping mad over this issue and it does not make your side of the argument look very convincing. Next a journey through WP:N to read about what makes a topic important. Note that article subjects must have received significant attention from reliable, third-party, uninvolved sources. See WP:V for more info about that, and note that blogs and press release mills generally do not suffice. Also, if you are somehow connected to this company, please do pay close attention to WP:COI. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 05:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, spam. Dressed up to look like serious analysis, with "claims" liberally scattered around, but reads mostly like a mix of press release and product information.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:57, 18 January 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. The two secondary refs added are rather weak (conference talks), but enough for me. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 23:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solid (Object Oriented Design)[edit]

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

WP:NEO based on a blog as far as I can tell. Pcap ping 23:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This topic/concept is discussed by Robert Cecil Martin, which builds upon the material found in his books on agile programming and clean code. Therefore, it is not simply part of some random blog, but a concept that is talked about in his capacity as a professional programmer and a good means of remembering a subject, much like the expansion of the acronym EGBDF helps people to remember the lines of a staff that has a treble clef on it. —Michael B. Trausch • Talk to me 05:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone else besides Bob and that blogger use it? WP:PRIMARY seems to apply here. Not everything that Bob came up with automatically deserves an article here. Pcap ping 06:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My google web/books/news/scholar searches only turned up "solid object oriented design" with the common meaning of solid, not with this acronym. Pcap ping 06:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you read comp.object, stackoverflow, or any books on OOP? Are you even an OO programmer?

Keep SOLID is a jargon acronym used to describe code design. SOLID, used in both upper and lower case in a comment by Rebecca Wirfs-Brock (who is an acknowledged expert on OOP and the presenter). http://www.infoq.com/presentations/What-Drives-Design-Rebecca-Wirfs-Brock "...people who have advocated xDD approaches and even talk about use of patterns or refactoring techniques are all trying to get at SOLID (or solid) design. " "Solid design" is mentioned in Eric Evans' Domain Driven Design (see preface pg xxiii regarding Agile and XP). S.O. tag "solid-principles" in lower case: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/solid-principles SOLID is fairly well-known jargon used among OO programmers and API designers to describe code design.

SOLID's individual principles, especially L - LSP, and S - SRP, are commonly used in Internet discussions such as those on comp.object, however "solid" is also used, both in upper and lowercase (like RADAR and radar).thse http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1519839/solid-liskov-substitution-principle http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2418128/does-having-a-method-do-more-than-one-thing-violate-srp

If you're not an OO programmer, and you've not heard of these principles, I suggest you learn to do better research! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkit (talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Everyone's heard of this. It's notable. -128.61.115.133 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 14 January 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. Or "nomination withdrawn". Pick one. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals[edit]

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

The subjects fails to meet the notability guidelines for an organization, per WP:ORG. Specifically, please note the section on local chapters, which are generally not notable unless significant attention has been paid by reliable sources outside the chapter's local area. WP:ORG also states organizations that are not at least national in scale may not notable unless they have received significant attention, again, from third party sources outside the local area. Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals seems to fail to demonstrate such notability. See related AFD for Providence Teachers Union.

Both are local affiliates of much larger, more notable unions and organizations, however in my opinion they are not deserving of their own articles. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. State-wide is bigger than local, and the union is independently notable. - Eastmain (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nom: WP:ORG, in general indicates that in order to be considered notable it should be at least national in scope, and have received significant attention from secondary sources. Reviewing the top hits in a basic Google search, I am finding neither. All references that are not self-published seem to be minor, side-note type references, or references by other organizations with which the Rhode Island Federation... is affiliated. True third-party notability seems hard to come by. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 03:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I count 22 hits alone in Google News just since the start of 2010, all directly related to RIFTHP (rather than its national affiliate). It seems less a matter of notability than a matter of building up the article and including cites. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now there are 49 neutral reliable sources, including 21 non-local sources. (Although, in a state as small as Rhode Island, "non-local" is a difficult term to define. Coverage by the Providence Journal-Bulletin is statewide coverage, even if it is a local newspaper.) - Tim1965 (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The best thing that every happened to this article is being nominated for deletion! When I look at the article that existed at nomination compared to now, it's a stark contrast. The organization clearly has a significant impact in Rhode Island and should be maintained as noteworthy on that basis. Part of the problem is that WP:Org reflects a pervasive regional bias in WikiPedia by using "reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area" as one of several criteria for establishing notability. By that rationale, an organization covered in the Providence Journal would be excluded while an identical one in the metro section of the New York Times would be included because those two papers have different distribution areas. That just reflects the geographic presence of national media organizations, not the underlying notability of the organization.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the significant, huge reworking of the article with many sources, and RevelationDirect's insight, I no longer support deleting this article. Tim1965, you've done a great job with it. Keep! –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 05:43, 15 January 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 the below, and WP:CSD#A7 - the article fails to assert the notability of the group. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Providence Teachers Union[edit]

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

The subjects fails to meet the notability guidelines for an organization, per WP:ORG. Specifically, please note the section on local chapters, which are generally not notable unless significant attention has been paid by reliable sources outside the chapter's local area. Providence Teachers Union does not demonstrate such notability. WP:ORG also states organizations that are not at least national in scale may not notable unless thye have received significant attention, again, from third party sources outside the local area. Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals also seems to fail to demonstrate such notability. (see related AFD)

Both are local affiliates of much larger, more notable unions and organizations, however in my opinion they are not deserving of their own articles. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 23:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nn-group. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Whether or not the topic is noteworthy or not can't be established because there's really no content in this article. Maybe it a good topic, maybe not. But WP readers don't lose anything by getting rid of this very stubby stub.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as copyright violation. --PMDrive1061 04:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret She Carried[edit]

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

The only reference in the article is IMDB and I can't find significant coverage find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only review I find ([1]) is one paragraph, 2/3 of which is a plot synopsis. Doesn't meet WP:NF. Wine Guy Talk 23:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if possible. This user has a long history of similar edits with no talk page interaction. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a virtual copyvio; most of it is cribbed from another site and just a few of the words have been changed. Again, user has a long history of same. Off to have a little discussion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Pack discography#2005: Pack Muzik Vol. 1. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pack Muzik Vol. 1[edit]

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

The article is unreferenced and I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Pack (group). As a self-released mixtape with little or no independent coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't merit it's own article (WP:NALBUMS); useful information (i.e. the one sentence lead) can be moved to the article about the group. Wine Guy Talk 23:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by WineGuy above. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any sourced content could be merged to the group's article but since there is no sourced content (or really any content beyond a track listing)... TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aylar Lie[edit]

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

I have serious doubts about whether this former porn star meets any notability guideline. She certainly doesn't meet the guideline for porn actresses. I cant find enough coverage for her to meet the general notability guideline. She might have done a lot of different things in the past, pornstar, singer, reality tv show contestant, but I can't see that any of it confers sufficient notability for inclusion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish keep, she seems to get a moderate amount of tabloid-type coverage (e.g., [2], [3], [4], and a variety of articles in various Scandinavian languages I can't read). She doesn't meet PORNBIO or MUSICBIO, certainly, but she seems to get way more press than your average non-notable pornstar that we see on AfD. The fact that it's tabloid and society stuff keeps my recommendation weak. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since I can't !vote Meh. She does seem to get a fair amount of tabloid coverage, albeit mostly for shagging notable people. Seems to be a fair amount of Norsk language stuff as well. Probably squeaks in through WP:GNG. Wine Guy Talk 23:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thing I was concerned about was whether tabloids like The Sun qualify as reliable sources. Incidentally, AfDs frequently come to a "meh" conclusion, they call it no consensus though ;-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are some reasonably reliable sources. There probably is enough to keep this one. The article could be tightened up, tho. --Stormbay (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She got a surprising amount of news coverage when her porn career began, partly for the overblown Miss Norway connection, partly for her Iranian background, partly for the exploitational "Princess Diana" name. She meets the GNG cumulatively, not for anything in particular. Notability happens. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep highly notable celebrity. I havn't heard of very many of this kind of people, but she is one of the few that I have. A "Aylar Lie" news check with Norwegian search engine Kvasir shows 13 news hits (yes, that would all be reliable, secondary sources) this year (in just over two weeks). A search with Atext (a proprietary search of printed and online newspapers) gives 1,863 hits. Those are all reliable, secondary sources. So people can be highly famous for doing nothing special at all, and yet be mentioned in conservative media outlets such as the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, Aftenposten and Dagsavisen. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not averse to withdrawing a nomination if someone adds some good quality references Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reformatted the existing references to ((cite web)) format. The article had a number of reliable sources to begin with. For instance, The Sun article covers a rather trivial issue about her, showing to what degree she has already been established as a celebrity and attained notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmm, I suspect I'm not going to be thinking in line with consensus here (looking at the !keep votes here at any rate). The Sun reference in the article is exactly the kind of reference I'd be disputing. Is it a reliable source? Is there a consensus somewhere on this kind of tabloid reporting? I wouldn't be comfortable relying on this kind of reference for any article I was writing. I'm not gonna push the issue - consensus is consensus - but would we be happy if every article in the encyclopedia relied on the Sun as its main source? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - My feeling on tabloids like The Sun is that their usage as a source needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. While they are certainly not reliable sources for topics such as foreign policy or government officials, they are perhaps the ideal source for "tabloid celebrities". It's a sad commentary that these "tabloid-ebrities" exist (and that people actually seek out information about them), but they do, and Ms. Lie appears to be one of them. Also, as Arsenikk pointed out, there do appear to be plenty of Norwegian sources, but I don't speak Norsk. Anyone care to translate? Wine Guy Talk 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notorious celebrity and household name in Norway. no:Aylar Lie cites three reliable references with significant coverage, of which there are many more, per User:Arsenikk. Meets GNG. decltype (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Network Merchants[edit]

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

A disputed speedy; previous versions have been speedied as advertising/non-notable corporations. When I came to assess this for speedy deletion, the hangon tag led me to a discussion that seemed unresolvable; I suggested bringing the topic to AfD. Most of the references provided don't seem to me to be denotative of notability (merely of milestones in the company's history) but I'm insufficiently well informed to assess the few useful sources for reliability so I take no position here. Contributors to this discussion, and the closing admin, should note two things: (1) there's a suggestion that material has been removed from the talk page of the article, and it may be of interest to read it or return it, and (2) there seems to be a single-purpose account (SPA) with no other edits contributing to the latter part of the discussion which may indicate that some form of canvassing is at work. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional page for a non-notable company. The author's reasons to keep are of the variety, "Prior to NMI, no other company had developed fraud screening software specifically geared towards online transactions." But we get this from every software company on AfD: "Don't delete! AverageSoft developed the first QGI763-based software to disenburble frambular network traffic!" If it's that important, people will cover it. I'm seeing a bunch of press releases, with nothing that could be called "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The article's references certainly don't offer anything more. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Skimming across the aFd's I honestly dont see why this is marked. The sources cited are reliable. Yes, a few of them are press releases but not many. Majority of the citings are valid second/third party sources and this article is well written and informative. I did not get the feeling in any way that it was an advertisement. I can not believe this was tagged for lack of significance. I also just clicked the link on NMI that lead to authorize.net's wikipedia page and that page is horrible. Their cites are ridiculous and is 100% written like an advertisement. This makes no sense to me. I think this should 100% be kept. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.114.191 (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this definitely helps, as did you adding all those links to Network Merchants yesterday. I'm glad you stumbled across this AfD! Glenfarclas (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Of the ten references cited in the article: five are press releases annoucing services offered, three are press releases annoucing certifications available to anyone who wishes to use the third party system and are not notable, one is a company profile which appears to be either a perk of being a member of the association or paid for (it's an advertisement either way), and one is press releases noting a charitble act which is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Nine of the ten, if not all ten, were written by the company itself. Considering there are many trade publications, both online and in print, in their industry and none of them appear to have written anything noteworthy, or worth using as a reference in the article, about this company in its 11 year history I'd have to say they are not a notable company. stymiee (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a business that builds e-commerce payment gateways for companies located throughout the world that process credit cards, debit cards and electronic checks over an Internet Protocol (IP) connection. They can do that over the Internet? Since when?? AAR, I agree with Stymiee's review of the added sources and find nothing better myself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see nothing but press releases in the article, and when I conduct my own searches. This fails to establish notability as there is no independent coverage in reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Iam the “author” of the Network Merchants article. Network Merchants is worthy of a Wikipedia page. Their patent pending projects and simply their pure historical background is enough to justify this page. I will find and update the reference section with other articles of Wikipedias liking. I highly recommend you keep this page, this company is with out a doubt an industry leader from iSpyFraud to their new 3 Step API that is about to be released. This company as stated by “Accounting4Taste” requires a very specialized area of knowledge. Anyone who understands the payment gateway industry will appreciate Network Merchants and their major contributions to the payment gateway industry and see their value to wikipedia. OnebadGTR (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apparently you misread what I said. I didn't say that this assessment requires a very specialized area of knowledge -- in fact, I think that statement is incorrect. I said that *I* didn't have some specific knowledge, but I can add that I believe that specific knowledge is represented here in this process. I can be more specific; I was unable to decide whether the "Green Sheet" reference represented a reliable source. I found that there were no other reliable sources represented, as others have stated above. It is a misconception to think that any Articles for Deletion process on Wikipedia can only be adjudged by people with specialized knowledge. In fact, it's usually fairly easy to assess whether references are reliable, or present at all, such as is being assessed here; and if an article is so recondite as to be incomprehensible to the general public, then it is probably unsuitable for Wikipedia without significant re-writing. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If, as claimed, the company is a notable payment gateway company, then I would expect to see this covered in business press somewhere. I've only found press releases. If there is any significant coverage, please bring it forward. -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20081028005417&newsLang=en Not a press release from NMI OnebadGTR (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a press release. Looks like a co-press-release. Still not an article or press coverage. stymiee (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Indeed. And I'll add that anything else you find on Business Wire will be a press release as the site's reason for existence is to publish press releases. Another of the large press release companies is PR Newswire. -- Whpq (talk) 22:01, 14 January 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 Mooted - Article was deleted for Copyright violations. The article's content is exclusively based on an incompatibly licensed source (BY-NC-ND) and cannot be kept in any case. The article has now been deleted after staying listed at WP:CP for 7 days without any attempts at rewriting or otherwise addressing the copyvio issues. Note that since the AfD hasn't run its full course, this does not preclude the re-creation of a non-infringing article, but by doing so, editors willing to re-create are advised to mind the comments of the strongly developing consensus to delete expressed in this present AfD. MLauba (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Restoring Music Foundation[edit]

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

A non-notable foundation which is dedicated to "the restoration of the music industry", whatever that is supposed to mean. It appears to quite non-notable, and strongly fails WP:ORG. Google searches that exclude wikipedia and the website of the organization fail to turn up any helpful references. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there is no evidence of this being a notable organisation. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the previous two opinions. My search did not produce anything significant. --Stormbay (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and and other !voters. As a sidenote, the same editor appears to have created another related article, Philip E. Daniels, to link in to this one; that article is now also at AfD. Wine Guy Talk 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable organization. Creator appears to be making a walled garden. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 01:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, and the article contains content released under the CC-By-NC license, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. The leftorium 21:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I've blanked the article as it contains material that is not licensed appropriately for inclusion. The last revision is located here, for AfD review – Toon 14:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quintus Fulvius Flaccus (disambiguation)[edit]

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

No need for disambig page. The two pages that share the same name now have hatnotes. Labattblueboy (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DAB; two topics can be disambiguated with hatnotes and don't require a dab page. This probably could have been handled via PROD. Cnilep (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the end its best that this didn't go the PROD route. JBsupreme (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curvy Words[edit]

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

No reliable sources given to support notability of this game; appears to be promotional. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Curvy Words puzzle is a rather "new" puzzle with an important twist to word searches. It has been used in thousands of classrooms. Since it is in wide use by teachers and students the name and description deserves worthiness to Wikipedia. This is not promotional except for the link to edHelper. That can be removed and I will edit to remove the link, but the type of puzzle is worthy of Wikipedia.[[User::Edhwiki]] — Edhwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per nom Polargeo (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I can find no independent sources on this topic. - MrOllie (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only source I can find is the aforementioned edhelper.com, which is neither independent nor non-promotional in nature. If this game achieves sufficient notability it should surely be included in Wikipedia, but until then this seems suspect. Ginsengbomb (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is no evidence of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:N fails WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. JBsupreme (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green archaeological excavation[edit]

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

This was a contested prod. While the concept seems laudable, this article seems basically intended to promote new field strategies rather than to document already notable ones. LadyofShalott 16:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary sources at all can be found for this topic. Abductive (reasoning) 16:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above comments. It is a bad article name as well. It should be Archaeological excavation and the environment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of BrainSurge episodes[edit]

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

There are concerns on another forum that at least part of this list is a hoax (definitely episodes 25 and 26). That, and do we really need a list of episodes for a game show anyway? It's not linked from the main BrainSurge article, for one, and there doesn't seem to be a precedent for doing such a list at least in the realm of game shows. Furthermore, the episodes would be better off summarized in the main article at best, seeing as the BrainSurge article itself is so short. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See List of Legends of the Hidden Temple episodes, List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes, and List of My Family's Got GUTS episodes. Not decided on how I will !vote. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Before I forget, the episode list is indeed linked from the infobox of BrainSurge (at least this revision [5]). RJaguar3 | u | t 16:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I also crossed out that part. I overlooked the infobox. My concerns of hoaxery still stand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would combine those three within this AfD...there is no reason for those to exist anywhere except for a fansite. Nate • (chatter) 02:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't. The first two have actual titles, which to me are encyclopedic. If you want to nominate them for deletion, you should probably list them separately. See WP:BUNDLE. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first two you're right...withdrawing those as they have long established histories going back three-five years and in the case of the Hidden Temple list, provides encyclopedic value to the legends for each episode with links to the articles for each real legend. However the third list for MFHG should be bundled here as it was created by Fuzzyandtoast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)...who just happens to be a sock of ELF TV and was indeffed as sock of said user (and yes, because it's for My Family's Got Guts, which nobody but NickCrufters cared about after 2008). Nate • (chatter) 05:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing...article creator EvanFinney10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a probable sock of indef banned ELF TV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in my eyes (editor's initials are ELF) and previously edited under abandoned account EvanFinney08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); all three names have been pretty much stuck editing the articles of Nick and other children's shows. He's been running wild on this new account for three months under our noses I think. Nate • (chatter) 02:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, I'm going to say delete on this one. While the other articles I mentioned have distinguishable elements (like unique titles for episodes), this list consists mostly of "the pink player won but was only able to clear two boards of the final stage." As such, even if this article were verifiable, it would still be inappropriate for Wikipedia due to being a exposition of redundant, repetitive details about the show. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a game show. I really cannot see how what interest there can be in every single episode, when it follows the same basic pattern every time. This level of detail really is not suitable for wikipedia, especially seeing as none of it is covered in any other sources. There could be a place for this sort of information, but it isn't here (e.g. see [6] for a wiki of Countdown (game show)). Quantpole (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' It's a game show! Here's my version of a synopsis; "Someone you don't know won this day" or "Some other person lost this day". I say delete all "List of game show episodes" articles because it is a completely indiscriminate list of information. We've had others try to create lists of talk show episodes which have been been successfully taken to AfD, and I don't understand what anyone in a research capacity would ever do with such gems as "Carson in green, Nick in red, Celine in yellow, Noah in purple, Jourdan in blue and Sabyr in pink compete against in other." and "Boo becomes the first female to make it to the final stage in BrainSurge. Unfortunately, she is only able to beat the first two legs of the final stage." That and I'm thinking there is some definite copyvios from TV.com going on here (usually that's where these synopses come from). Ahh, the NickCrufters are back with a vengeance to start this year (unfortunately for me). Nate • (chatter) 02:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, at least it's not as bad as having an article about a single episode of a game show. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galileo's Cannonball. RJaguar3 | u | t 07:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And now I've seen everything. (shakes head) Someday I swear the fake Nickcruft example on my userpage will have an actual article. Nate • (chatter) 10:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While a regular television series may benefit from an episode list, a game show really just does not need one as there is no plot and nothing major to state about the episodes. The main article already contains the appropriate content regarding airdates and has plenty of room for highlighting any special episodes (with RS) as needed. Could also bee a speedy as creation be banned editor, per G5, if/when this sock is reported and blocked. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not a G5, as I don't believe the user was banned when he created the article. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he is a sock, the sock was banned at the time this was created, and this one is subsequently banned as such, then yes, it falls under G5 at that point. :-) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the nature of a game show is that all episodes are, basically, the same. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postview[edit]

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

No third party reliable sources to contribute to this software being notable. 16x9 (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no signs of notability. Haakon (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a simple blog engine (aka. Blogware). A variety of different products appear to be using this name. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ginsengbomb (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have not been able to locate anything that will pass for a reliable source documenting notability. Favonian (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per anyone and everyone. JBsupreme (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reliable sources that consistently support this article. --FaceMash (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Street fighting[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as unreferenced original research for more than two years and tagged for clean-up for more than two and half years. The sole ref cited supports one single statistical fact in the article. WP:PROD tag was removed without improving the article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - regretably the term is used in current society and there are many links to this page. The term drew 30.4 million google hits. While Wikipedia should not glorify this conduct, an encyclopedia article on this subject would be appropriate. I agree that the article is very low quality and someone should remove the orginial research and avoid defining the difference between a street fight and a riot (unless we can cite to an authoritative source). Perhaps the article should be expanded to cover the various criminal laws against such conduct. Racepacket (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't in the least disagree with you that this is a worthwhile subject for an encyclopedia article, but this article is of such poor quality that it it preventing a better article from being written. As in many cases trying to sort out facts from personal opinion in an unreferenced article such as this and find references to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards is very difficult. I believe that there should be an article with this title but that it would be better to delete this article and start over, working from refs instead of scrambling to find refs to support this problematic text. As can be seen by how long this has been tagged as substandard and how little substantial work has been done recently, I think most editors look at it and walk away. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the person who removed the prod tag, I take offense to the statement "WP:PROD tag was removed without improving the article". As I pointed out in the edit summary, the French Wikipedia article was a former featured article, and though it recently lost it featured article status, it still has several references. However, I don't read a word of French, so there is no way I could improve the article using those references. Though I can't read the references, I would be very surprised if there wasn't some useable information there. Calathan (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am sorry that you took offence to my nomination language, as no offence was intended; it is just a factual statement. I found the article in a poor state, with virtually no refs, tagged for over two years, clearly no where near Wikipedia's standards and not being actively improved. I PRODed it and you removed the PROD tag, with the suggestion that refs might be found on the French version. The article is still of as poor a quality as when I found it, so I have brought it here to hopefully have it improved, or deleted so it can be started over, working from refs as I mentioned above, instead of trying to find refs to support a large amount of opinion. My statement "WP:PROD tag was removed without improving the article" is simple fact and wasn't intended as an insult. By the rules you are allowed to remove it for any reason and that is part of the reason that we are here at AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry about that. It just seemed to me that you were ignoring the potential sources I had mentioned, but I see now that you were not. Anyway, if you think an article should exist on this topic, there is no need for a deletion discussion. You are free to completely replace all the text in the article if you think that would make it better (though you might want to discuss that on the article talk page first before doing so). Articles aren't normally deleted for being of poor quality, but only when an article shouldn't exist at all at that title. Calathan (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for your comments. I still believe that the article should be deleted and perhaps, if refs can be found, started over again rather than fixed through normal editing, as that approach hasn't worked over the last two years in this case. If no refs can be found, then by definition, it isn't a notable topic. Let's see what the result of this debate is and work from there. - Ahunt (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable, even if the article needs some serious work (although, frankly, it's not nearly as broken as any number of other articles on here, not that that's really meaningful or surprising information!). Ginsengbomb (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Racepacket and Ginsenbomb. Not so awful it needs to be deleted, and of an obvious encyclopedic topic. 30 million Ghits must have a few good sources. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Street fighting is real and notable. What needs to be fixed is the organization and layout of the article. Portillo (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. It is a notable phrase/term which needs more than a dicdef, I've done some bits to try & improve it but it's a mess and needs someone to sit down & do a complete re-write to provide a frame work for building on (time I don't have right now) --Nate ^t/_c 08:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and clean up. Just needs more refs and general cleanup. Notable in its various uses. CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modified delete. This article reads like OR from beginning to end. While it is an extremely notable subject, I agree with Ahunt that we can't just leave it and wait for someone else to insert references to match all the assertions. Are any of us prepared to take the time to do that? On the other hand, we can't delete it entirely, or else someone will probably come up with a new post that looks just as rough as this one. I suggest leaving the first paragraph and deleting the rest, with a wiki note on the editing page that warns people to reference whatever they're going to say. This might be unconventional, but maybe it will solve the problem here. Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for your thought on this. Given that the overwhelming consensus seems to be to keep the article at this point, I am also concerned that once this AfD closes that all those who participated here and indicated keep will fade away and not work on the article, leaving it as bad as it is now. Once this AfD is closed I support your idea, we can take that up on the talk page at that time. - Ahunt (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saffron Coomber[edit]

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

Might not be notable. See WP:ENT - Saffron Coomber has had minor roles and secondary roles in made for tv movies, etc. The article has no references satisfying WP:N ErikHaugen (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —ErikHaugen (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a handful of small roles and single-episode appearances so far. IMDb doesn't have her listed in the cast of the upcoming Tracy Beaker Returns. I don't see anything remotely amounting to "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" per WP:ENT. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, The IMDB might not list her in Tracy Beaker Returns, but the BBC does list her as a regular and she has been in every episode so far. Samhills —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Mackenzie-Kerr[edit]

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

No claim of notability (unless one counts the obituary on The Independent). Just a good book designer doing his job. Damiens.rf 15:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do count an obituary in The Independent as a mark of notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not. Alio The Fool 21:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is also an obituary in The Guardian. I would argue that obituaries in two of the UK's leading quality national newspapers is a serious indication of notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable person who did his job for 50 years. I don't know that there's a bright line on whether obituaries make someone notable; but when a person gets an obituary like this without having had any significant coverage during his life I can't believe it amounts to very much. A beloved, but otherwise completely low-profile, local figure may get an obituary upon death, and while WP:BLP1E doesn't, strictly speaking, apply to a deceased person, I think the principle is worth remembering: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." To my thinking, that pretty much applies to someone's death as well. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A professionally written and published obituary is not about someone's death. It is about their life and their contribution to society, especially in the context of articles in national newspapers such as The Guardian and The Independent. So I strongly disagree with you conclusion above with respect to obituaries. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google book search up top shows plenty of results, the first one being him, showing a picture of one of the book covers he did, his name mentioned. How often does that happen? The other books that mention his work, are probably about him also, it not too common of a name. Dream Focus 00:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after finding this, this (click on View all), and this. "Just a good book designer" is one thing; a good book designer featured in books about book design is another. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, what you've found is (1) a six-page chapter he contributed to a non-notable book, (2) another book where he's thanked in the acknowledgements and mentioned in one paragraph, and (3) a book where he's quoted briefly on a single page about being a typography student, and never mentioned again. I just can't believe this stacks up to notability—and under what, WP:CREATIVE? These short mentions hardly show that he's "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by [his] peers or successors." In fact the paucity, in a highly specialized field like typography and book design, would tend to show the opposite. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you may have missed: ref #1 also mentions him on the back cover as a contributor, ref #2 has 3 mentions of him, not 2 (Google book search may not want to display the discussion of him on pg 1481, but it still counts), and ref #3 describes him as having "had a long and distinguished career as a book designer."
When a book on book designers describes someone as having had "a long and distinguished career," I'm happy to take their word for it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per RS and V. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Doesn't appear to have significant coverage by reliable independent sources. One obituary doesn't make an article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe WP:CREATIVE #3 applies. There is a body of work (many books designed by him) with reviews (in multiple obituaries – The Guardian and The Independent – and other journals, books, etc.). I have added some more references. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep - At the time of my initial comment, I was only aware of the one obituary. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite obviously notable from the sources given, particularly national press obituaries. Ty 21:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 21:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obits in national papers are not typicaly writen merely about "beloved, but otherwise completely low-profile, local figure"s. The coverage in books about book design would alone be enough to establish notability IMO. Together I think the result is clear. DES ^(talk) 22:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absurd nomination - we do not discount substantial sources for no reason. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe that WP:BEFORE was not followed correctly in this case. In particular, under section 3, it would have been appropriate to add a ((notability)) tag before proposing deletion for this article. I would request that the original proposer follows WP:BEFORE before nominating any further AfDs in future. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Meers[edit]

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

Notability. From the article, it seems it's just a good photographer doing his work. Main claim of notability is that "The National Trust holds many of his photographs", but it unfortunately goes unsourced. Having "produced photographs for over 30 books" doesn't seems astonishing. Good photographer? Yes. Notable? Not from what is said on the article. Damiens.rf 15:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With 30+ published books to his name (including on the front cover as a co-author, not just as a contributor), I believe he is notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that it's not that he have written 30+ books. It's that his photographs have been used in 30+ books , and I don't think this is enough to make a professional photographer notable. --Damiens.rf 18:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many of the books (e.g., the books listed in the article) are books where he is a co-author, not just a contributor. There is a big difference. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added a reference for the National Trust. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it notable? The National Trust holds many photographs of many artist. --Damiens.rf 18:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You implicitly suggested that it be sourced (see above) and references are always helpful for verifiability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This photographer seems to be notable as demonstrated by the large number of books of his photography he has published and which are widely available through online bookstores such as Barnes and Noble[7] and Amazon[8]. He has not just provided the photography for a book - he is one of the authors and the books are about his photography - there is a big difference. There is also press coverage of his books: see [9] and [10] Jenafalt (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At present I am dubious over the sources being used here. A search of amazon or barnes & noble does not show that someone is notable, particularly when you look at the sales ranks of the books. It may be an indication of notability, but it doesn't meet any of the recommendations of WP:CREATIVE. Likewise, having taken some pictures for the National Trust website may be an indication of notability but does not prove it. The basic problem at that moment is that there is no reliable independent source for biographical information about the person. If there are more reviews of his work, or if it can be shown that he is widely referenced in photography circles then we might get close to shpowing WP:N. I'm willing to be convinced, but at the moment I'm not seeing it. Quantpole (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I believe WP:CREATIVE #3 applies. There is a body of work with multiple reviews. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like I said, I'm willing to be convinced, but at the moment there is a review of about 4 sentences from the independent, and one hidden behind a pay wall (and neither are even used as references for any text in the article, so I have no idea how in depth the chicago tribune review is). Please, if there are multiple reviews, then either add them to the article or stick them here so they can be assessed. Quantpole (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search up top shows articles mentioning him and his photographs. Dream Focus 00:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination: Having "produced photographs for over 30 books" doesn't seems astonishing. Good photographer? Yes. Notable? Not from what is said on the article. How true, how very true. Meers' photographs are not in the permanent collection of the V&A (a large photographic collection that's conveniently searchable online). They may well not be in any other museum or art collection either. No Turner Prize nomination for Nick. The highest price at abebooks.com right now for one of his books is $100 (cf $7500 for Tillmans and $20,220 for Cartier-Bresson). Not even any space on my shelves for his books. He's not an artiste but a highly competent craftsman, serving Weidenfeld & Nicolson and the National Trust and others with what they and the public want. (And it's not bad either; cf the luridly colored, saccharine landscapes of some great, great photographic landscape hacks who have companies sell their stuff by the square metre.) But anyway, he's not notable. Neither, I dare say, are most of the thousands of actors and the like who have articles in Wikipedia. But just as Wikipedia doesn't limit its thespian coverage to the conventionally great (Jean Gabin), the great "characters" (Shelley Duvall), and the mere heart-throbs (Keanu Reeves), but instead allows squillions of articles (mostly poorly sourced, it must be said) on entirely humdrum actors, and does so to the general benefit of the interested public, so Wikipedia would be better if it had many more modest, well sourced articles on workmanlike photographers. Producing photographs for over 30 books is not astonishing, but neither is it easy. I can't be bothered to examine the recent history of this article, but as it is now it deserves to stay; indeed, I wish there were more like it. Keep. -- Hoary (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has an established reputation in his field as evidenced by the number of books where he is the co/author and cumulative other mentions/reviews. Those working in the visual arts seem to have a higher bar applied to them than that in e.g. WP:BAND or WP:ATHLETE. This should not be the case. Ty 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems both notable and encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe that WP:BEFORE was not followed correctly in this case. In particular, under section 3, it would have been appropriate to add a ((notability)) tag before proposing deletion for this article. I would request that the original proposer follows WP:BEFORE before nominating any further AfDs in future. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:20, 18 January 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:CSD#G12 (unambiguous copyright violation) by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Schlee[edit]

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

I'm not completely convinced this writer is notable. The only one claim to notability is being once nominated for the "Booker Prize". Is this enough? Also, (although unrelated to AFD or notability concerns) the whole of the article's text appears in her bio at "http://www.davidhigham.co.uk/html/Clients/Schlee". Who's the copyright violator. Damiens.rf 15:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the Wikipedia article at Man Booker Prize: "The winner of the Booker Prize is generally assured of international renown and success and, for this reason, the prize is of great significance for the book trade.[2] It is also a mark of distinction for authors to be nominated for the Booker longlist or selected for inclusion in the shortlist." Here is a review of Ask me No Questions: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-27192021_ITM I see that the article has been deleted. This is probably one of the cases where an alleged copyvio is best dealt with by stubbing the article and removing the copyvio text, rather than by deleting the article outright. – Eastmain (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Schlee[edit]

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

It seems this artist haven't reached notability yet. His main claims of notability are having won two medals from the "Royal Drawing Society" (is this notable? I don't know) and having some of his word held by some universities and museums, but everything goes without a source. Damiens.rf 15:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Schlee's work has been widely exhibited and is held in collections of museums and universities. See WP:ARTIST section 4(d). I believe Schlee meets the criteria. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Google news search only mentions his works were in a museum, that notable enough. Google book search, second page, reveals he was featured in "Artists in Britain since 1945, Volume 2‎". So some consider him a notable artist. Dream Focus 00:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of above. Schlee is indeed in The Dictionary of Artists in Britain Since 1945, which is a reputable source (not a "vanity" publication). Wikipedia follows sources. Ty 01:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there are many artist there. --Damiens.rf 13:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable and encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination seems uncertain ("I don't know") and there has been no attempt to discuss the matter at the article's talk page per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe that WP:BEFORE was not followed correctly in this case. In particular, under section 3, it would have been appropriate to add a ((notability)) tag before proposing deletion for this article. I would request that the original proposer follows WP:BEFORE before nominating any further AfDs in future. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:17, 18 January 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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jive Software[edit]

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

this article is terrible, has practically no references, and has been tagged for months without being cleaned upElimccargar (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nomination itemises reasons for improving the article, not deleting it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable sources are easily found, and deletion should not be used for articles simply needing cleanup. Further, this is likely a pointy deletion in response to this. I gave the nominator some advice about deletion of this article recently. tedder (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination seems pointy based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogtronix (2nd nomination)--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources out there, gets covered in the regional paper The Oregonian all the time, ditto with the Portland Business Journal. Needs clean-up, not a deletion. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received extensive coverage in The New York Times (see: [11] [12] [13]), among other sources, and is obviously notable. Steven Walling 08:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but very, very weakly. This calls itself a software company in the enterprise social-networking business. It does not appear to produce well known products under its own brand, or market them to the general public. It isn't notable in the non-technical sense, and makes no claim to technical or historical importance, or any other credible claim to public note. We either need stricter standards of a sort that would exclude behind the scenes businesses like this, or else abandon any pretense to excluding spam and throw open the gates to articles written by marketing consultants. This sort of thing just does not belong. But if PC World and the New York Times have published stories about it, it probably meets the consensus for current standards. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think the current nomination is really WP:POINT-y either. It is, instead, a symptom of the sort of thing we're always going to face by allowing articles about businesses that are "notable" under WP:GNG but not really. "My competitor has an article; why shouldn't the business that interests me?" When you're dealing with May-fly business startups in software space, coverage in adequate sources may be a bit of a crap-shoot, or at least a function of your marketing people's connections. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It made The New York Times, as pointed out above. The. New. York. Times. Yes, that New York Times. Samboy (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin close). Cnilep (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leopold Frankenberger, Jr.[edit]

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

Redirect to Alois Hitler#Leopold Frankenberger where he has a paragraph. He is the possible grandfather of Adolf Hitler, not notable in his own right. Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination for the moment while redirect and merge discussions play out. Boleyn (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC) By the way, the creator of this article is indef blocked as a vandal and sockpuppet. Alio The Fool 21:17, 13 January 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:CSD#G11. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Aircraft[edit]

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

A company that's "...not none in the industry due to most of the projects remaining secret,..." is not likely to be very notable. This is especially true as they are reported to be giving them away "...but not yet selling them in any form." I am unable to find any references to this company but please note they should not be confused with Bradley Aerospace which does appear to be a real company. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete Directory listing shows that it apparently has an annual revenue of $52,000 and employs a staff of approximately 1. Polargeo (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Xintavelonis[edit]

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

unreferenced stub. fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. no significant third party coverage [14] LibStar (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment transcluded at Articles for Deletion at this timestamp, was incorrectly listed previously. --Taelus (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant third party coverage, well maybe a small amount at a local Tasmania level. Does not meet WP:ENT, really scraping it for significant roles in multiple notable productions. For example yes the lion king is notable but here he is in the Melbourne version of the Lion King (which may not be independently notable) where he operated and I assume spoke for the puppet Pumbaa. This appears to be the biggest role of his career to date. Polargeo (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and improve article. Appears to have a notability for stagework in Australia. [15], [16] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just. He was the 10th most newsworthy Tasmanian in 2008: 1, not that that's saying much in and of itself, but it does give insight into the significance of the coverage he has received. His multiple significant roles in notable stage shows, such as the Lion King and Billy Elliott would marginally get him across WP:ENT. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Culture - Facts[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Article was proposed for deletion, after previously having a prod contested. Nominators concerns listed as:

"Opinion essay, completely unsourced WP:OR" Taelus (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Hindu marriage article (which is entitled Vivāha), and add sources or a bibliography to that article. This is, as noted, an essay, and it's overly long because of comments like "Traditions and customs are very much necessary for a society to flourish. A Civilization is said to be complete only when it has certain customs and traditions." A lot of the commentary is the author's opinion ("This proves that ancient men knew today's scientific proofs - Men are intelligent and agressive than Women, While Women have more memory power and emotional than Men; and that Women are easy victims of evil by nature." Nevertheless, there are some facts among these facts. Mandsford (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are usually facts in any personal essay. I see no use in merging one long unreferenced (and poorly named) article with another long unreferenced article. We end up with an extremely long unreferenced article which is very likely to repeat information within itself. In other words a total mess. Polargeo (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only info that can be considered factual is the quotes from 2 texts, which are public domain, but are used here to promote original research. i suppose someone could put them in wikiquote, but do we even know the quotes are accurate. absolute, total, unsalvageable mess, title makes it a pov fork from other articles on hindu culture.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 16:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from OR, this looks like a case of WP:ADVOCACY from the anti-498A/feminism people.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NOT#OR 1 & 3, WP:SOAP 1 & 2, WP:POVFORK. Author states on talk page: "This article... is the general opinion of every individual born in India;" that's quite a statement. User:Mercurywoodrose said it best, "absolute, total, unsalvageable mess." Wine Guy Talk 18:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry for the procedurally incorrect PROD, I'll try harder to avoid that in the future. I unfortunately didn't think then that there was anything to save, and I agree with the comments above to the same effect. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per above. -- (User) Mb (Talk) 11:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No good reasons to keep it :-) -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 06:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Busy Bee Mall[edit]

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

Procedural nomination, was proposed for deletion with a prod previously declined in the history. Concern listed by nominator was:

"Non-notable former local flea market." Taelus (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might be worth a mention in Massapequa Park, New York. We have a new author who has knowledge to assist in adding content to the article about that Long Island town. Although I don't think this merits its own separate article, I encourage the author to use the info in an existing page. Mandsford (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I would encourage user to add minor information along with sources to appropriate higher level articles as mentioned above. Polargeo (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I PRODded this when I saw it roll by the end of Special:NewPages, sorry I didn't notice it had been PRODded before. Anyway, I stand by the view I expressed ("Non-notable former local flea market"), whether under WP:GNG or the failed proposal Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers). Thanks for putting this here, Taaelus. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There actually is an article featuring the mall in the New York Times. However, beyond that, I can only incidental mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than the New York Times article, I could not find any other notable sources mentioning this market/mall. --FaceMash (talk) 23:48, 19 January 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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of words censored by search engines in the People's Republic_of_China[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of words censored by search engines in the People's Republic of China

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

Per WP:IINFO and a lack of notability. Additionally, this list is nearly impossible to be updated in time. Most of the content are out-of-date. Jimmy Xu (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep "Wikipedia is not censored" either. Censorship practices are most certainly notable, as are methods of detecting dissidence in a police state. The only valid objection that I see here is that some of these may be out of date. Even the fact that certain words were censored in the past is notable, regardless of what nation it's taken place in. Here in the United States, when we were at war with Germany, sauerkraut was referred to in the press as "liberty cabbage". More recently was the silly "freedom fries" that some people took seriously. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a References section to avoid original research accusations. Let's source the article, even though it's trivially easy to verify the claims. -- Dandv (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. You can easily find tons of sources if you try to search "Search engine+censorship" or some similar keywords in some Chinese search engines, say google.cn. Maybe people outside China don't give a fuck about this, but I don't think that would make the article fail WP:N. Blodance (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may be a job for the cleanup crew. There is no good reason to delete. Polargeo (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may say that this list is uncompleted and wouldn't complete at any time (unless Chinese government stop its censorship). If the leading section is kept and the article is moved to some name like "Search engines censorship in the People's Republic of China" that would be fine, but if this is still a list, maybe it's not very suitable. BTW, apologies for my English.--Jimmy Xu (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China exists. Is it not useful to have an article on what is censored as long as it is well sourced it should not matter if it changes or is never completeable. The topic could be narrowed if editors thought the inclusion criteria were too broad and the list was getting out of control. Polargeo (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Grue 15:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Blodance. Racepacket (talk) 16:22, 13 January 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. NJA (t/c) 11:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outkasted Outlawz[edit]

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

Non-notable unreleased album with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUM. Prod removed without comment. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with one of the artists - I can't find any sources on this, which would suggest a delete, but if there are any out there I haven't been able to pick up a merge seems more appropriate (especially given that it's only a sentence or two long). Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage outside of blogs and YouTube. Does not yet meet WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 14:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant third party coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn non-admin closure Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibited degree of kinship[edit]

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

This doesn't appear notable (WP:N). Incest is notable, but I can't find any direct coverage of this as stated. Khin2718 (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.
Delete If any sources were to be found, the information could be merged to Incest. As it stands now, delete and redirect to Incest. Wine Guy Talk 10:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Delete !vote struck, looks fine in restored form. Wine Guy Talk 19:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Article on Consanguinity and Incest already exists, no reason to have another one discussing the exact same thing. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Article expansion makes this vote void. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we should judge the article on the content that it had last week [17] before the nominator pared it down to its current form [18]. Mandsford (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The extensive coverage of this phrase and the legal implications of it mean that this is not by any means a deletion issue. Polargeo (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any direct coverage of this phrase (as specified in WP:N) as an independent topic, only sources using it as a synonym for incest or containing trivial mentions in text. Khin2718 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, someone needs to find sources showing this is notable, not just a random phrase or redundant.Khin2718 (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert and keep. Sources cited in text are sources. You don't get to gut an article and then claim it should be deleted as unsourced. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article to it's pre nominator form and then restored the AfD tag. I thought this the quickest way to do this. Polargeo (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article had been merged into incest and cousin marriage.Khin2718 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not the same as incest. I found the article a useful reference for some genealogy research that I was doing. I don't understand why people would claim that it's not notable. Bluewave (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that. Hope you're ok. Polargeo (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humor is one of those things you have to be careful with, a lesson I've learned the hard way over the years. Clearly, that comment was intended as a harmless joke, but I'd be pissed if it had been directed at me. Mandsford (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful is an argument we're supposed to avoid, unless you can find sources showing notability. Khin2718 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term is also used in laws regarding nepotism. I've added this usage to the article (with ref.); there appears to be plenty of usage of the term in this sense [19]. Wine Guy Talk 20:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a saving argument. However, all should note that this page still needs major cleanup, including removal of the material merged into cousin marriage, incest and Affinity (canon law) and removal of false statements. More material on nepotism would be especially good, if anyone wants to make that contribution.

The editor who nominated this article for deletion wishes to Withdraw the nomination.
Uninvolved editors are asked to review the debate and close it as Nomination Withdrawn.
(({1))} Thanks, Khin2718 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This certainly needs to be expanded, but the concept is used in the law of Wills. I could find dozens of notable cases about the topic. Bearian (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded out a small set of examples regarding jury service, but I'm no expert. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see anything wrong with the original long version [20]. Someone decided to just chop it up and merge bits into other articles, and do mass deleting. Will the information moved to other articles remain there? Or will someone there decide it isn't necessary? Why isn't it valid to show what all the major religions and cultures of the world think of this? And what does the jury selection policy of one state in one nation have to do with anything? This article was originally about forbidden marriage. Perhaps a new title would be appropriate for it. Kinship is defined is "relationship" in the Webster online dictionary. Prohibited degree of kinship could include homosexual relationships, which are prohibited in some religions and nations. Listing that homosexual marriages are forbidden, would fit in the new article, but no reason to include that all homosexual activity is illegal, that a different article. There may still be laws against mentally ill people marrying in some areas. The article can be developed. Dream Focus 08:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, prohibited kinship/relationship could involve the age of the victim. Just listing how it is forbidden to marry someone based on being a relative, having the same last name even if not related, age seen as too young in that society, homosexuality, or mental illness, would be a fine article. And some religious people are banned from marrying anyone who has been excommunicated by their church. Some might have laws against marrying someone from a different ethnic group(there is still some nations out there which are very racist). Dream Focus 08:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rønnes[edit]

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

~~No indication of notability found at independent, reliable sources -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawing nomination - the opposes have convinced me that this should not be deleted, although the article does need work -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search on Google Scholar yielded no hits; Google Books either had his own books, or minor mentions; Google News has no hits; Google News Archive has 6 hits, none of them major. I cannot find evidence of notability as required by both WP:N and WP:MUSIC -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure what you expected to find regarding a person notable as a performing classical musician in Google Scholar, Books or News. Wine Guy Talk 10:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion this subject meets WP:MUSICBIO, as he is not only orchestral player, but also a composer, chamber musician, and soloist recording for a notable label - Naxos [21]. See also his profile at the Music Information Centre Norway and the Norwegian Academy of Music.--Vejvančický (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The CD'S were released by BIS, an independent classical label focusing on Scandinavian and Baltic composers. The label has its production under Naxos. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). He is the featured soloist on two recordings made by BIS Records [22]. With a little bit of research for WP:RS, I think he would pass criteria 6 as well ...musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. The article requires sources, not deletion. Wine Guy Talk 10:40, 13 January 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. NJA (t/c) 11:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heath high school soccer[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NSPORT, unreferenced. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. Wine Guy Talk 10:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7, not notable enough to be merged. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most high school athletic teams are not notable enough for their own separate article. Some of the achievements noted herein can be mentioned in a shorter form in the Heath High School article, but the usual practice is to include a link to webpages. School pride notwithstanding, if we were to allow team rosters and game results for one school, we would have to do it for every school's sports team in every sport. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedily (this doesn't really fall under A7) — clearly not a notable topic. Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am admittedly a bit rusty on CSD/AfD; it's been a while since I was a regular participant. So that I may better understand the guideline, could you explain how this does not fall under A7, An article about a real...organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools),...that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Wine Guy Talk 18:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that Wine Guy is right in suggesting that this could be speedily deleted; in practice, people usually differ about whether an article's subject is important or significant. To interpret the policy in the most strict construction of the words, an article about Abraham Lincoln could be speedily deleted by an administrator if it didn't include a sentence saying "Abraham Lincoln was significant." Mandsford (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unnotable. I could see a sentence or two on the team in the school's article, but a full page with things like a full roster and description of a controversial match (shockingly, every call went against Heath) isn't appropriate. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. GoCuse44 (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable junior club, no significance or coverage.--ClubOranje^T 21:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable junior club. --Carioca (talk) 18:06, 16 January 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 all. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London - Game of children[edit]

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

These are four supposed children's games from India for which no sources are given and for which I can find none. My PRODs were removed without comment by the author, who has also declined to answer my inquiry on his talk page about sourcing. I realize one should expect it to be hard to find sources about backyard games in India, but unfortunately we need to have them. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: all four games are regional variants and might be known by different names in different states. I have known (by other names) and played three of them myself. But reliable sources would be difficult to find. I think number of phd thesis exist for such games. But unpublished dissertations won't meet RS standards. Will have to look for regional language books.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all three into an article called Traditional Indian children's games. We have an entire Category:Children's games that would be more accurately called "Games that Wikipedians played while growing up in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada or Australia". However, there does need to be sourcing regarding the existence of these games. An article based on one's childhood memories is only original research. Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are better known games that aren't notable enough to have their own articles. EeepEeep (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete them all! Per nom andyzweb (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 10:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd like to pre-emptively quash any unfair claims of WP:BIAS -- if you have sources, show them. Put up or shut up. JBsupreme (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No possible way to verify. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mansford. Title says it all. Merge seems like a good idea Buggie111 (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mad squad dancers[edit]

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

No sources presented. There is an assertion of notability but there is no evidence given. The article creator has also violated WP:COI. Oren0 (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find a couple of reviews of this groups from a small newspaper called The Daily Gleaner I can't find anything that would assert notability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per noms above and reasoning NJA (t/c) 11:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. heading to WP:SNOW.. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Dulichenko[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF nothing in gnews. very little in gscholar. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. You are searching for an uncommon spelling of his name. Searching for either "Duličenko" or "Дуличенко" gets greater numbers of hits in Google news, Google scholar, and Google books; the first name can be omitted, as most of the hits seem to be for the right person. And in any case the times and languages in which he was most active are not the ones best indexed by Google. I think the editorship and festschrift, while somewhat obscure, are enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Constructed languages/Esperanto task force. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to what David Eppstein said, there is a biographical entry about him in "Encyclopedia of Rusyn history and culture"[23]. Nsk92 (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons outlined; but improve it. (Yes, I am an Esperantist.) --Orange Mike | Talk 04:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Once again: for contemporary non-English subjects, absence of Google footprint of evidence is not evidence of absence of notability. Please. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

google news covers various languages. it is often a good indicator of notability. if this individual has a well sourced Russian article (none exists) I would not have nominated it. if people can find foreign language sources they are welcome to. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He passes WP:PROF as a professor with a festschrift, which demonstrates significant peer esteem. Personally I think the existence of a festschrift should be mentioned explicitly in WP:PROF. This on its own makes him worthy of inclusion in my view. Of course non-English speaking and non-scientific academics will have lower Google rankings in general and I do not believe Wikipedia should be Anglo-centric in this regard. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a remark: festschrift is in fact already explicitly mentioned in WP:PROF, see item 3 in WP:PROF#Notes and examples. Nsk92 (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus The argument that it is written as an advertisement is an issue that can be fixed by editing the article a bit, which one contributor here has volunteered to do. The only other issue on the table is notability, and there is not a convincing argument one way or the other on that point, defaulting to keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid Friction Comics[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. no significant third party coverage [24]. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP, WP:GNG and any other notability guideline which may or may not apply. Additionally, violates WP:ARTSPAM; the only content contributor is User:SpencerDouglass (talk), who is listed as the company's Business Development Manager. This user has a history of creating non-notable articles including a biography of himself. Twice. Wine Guy Talk 09:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it does need a hefty rewrite but there is a list of their coverage at the end of the article (I have been keeping an eye on this for a while and don't feel notability is a problem). My worry is they seem to have gone awfully quiet leaving one edition of DevShard (from a proposed 15) although there is still some activity and the movie adaptation is ongoing - it seems like they have got wrapped up in other projects but Kevin Grevioux has got involved with them so they haven't vanished (not that'd necessarily be a grounds for deletion but it does mean we can't rule out more in addition to what is already there). (Emperor (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete written like an advertisement, no indication of notability and a possible CoI for a major editor. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - concerns over advertising can be easily addressed (which I'd be happy to do myself). Notability might be borderline, but enough sourcing seems to exist to validate an article. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:56, 20 January 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. Author Blanked Page Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All faiths religious movement[edit]

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

Contested prod. Spontaneous, not notable religious movement. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable. Aside from the fact that no reliable sources can be found anywhere, this looks to be a purely a promotional article. The article says "The All Faiths Movement was birthed out of the desire of a simple theology student to begin a religion that absorbs all religions..." and "This movement was born on 12 January 2010." In other words, this is apparently a theology student's idea, which they proceeded to write an article about (under the username User:Allfaiths, which reinforces speculation of a conflict of interest and pure promotion).Swarm^Talk 07:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My post is not promotional as explained in the discussion section. John Wesley was a student at Oxford when he started the Holy Club which became Methodism. Your argument is therefore invalid.Allfaiths (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail the see the logical progression of how John Wesley's founding of Methodism makes your article non-self promoting.Byjupiter (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously, per WP:NFT. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is shameless self promotion. If this movement does catch on and become noteworthy, then it would merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Simply put, a religious movement birthed yesterday could not have generated a following or garnered enough attention to be noteworthy. Byjupiter (talk) 19:17, 13 January 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 parent institution may well be notable, though it does not appear to have an article in the Greek Wikipedia; but this is one department of one school within it, and there is no indication of notability. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Rural Development and Rural Business Administration[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

I have some real concerns about the notability of this college. Google test doesn't show any link to the college, and we are at about 4th or 5th in the results. Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This search appears to show that there is no reference to the college's website in the Greek Wikipedia. Perhaps editors who read Greek could comment on the notability of this department or the institute as a whole. If the institute is genuine, the English Wikipedia should probably have an article on it. – Eastmain (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea... should have thought about that... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single article (which has yet to be written for English Wikipedia) should cover all of Alexander Technological Educational Institute (TEI). The level of detail here in terms of course offerings is too specific to be allowed for an English or American University. Hence, I would delete with the hope that the article's creator could focus on the larger institution, TEI. If coverage of the entire Institute then grows to the point of needing to split off parts into a separate article, split off by department may not be the best way to go at that time. Racepacket (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expand/rename to cover Alexander Technological Educational Institute and remove the course detail. TerriersFan (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is absurd to have an article on one department of an institution of minor notability. I don't see a lot of point in renaming it: if anyone can write an article on the whole institute they can start from scratch: there is so little here worth including that it would be no extra trouble really. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:14, 15 January 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. NJA (t/c) 11:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gas Station[edit]

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

This is a mixtape without any sources that establish its notability. PROD was contested with the reason "Added two additional sources", but both sources are track listings without additional substantive content. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable mixtape as the nom explains. Besides which, this is yet another page with a track listing and zero encyclopedic content, so at minimum WP:NALBUMS counsels, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Glenfarclas (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:13, 13 January 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 Procedural early keep. No one is proposing that the information in the article ought to be removed from Wikipedia entirely. Therefore, there is no point in having the discussion here. A merge discussion can take place on the article talk page if people feel it is necessary. NW (Talk) 03:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G-spot amplification[edit]

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

To determine if the topic is notable enough for a more prominent write up (new section) in G-Spot, should be merged, or deleted outright because it verges on Wikipedia:Advertising#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. Roy Boy 04:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to G-spot Does not meet stand alone general noteabillity clause for a stand alone article. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article covers G-spot amplification, G-spot augmentation and G-shot. Now whilst this may or may not be the best place for it, it is certainly a notable medical procedure and should not be merged to G spot. Polargeo (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, references show significant coverage, satisfying WP:GNG. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per PMID 17766626 and ABC news, but it looks like it needs some WP:NPOV rewriting. Pcap ping 11:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable procedure, more balanced info now. Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 12:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge - just tip this junk/drivel over to a brief mention in G-spot (something that recently strongly suggested is a myth, making this a placebo proceedure of a myth). Reliable secondary source (per WP:MEDRS) would use PMID 17766626 to indicate but one of a number of cosmetic vaginal procedures with "lack of data supporting the efficacy". That anybody sought cosmetic surgery for the G spot I suppose mildly amusing, but that belongs in article on G-spot as a one liner noting this American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (reliable source) view. I disagree with Werner Heisenberg's view that the referencees show significant coverage - some titilating TV commentary does not make notability (most of those refs probably should be removed as failing to meet WP:MEDRS) - but if some firm statistic brought to bear on numbers performed (eg 10,000 procedures in US in last couple years) then yes notable for being a significant minority viewpoint, but otherwise per WP:NPOV "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". David Ruben ^Talk 18:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Amusing, yes, and it needs to be rewritten, but because of PMID 17766626 and ABC news, it should be an article (with due weight given to the journal published source and the rest of the cruft and iffy sources removed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the cruft, non-reliable sources, and text not supported by sources. Google scholar lists 14 sources: it's notable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the fact that the AMA thought it notable enough to actually have a position on it, the fact that there are several reliable sources and finally because the project isn't running short on hard drive space. If amplification worked for Fender and Marshall, there's no reason it shouldn't for G-Spots. Only in America folks! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:24, 19 January 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. G4 see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UPWA Pro Wrestling Nancy ^talk 08:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPWA wrestling[edit]

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

Obscure, small-time regional wrestling league. Google searching doesn't confirm notability, nor claims of an MTV connection. Warrah (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We filmed footage for MTV. Never claimed we were a show on MTV. We are broadcast through out the southeast and have been covered in the local press. We have over 500-1000 people per show and also have been in talks to have affiliates around the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kickingitoldschool (talk • contribs) 05:24, 13 January 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) 07:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truman National Security Project[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, no references. Google research shows its "fellows" are twentysomethings who occasionally write blog posts on low-traffic blogs and hold other day jobs. THF (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is missing in this one. --Stormbay (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- Well, sources. The article as it stands has nothing even resembling a reliable source. SF Chronicle barely mentions it, Obama attends a forum organized by the subject, but the article is more about Obama than the TNSP, Similar from Britain's Guardian, Mentioned in the Boston Globe, Very passing mention in the Washington Post, and a fellow of the TNSP testifying for the Senate. Lots and lots of passing mentions, tons and tons more I could have quoted where the TNSP was mentioned in a the credentials when quoting one of their fellows. There's so many mentions, and the ones I've cited have gone over 4 years, that I think there's enough notability to build a real article here, but I can't find the nice, in-depth article that would cement my mind towards keeping this. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article's authors can demonstrate notability through a source other than their own website. I imagine that the article can be brought up to code, although in looking at the website's own posting of mentions in the press [25], I agree with Brad that there seems to be no article about the group itself. Maybe you should call Rush or No-spin Bill. Mandsford (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government and Politics[edit]

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

Delete. This page is primarily about the UK. This bias could be fixed but I don't think it is a topic that needs inclusion in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is actually an article about the A Level so is not correctly named. The only A Level subject I can quickly find with its own article is Advanced level mathematics. I don't see the need to merge this article anywhere because a list of course content for this examination is not really wikipedia material. Polargeo (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:25, 13 January 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. NJA (t/c) 11:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith in praise of Umar[edit]

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

Also nominating Hadith of Umar and the Qur'an. Same concerns -- Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page is basically just a collection of quotes. They can go to Wikiquotes. The little non-quote content is a minute subset of Sunni view of Umar and Umar -- Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 19:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant content without the quotes which should be in wikiquote not here. Polargeo (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There is surely going to be both classical and modern commentary, especially on a hadith which appears to be central in the dispute between Shi'a and Sunni. Those qualified to find it should look. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a commentary would be good but not a quote farm. All of these articles were created in 2006 by User:Striver all of the quotes, in all three articles come from one book History of the Caliphs, wikipedia is being used to repeat this classic text, this is a big WP:NOT. The main article Sunni view of Umar has 103 of these quotes, see Sunni view of Umar#References. The two sub articles being considered for deletion have 32 Hadith in praise of Umar#References and 10 Hadith of Umar and the Qur'an#References. Any commentary can easily go into the main article and the quotes reduced down to a few examples in that article. So delete the sub articles and clean up the main one. Polargeo (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the other articles have already been deleted Hadith of Umar and prophecy by prod in 2007, and many more after the following deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the demise of Muhammad. It appears a couple of the articles unfortunately escaped this mass deletion. Polargeo (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might be fun looking for quotes in the other 1000+ articles created by this user. Striver (talk · contribs · deleted · count · pages created) Polargeo (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if this was expanded to include a commentary I would change my vote to keep. It could be a great look at a very important work. As it stands though it isn't an article, just a series of quotes with a few sentences to give a context. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Needs style editing. "Could be expanded but this is not yet done" is not a good reason to delete. That is ultra extreme Immediatism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments. I also think this article is a fairly useless content fork. Any expantion or commentary on this is far better in the more sensibly named Sunni view of Umar, which is also mostly a Hadith quote farm at present. The Hadith in praise of Umar and Hadith of Umar... articles which we are debating appear to exist merely because the creator couldn't fit all of his hadith quotes into his main article Sunni view of Umar. Commentary and encyclopedic content seem to have been a secondary consideration. Polargeo (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content forks, created in good faith, should, in my opinion, by default be merged and redirected. That somebody made the article is strong evidence that it is a reasonable search term. Changing to redirect to (I guess) to Sunni view of Umar. Keeping the quotes in the history is not a bad thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The traffic stats to the article are nothing more than the background noise that you would expect for a long standing linked up article like this. No google news, scholar or book hits whatsoever but an odd amount of search hits which I suspect somehow originate from the wikipedia article (have a look through them). I think the titles of all of the articles are likely the article creator's own classifications. This editor created many many 'Hadith...' articles to fit these quotes into. Polargeo (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also not clear what the copyright status might be on the particular translation quoted. In fact if the link in the citations is correct (which I am not sure it is for every quote) this all appears to come from a 1995 translation ISBN 9781897940259 so extensive lifting of text is very likely to be a copright issue. Polargeo (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a quote farm and not an article. Any actual content makes sense at the parent article so there is no need for this one. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's quite probable that an article exists for this subject, as DGG correctly notes that it is a key element in the dispute between Shi'a and Sunni traditions. But this isn't that article, and a clean start (at a clearer title) would be best for such an important topic. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:23, 18 January 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. overall keep as the redirect argument didn't make the most sense for having a wide ranging encyclopeadia. NJA (t/c) 11:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Effect: Retribution[edit]

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

Contested PROD using the justification: "Book is by a notable writer of a notable company in a notable 'verse. Lack of a release date does not indicate lack of notability". WP:NBOOK seems to state otherwise, but I am open to the discussion. A possibility could be to redirect to Mass Effect (series) or Drew Karpyshyn until the book has been released and/or notability has been established. Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears it was just announced today, but the publisher provides a release date of 27 July 2010. So, there is a release date. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mass Effect (series)#Novels. The subject isn't notable enough for its own article yet, and since its unreleased it shouldn't have one. Redirect, over deletion, would probably be best since the book has been announced. Swarm^Talk 07:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of other book and video game articles are allowed to get away with existing even though they aren't released yet. Also, I don't see what the problem with notability is, the Mass Effect franchise is notable, and as a part of that franchise the book should be notable. =/= Ironoclast (Talk) 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Other book series, even sci-fi ones, have had articles created for future books with no problems. Given that the book is only a few months away and its existence has been confirmed by multiple internet articles and previews, bookstores and the publisher, I can't see any reason for deletion at this stage. Bronzey (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [26], [27], [28], [29], and [30] (in German). –MuZemike 05:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The 'keep' arguments have presented some justification based on WP:OTHERSTUFF, and the articles mentioned above seem to all be disseminated from the press release announcing the eventual publication of this book half a year from now. But I have yet to see any specific arguments that justify a current article that follows WP:NBOOK, and am more inclined to see a redirect per User:Stinging Swarm. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's/Duluth Clinic Health System[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Mary's/Duluth Clinic Health System

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

Article, as it currently stands, is a steaming pile of SPAM. Strongly suggest either a complete rewrite, or Delete and start over. WuhWuzDat 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep this is nowhere near spam with no other content. Rewrite certainly (I see some rewriting has already begun). Polargeo (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references after the AfD was created, and I think that notability is now shown. – Eastmain (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is spam. Perhaps a different writing approach.Virillion (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postliterate society[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I already nominated it once and the decision was keep. While i can agree that this concept may be notable, no significant editing happened since then. The article still doesn't have anything that remotely resembles reliable sources. If it is a significant scientific or cultural concept, it should be either improved or deleted. Otherwise people who don't pay attention to "unreferenced" tags can actually believe what it says now. And maybe it is even true (although i doubt it), but there's no way to verify it. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the first line of the article it dexcirbes the term as hypothetical, and cursory searches of the web and google sholar seem to show it is a notable hypothecy. Yes, it needs referencing, but that can be fixed by editting. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's possible that the concept is notable and that the article can be fixed by editing, but the same claim was made in the previous AFD and nothing happened since. All of the information in the article is unreferenced and, as far as i'm concerned, wrong. If the concept is important enough, someone will write a properly referenced article soon enough. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the correct thing to do with an unreferenced article is to fix it, not delete it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would gladly fix it, but i don't possess enough knowledge to do it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Post-literate per Marshall McLuhan, [link] (or a google search for "post literate" mcluhan gutenberg galaxy) seems to show he was an early user, probably coined the phrase. i think the word society is not needed, but the word, if coined by mcluhan, is an important one, and probably deserves a larger article. i would start with this reference. i admit its hard to find reliable sources for its use, but its now ubiquitous. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could this AFD be listed or noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Media? i sometimes see afd's included in other discussions. this is really not so much about sf as postmodern media theory. i dont know how to do this, though.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs more content and sources, but just clicking on the automatic "find sources" link above shows that this phrase still gets used in books and news articles. Concerns about technology creating a generation that doesn't read have been an ongoing concern. It used to be television, now it's the internet, and I'm sure that in another ten years, it'll be voice-activated information retrieval. Mandsford (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "failure to be improved" is not a sufficient reason for deletion of a verifiable and notable literary trope. Having said that, this can clearly be improved and certainly should be, but it isn't so bad that deleting what we have here would improve the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 11:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devachan[edit]

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

This is a Blavatsky neologism and consequently a content fork of Helena Blavatsky. Wikipedia does not benefit from every word made up by Blavatsky having its own article page. Ash (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a term used by a large number of published authors, not just Blavatsky as the GBooks hits clearly show. It's also not a content fork and more than heaven is a content fork of Bible. Edward321 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous poster. __meco (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is a notable term with regular use. jackson5alive (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT makes it pretty clear that Wikipedia is not a dictionary of neologisms. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an explanation of this concept from the perspective of anthroposphy also. __meco (talk) 15:21, 15 January 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 Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamming Arabs, The[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BAND, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, WP:Conflict of interest by article's creator. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed with MuffledThud, here are my reasons why this article should not be deleted:

Criteria for musicians and ensembles Shortcuts: WP:BAND WP:MUSICBIO A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Okay, I admit that Alopecia Records wasn't the biggest record label, but they did produce most of England's surf/garage music during their time. The fact that the Jamming Arabs were on this record label therefore would indicate that they were an important group in this genre.

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. This is a tricky one. The Jamming Arabs were certainly the most prominent surf group in NE England, but it might also be true to say that they were one of the only surf groups!

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.) Again, tricky. One of their songs (unreleased and so not subject to copyright) was used for Hartlepool Tourist Board but it's impossible to reference this as there was no money involved and so no deals exist.

Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. The Jamming Arabs appeard on Radio Tees for a live session, DJ was Bob Fisher. The band also appeared in the local paper, The Evening Gazette on a two page spread as a local band that actualy had a record deal. Sadly I can find no record of this paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikirussy (talk • contribs) 12:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if you can find support for Alopecia Records being a significant independent label, we may have something here. The rest doesn't sound promising. Coverage in local media doesn't really count towards notability. Getting used by a local tourist board doesn't count for much either, and is probably unverifiable if what you say is true. The "prominent representative" criterion applies for a notable style or a city's scene, not a style within a city's scene. It would only apply here if they were prominent among surf groups overall (and it doesn't sound like they're as well known as Dick Dale or The Shadows), or among NE England bands of all styles. — Gwalla | Talk 19:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's maybe down to personal opinion, but Alopecia Records were very important in the surf/garage scene. A quick search on Amazon shows the you can still purchase cds and records from the label. If you look at many of the more popular garage bands they have released material through Alopecia. For example, the following surf bands all appear on wikipedia: The Phantom Surfers, The Apemen, The Trashwomen. In addition, Sir Bald Diddley, the founder of Alopecia Records, can also be found if searched on Wikipedia.

One of their songs appeared BBC Film Network:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork/films/p005nb7f

although the film was created by the bass player ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikirussy (talk • contribs) 11:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the local tourist board is unverifiable, however, it was played on local television on a semi-regular basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikirussy (talk • contribs) 11:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it hasn't been established that this group meets WP:BAND. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since I would say that the band meets criteria 5 (depending on whether or not you conside Alopecia! Records to be a note-worthy independant label - which I do). --Tikirussy (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't that require two or more albums though? As far as I can tell, this band only released one. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I read it wrong - I thought it said two on a major label or one album on an indie label. Having said, they did release one cd, one ep and appeared on two compilation cds...still, I apologise for mis-reading the criteria :( --Russell (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete: Regretful because Tikirussy's responses here are probably the most gracious by a new contributor whose article faces deletion that I've ever seen on WP. Delete because the band appears too niche to me to meet notability requirements: I do not think Alopecia Records are significant enough a label, since in its own right the label appears to fail notability criteria (Gbooks search; GNews search). The local press coverage, as Gwalla says, is also not enough to meet the criteria, and a single album on an indie label misses that element of the criteria. All the same, thankyou Tikirussy for being a mensch about this, and I hope you'll continue contributing to the project in other areas. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I echo those sentiments. Too often, new editors can be difficult to handle in deletion discussions but that certainly isn't true of Tikirussy. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Too true. Thanks for being such a good sport about this Russell, and please call on me if I can be of any help with any future articles. MuffledThud (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. Thanks for the advice along the way, I've certainly learnt a lot in this process (including the word mensch!) and everyone has been more than helpful. I'm obviously sad that the article is deleted but I understand the reasons behind it all. Cheers! --Russell (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd just like to chime in and also express my appreciation for Russell's pleasant attitude. Having an article you've put some work into wind up on AfD is never a good feeling, and too often AfD debates are plagued by frustration. You've been really great about this whole thing, Russell! — Gwalla | Talk 18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Web Cam 3D[edit]

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

As the film has yet to start shooting, I cannot see how WP:NF or WP:NFF requirements on notability for film have been satisfied. Unless the film was particularly notable for how finances were being raised or the planning stage was oddly notable for some other reason then the article generally falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL. Ash (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep The film is not called Web Cam 3D so this incorrect title affects searches. To eliminate the false positives, and to see if this Spanish film might meet notability considerations, I performed a news search for title plus star "Web Cam", "Robert Englund" and found Jurnalul Naţional (Ro), Aullidos (Sp), Moviereporter (Gr)20 minutos (Sp), and Horror Movie (It). In a search for title plus director, "Web Cam", "Antoni Sole", I additionally found Evenimentul Zilei (Ro), Monitorul Expres (Ro), among others... indicative that even disregarding the non-RS English genre reviews, the non-English news sources for a non-US film may be seen to push it toward notability and inclusion consideration per meeting the considerations of WP:CRYSTAL per WP:GNG. I would further suggest that it might be helpful if we might seek input from European Wikipedians who have better access to European sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to some of those sources, the name of the movie is Web Cam, and it's a "3D horror movie", whatever that means. No opinion on notability. Note that most of those articles just cite this story in Screen Daily. Pcap ping 02:48, 13 January 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. NW (Talk) 05:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needle exchange economics[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Unencyclopedic essay presenting original research. Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. South Bay (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay. JIP | Talk 07:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is based strictly upon authoritative sources such as the CDC and published research studies that are referenced in the article. The rest is simple math.

If you want to reject it on the grounds that it presents original research, please be specific about what you object to and I will see if any such objections can be resolved through further references

Thank you for mentioning the point about "unpublished synthesis or analysis". I believe that Wikipedia takes this position because it does not want articles that are effectively "matters of opinion", such as whether gun ownership increases or decreases safety, but in this case, it really is straight math.

If the CDC days that the average cost of treating an AIDS patient is X and the lack of a needle exchange program results in Y more infections, the resulting cost will be X times Y. This not as a matter of opinion, but as factual as stating that 2 * 3 = 6.

If such arithmetic is forbidden, then I suppose the article must be deleted and I will accept your decision, but I urge you to consider carefully. Without an exchange program, tens of thousands of people will die in conditions of extreme pain, at a cost to the taxpayer of hundreds of millions of dollars per year. By allowing the article, Wikipedia can help prevent this.

If you will allow such basic arithmetic, I will be very happy to improve the article, add more references, make it more readable by splitting it into sections and make whatever other changes you believe are appropriate. RicharHMorgan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. There may be several peer-reviewed journals in existence where you could submit your paper for scrutiny, but an encyclopedia is simply not the place for it. There could very well be errors, omissions and assumptions in your methodology, but it is the peer-review process, and not Wikipedia's place to make that judgement. In addition, your stated intent, "Wikipedia can help prevent this" is a definitive use of Wikipedia as a soapbox, which is also not what this project is for. I encourage you to read WP:WIS and WP:NOT for more details on what this place is about. Steamroller Assault (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic appears encyclopedic, but the current contents seems to an original synthesis designed to advance a POV not supported by the sources cited. Pcap ping 09:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencylopedic, subject matter is not notable and article is pushing a POV.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chalk to win[edit]

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

Borders on patent nonsense. The unsourced article, such as it is, is about claims allegedly made in "studies" (uncited), by an allegedly existing but non-notable academic who is simultaneously described as "Dr." Lee and as someone without an actual doctorate, and as "renowned" despite being really just a random (alleged) grad student who calls himself "Dr." The article sagely informs us that applying chalk to the cue stick tip is something pool, billiards and snooker players have been doing for ages, but that doing it has been newly discovered to be useful (as if we were doing this before just to entertain ourselves?), yet (get this) that this results in "unwarranted" confidence (right; because simply chalking the cue doesn't make you a good shot, after all). That is, the effect allegedly measured by the alleged studies is bogus. Uh, okay. The "article" smacks of WP:COI, though the seeming single-purpose account who created the article may not be "Dr. Lee" but someone associated with him. PS: It's also a neologism. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC) PS: This does not appear to be in any way related to the sports betting phrase "chalked to win", sometimes rendered "chalk' to win". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax / nonsense. To quote the article, "The renowned Dr M. Lee (unconfirmed doctorate) is now undertaking further studies in the art of 'smacking it' . . . . Chalk to win is a method of playing pool and other cue sports, taking the pressure of each shot off of the player and placing it solely on the chalking of the cue." Uh, nice try. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Blodance (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete editors only contributions were this article plus adding one reference to it in the article Pool (cue sports) Racepacket (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Number and type of edits by the editor is not one of the speedy deletion criteria. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no entry for this term/concept in Shamos' Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards, nor in Stein & Rubino's Billiard Encyclopedia, nor in Byrne's New Standard Book of Pool and Billiards. A search of the cue chalk board at Billiardsdigest.com (a great resource for those in the know and would capture this if it was a well used neologism) shows not a single reference to the expression and a targeted Google web search (the natural habitat of neologisms) returns zero results.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:23, 14 January 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) 07:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IQ Inc[edit]

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

Advertisement for a non-notable company, created by a promotional account that has since been blocked. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 06:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added some references. - Eastmain (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement for a non-notable company, puff piece in the online version of the "Murrysville Star" notwithstanding. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I removed the section on the company's Founder, as it appeared to be a verbatim copy of this site, which is the individual's blog. No comment on deletion, since I gutted the article, but I can't find any reliable sources that document the company's notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom. Advertisement and Self-Promotion Tarheel95 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 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) 07:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Magazine[edit]

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

Went through the first 5 pages of google search, it has one dig, but besides that nothing. It looks like a professional site, but its 1rst article is Jan, 2010, so it might need awhile for someone to cover it. Pirate^Argh!!1! 07:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable brand-new online magazine. Try again later-- Glenfarclas (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 Enigma^msg 19:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Vogt[edit]

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

This should have been a simple A7 speedy, but throwing it to AfD. This is an utterly non-notable individual, and this BLP two-liner is completely unsourced whatsoever. It reads like a vanity bio that never got finished - Alison ^❤ 00:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Alison ^❤ 00:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this Jeremy Vogt the same musician as the drummer for Athenaeum (band) and (apparently briefly) Tonic (band)? This reference lists Jeremy Vogt as the "new drummer" for Tonic, but that name does not appear in the Wikipedia article. If all these Vogt are the same people, then he would be notable as a member of two notable bands. I noticed this reference, but perhaps radioindy.com is not a reliable source. - Eastmain (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're the same guy somehow (the ages don't seem to match) but that radioindy.com reference is the one contained in the article, only it actually works :) The guy above appears to have a website at http://www.vogtweb.com/ - Alison ^❤ 01:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Alio The Fool 20:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:BIO and WP:NOT. South Bay (talk) 01:59, 13 January 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. NJA (t/c) 11:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men (Marvel animated universe)[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this article seems to fill a nebulous and unnecessary role in between List of X-Men members and all of the articles on the various characters. Basically, it's just a list of X-Men members, but with slightly longer writeups and somewhat fewer entries. I left a comment on the talk page (basically what's written above) for the author, but he hasn't responded. I simply can't see a reason for this article to exist, and WP:CFORK would counsel deletion. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is also an overly-detailed and unnecessary bit of info that could go in X-Men animated series or the list that Glen points to above, or within the Wikipedia articles about the individual characters themselves. Mandsford (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, in my opinion the info doesn't need to "go" anywhere; this is an unenecessary new article, whereas the others are established, and although I haven't pored through everything I can't imagine there's anything here that's not already in the detailed articles on the individual characters (and the list article doesn't need bulking up). Glenfarclas (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like the dozens of similar articles created by the same editor, this is pretty much a reshuffling of information that is in the characters (and teams) "in other media" articles - which is where they should be. (Emperor (talk) 02:40, 19 January 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) 07:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Emmoth[edit]

I have only been able to find a couple lists of work he is a producer on, no information about himself whatsoever, notability? Freikorp (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can't find any independent coverage on him but he has produced a good number of albums and written a fair number of songs. Perhaps a category 'Albums produced by Johan Emmoth'? J04n(talk page) 01:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree with you, I'd be happy with a category like that. Freikorp (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:50, 13 January 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) 07:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Allan[edit]

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

I removed the ((db-person)) tag from this article because A7 does not apply; collaborating with a notable person (Stephen Murphy) in a notable project (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures) is a credible assertion of notability. However, I have not been able to find sources to substantiate this notability. A Google News Archive search (with the search term: "Chris Allan" Murphy) and a Google News Archive search (with the search term: "Chris Allan" Ninjara) returns no results. This individual appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (biographies), Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the speedy tagger, and I agree that it was probably a marginal case and declining was fair. But I did research the subject beforehand and could find no remotely significant independent coverage of him, nor under the variant spelling "Chris Allen." If his collaboration made him notable, there should be some independent information to find. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable, still needs to see more reliable sources. South Bay (talk) 01:53, 13 January 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 sources provided do not appear to meet the requirement of "significant coverage in third party sources," some of the "keep" arguments are not based on policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gopiparadhana[edit]

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

Non-notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now This article is sourced, a Google search turns up additional possible sources, and many more might be found if searches for sources in another language (Hindi?) were performed. Ism schism, would you mind expanding your rationale for deletion? WP:JNN is considered an argument to avoid. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure; the article is a BLP, so it has higher standards than other articles. The references used for this article are non reliable sources. Without reliable sources, this article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Taking that into consideration, I think the subject of this article meets WP:CREATIVE criteria #3 and #4, as his translations have been subject to significant critical attention, as documented in reliable sources. Keep.—Preceding unsigned comment added by A Stop at Willoughby (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that the translations, "have been subject to significant critical attention, as documented in reliable sources." Where is the "significant critical attention" and where are the reliable sources. So far, there is a forward to a book the subject translated, and the other is a news article that mentions him in passing. This subject clearly does NOT meet WP:CREATIVE criteria #3 and #4, and as such the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He completed translation of the Bhagavata Purana (Srimad Bhagavatam). This translation has received quite a lot of reviews and is the most popular translation of this Purana. He also translated another major sanskrit text - Brihad-bhagavatamrita [31]. He works as a Sanskrit translator and editor for a leading publisher Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. He received coverage as such in this article [32]. He seems sufficiently notable to me.--Gaura79 (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply There are no reliable sources that attribute notability to this individual. As such, the indivudual is not notable. Please provide reliable sources if you feel that the subject is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references from The Miami Herald article. Below I provide an exerpt from a review of Gopiparanadhana and his translation of Sanskrit text Brihad Bhagavatamrita by Joseph T. O’Connell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto. It was published as a foreword to the Brihad Bhagavatamrita BBT edition.

Excerpt from review of one of Gopiparadhana's translation. Click at right to show.
The present edition includes translations by Gopiparanadhana Dasa of both the basic poem and its commentary (plus appendices, glossary, etc.). This is an extraordinary labor of love! The Brihad-bhagavatamrita alone contains some 2,500 Sanskrit verses, each requiring painstaking care even when (wisely) being rendered into idiomatic English prose rather than metrical verse. The commentary is considerably longer and, although in Sanskrit prose, is far from easy to convey in readable accurate English. Yet the task has been done and done well, an impressive achievement indeed. When I began to examine the proofs for this book, I was pleased to find that Gopiparanadhana Dasa’s English prose version reads clearly and crisply. Moreover, it conveys the excitement, wonder, and devotion of spiritual discovery that animates Sanatana’s own composition. The more I read, the more fascinated I became with Sanatana’s novel and brilliant retelling of themes emanating from the Srimad Bhagavata (but developed into much that is not found explicitly in that revered text). Depictions of progressively more intense and intimate modes of loving devotion build to a climax in the remarkable portrayal of Krishna at Dvaraka, depressed and anguished in absence from Radha and the gopis and restored to “normal” consciousness only by an artful ruse. The further I read, the less was I conscious that I was reading a translation, so naturally does one unit of the narrative flow into the next. When I did shift to the task of comparing portions of the translation with the Sanskrit, I was pleased to discover that the English prose is indeed very faithful to the Sanskrit original. One might quibble over the choice of certain idiomatic English phrases, but even these convey the basic sense. From the literal meaning of the original, little is left out, and very little is added, in the passage from Sanskrit to English. Inevitably, of course, some resonance is lost in any transition from poetic verse to prose translation. But, fortunately, because the Brihad-bhagavatamrita is mostly narrative and dialogue, it lends itself more readily to prose rendering than would other types of poetic verse. I would like to think that Sanatana Gosvami would welcome his modern prose translator as a kindred spirit and an able expositor of his work. The Dig-darsini, being itself prose, but prose in the peculiar form of Sanskrit textual commentary, presents the translator with a different set of challenges. In size, it is twice the length of the document which it interprets. In form and function, it resembles the complex footnotes of modern scholarship. In orientation, it assumes broadly ranging acquaintance with traditional Vaisnava themes, Sanskrit religious literature, and technical points of devotional aesthetics, theology, and philosophy. Faced with such challenges, many a translator—and, if not he or she, then the publisher—would resort to a paraphrase that drastically cuts down the size and simplifies the scholarship of the commentary and perhaps introduces an ersatz ideological or rhetorical interpretation in place of the more demanding and sophisticated orientation of the author. Not so the present translator and publisher. Both Gopiparanadhana Dasa and the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust are to be commended for respecting Sanatana’s auto-commentary as it is, in all its bulk and sophistication. The Brihad-bhagavatamrita and Dig-darsini together comprise a classic of religious literature whose integrity ought not be compromised. On a narrow scale, it is a classic in that it is the template for the theology and spiritual psychology that have remained authoritative for the Caitanya Vaisnava tradition. And though till now scarcely known beyond that tradition and those who study it, it is—or merits being so recognized—a classic on a global scale as well. Sanatana Gosvami’s chef d’oeuvre is a masterful exploration, grounded in Vaisnava devotional faith, of human spirituality and religious psychology, for the first time being made accessible in its entirety to the English-reading world. As the translator acknowledges, the English version of the Dig-darsini is a paraphrase, not a line-by-line translation. As such, it does not replace a close reading of the Sanskrit original for scholars equipped to do one. But, as the translator points out (and illustrates in the appendices), the paraphrasing is largely a matter of arrangement, not of selective excision or augmentation. From the portions of Volume One that I have compared closely, it is evident that Gopiparanadhana Dasa has managed to retain virtually all of the content of the original commentary, though with considerable rearrangement to facilitate reading. Were it his aim to produce a rigorously literal English rendering, some of his paraphrasing of Sanatana’s formulations might well have to be revisited. But, all things considered, he has done an admirable job of conveying the informational content and spiritual verve of the author—without bowdlerizing or truncating—in an idiom understandable to patient and attentive (though not necessarily expert) readers. I presume that the level attained in Volume One has been maintained through Volumes Two and Three. There is a special significance to this publication over and above its making accessible to readers of English a Sanskrit classic of spiritual literature. This is the first publication by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust of a major Vaisnava theological text which disciples of the late Swami A. C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada have accomplished without his immediate presence. It follows the widely disseminated versions of the Bhagavad-gita in many languages and multi-volume translations of the Srimad Bhagavata Purana and the Caitanya-caritamrita, each of which is accompanied by an elaborate commentary. These prior publications were substantially the work of Prabhupada himself, with certain of his Sanskrit-trained devotees, including Gopiparanadhana Dasa, serving as apprentices. The appearance of the Brihad-bhagavatamrita thus marks a new phase of textual theological scholarship by members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. They have, as it were, come into their maturity as responsible for faithful transmission of the Caitanya Vaisnava tradition of prema-bhakti, loving devotion to God Krishna. What better way to assure fidelity to the words and spirit of Caitanya Mahaprabhu and his circle of immediate disciples than to enable devotees and attentive seekers to read, hear, and visualize the foundational texts of those very scholar-devotees who had experienced the charismatic presence of Krishna-Caitanya himself!

Excerpt from review of one of Gopiparadhana's translation. Click at right to show.

The present edition includes translations by Gopiparanadhana Dasa of both the basic poem and its commentary (plus appendices, glossary, etc.). This is an extraordinary labor of love! The Brihad-bhagavatamrita alone contains some 2,500 Sanskrit verses, each requiring painstaking care even when (wisely) being rendered into idiomatic English prose rather than metrical verse. The commentary is considerably longer and, although in Sanskrit prose, is far from easy to convey in readable accurate English. Yet the task has been done and done well, an impressive achievement indeed.
When I began to examine the proofs for this book, I was pleased to find that Gopiparanadhana Dasa’s English prose version reads clearly and crisply. Moreover, it conveys the excitement, wonder, and devotion of spiritual discovery that animates Sanatana’s own composition. The more I read, the more fascinated I became with Sanatana’s novel and brilliant retelling of themes emanating from the Srimad Bhagavata (but developed into much that is not found explicitly in that revered text). Depictions of progressively more intense and intimate modes of loving devotion build to a climax in the remarkable portrayal of Krishna at Dvaraka, depressed and anguished in absence from Radha and the gopis and restored to “normal” consciousness only by an artful ruse.
The further I read, the less was I conscious that I was reading a translation, so naturally does one unit of the narrative flow into the next. When I did shift to the task of comparing portions of the translation with the Sanskrit, I was pleased to discover that the English prose is indeed very faithful to the Sanskrit original. One might quibble over the choice of certain idiomatic English phrases, but even these convey the basic sense. From the literal meaning of the original, little is left out, and very little is added, in the passage from Sanskrit to English. Inevitably, of course, some resonance is lost in any transition from poetic verse to prose translation. But, fortunately, because the Brihad-bhagavatamrita is mostly narrative and dialogue, it lends itself more readily to prose rendering than would other types of poetic verse. I would like to think that Sanatana Gosvami would welcome his modern prose translator as a kindred spirit and an able expositor of his work.
The Dig-darsini, being itself prose, but prose in the peculiar form of Sanskrit textual commentary, presents the translator with a different set of challenges. In size, it is twice the length of the document which it interprets. In form and function, it resembles the complex footnotes of modern scholarship. In orientation, it assumes broadly ranging acquaintance with traditional Vaisnava themes, Sanskrit religious literature, and technical points of devotional aesthetics, theology, and philosophy. Faced with such challenges, many a translator—and, if not he or she, then the publisher—would resort to a paraphrase that drastically cuts down the size and simplifies the scholarship of the commentary and perhaps introduces an ersatz ideological or rhetorical interpretation in place of the more demanding and sophisticated orientation of the author.
Not so the present translator and publisher. Both Gopiparanadhana Dasa and the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust are to be commended for respecting Sanatana’s auto-commentary as it is, in all its bulk and sophistication. The Brihad-bhagavatamrita and Dig-darsini together comprise a classic of religious literature whose integrity ought not be compromised. On a narrow scale, it is a classic in that it is the template for the theology and spiritual psychology that have remained authoritative for the Caitanya Vaisnava tradition. And though till now scarcely known beyond that tradition and those who study it, it is—or merits being so recognized—a classic on a global scale as well. Sanatana Gosvami’s chef d’oeuvre is a masterful exploration, grounded in Vaisnava devotional faith, of human spirituality and religious psychology, for the first time being made accessible in its entirety to the English-reading world.
As the translator acknowledges, the English version of the Dig-darsini is a paraphrase, not a line-by-line translation. As such, it does not replace a close reading of the Sanskrit original for scholars equipped to do one. But, as the translator points out (and illustrates in the appendices), the paraphrasing is largely a matter of arrangement, not of selective excision or augmentation. From the portions of Volume One that I have compared closely, it is evident that Gopiparanadhana Dasa has managed to retain virtually all of the content of the original commentary, though with considerable rearrangement to facilitate reading. Were it his aim to produce a rigorously literal English rendering, some of his paraphrasing of Sanatana’s formulations might well have to be revisited. But, all things considered, he has done an admirable job of conveying the informational content and spiritual verve of the author—without bowdlerizing or truncating—in an idiom understandable to patient and attentive (though not necessarily expert) readers. I presume that the level attained in Volume One has been maintained through Volumes Two and Three.
There is a special significance to this publication over and above its making accessible to readers of English a Sanskrit classic of spiritual literature. This is the first publication by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust of a major Vaisnava theological text which disciples of the late Swami A. C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada have accomplished without his immediate presence. It follows the widely disseminated versions of the Bhagavad-gita in many languages and multi-volume translations of the Srimad Bhagavata Purana and the Caitanya-caritamrita, each of which is accompanied by an elaborate commentary. These prior publications were substantially the work of Prabhupada himself, with certain of his Sanskrit-trained devotees, including Gopiparanadhana Dasa, serving as apprentices. The appearance of the Brihad-bhagavatamrita thus marks a new phase of textual theological scholarship by members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. They have, as it were, come into their maturity as responsible for faithful transmission of the Caitanya Vaisnava tradition of prema-bhakti, loving devotion to God Krishna. What better way to assure fidelity to the words and spirit of Caitanya Mahaprabhu and his circle of immediate disciples than to enable devotees and attentive seekers to read, hear, and visualize the foundational texts of those very scholar-devotees who had experienced the charismatic presence of Krishna-Caitanya himself!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaura79 (talk • contribs)

Can someone sign this huge blurb? -- (User) Mb (Talk) 11:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did so on behalf of Gaura70 (see above). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Being a translator of works does not justify inclusion. Obviously there will be some reviews of his work, but it is not essential. Essential that he is a translator, and just being a translator is not a sufficient reason for inclusion in Wikipedia. I guess you both work for the same company: him and Gaura, thus you are anxious to keep him on. -- (User) Mb (Talk) 11:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources added do not review of the person at hand. He is only mentioned as part of a larger project. This does not make him notable. Nothing point to him being a notable translator, if that is the claim. As is, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I presented a reliable source which addresses him directly and in detail.--Gaura79 (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The above "reliable source" is a part of the forward to a book this individual translated. That still does not make this individual notable, although the original text may be. Do you have any reviews from notable Sanskrit, Religion, or South Asian Studies journals? Those would work, but none exist. As is, the article is still about a person who translated a notable book - that does not make the translator notable by association. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the Brihad Bhagavatamrita may be a notable text; this individual's translation of it is not. This translation is not a notable text in itself, nor is the translator Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~for now~~: WP:ONESOURCE (1 article in Miami Herald) and all other sources are ISKCON (BBT) sites, writing about an author of a BBT book (most publishers do that to sell their books). Though Brihat Bhagavatamrita is notable, but notability of the translation outside ISKCON is questionable. There are several translations of the Gita, not each one is notable as of Prabhupada or Ramakrishan. I am willing to change the vote if notability is proved by more non-ISKCON (non-BBT) references. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 02:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the second reference provided by me is not a "BBT reference". It is a scholarly review of Gopiparanadhana's work. The fact that it was published in a BBT book does not make it BBT reference. His Brihad Bhagavatamrita translation is the first and the only full translation of this work into English, and it has received a positive review from a specialist in the field. --Gaura79 (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be practical, if scholar X gives a unfavourable review of book A, book A is not going to print X's opinion. Forwards do sell books and can not be regarded as an unbiased review of a book. Also, the first few lines of Miami Herald (that is all I can read in the link, full article not available) seem to suggest the article is about ISKCON in general. Correct me, if I am wrong.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Miami Herald article is about ISKCON in general, with Gopiparanadhana receiving only some coverage in it. But a scholarly review is a scholarly review, no matter where it was published. The problem here, as you mentioned above, is WP:ONESOURCE. The subject of the article received coverage only in one source, which generally is not enough for a standalone article. I suggest merging the article with Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Your thoughts?--Gaura79 (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forewords in general are not independent sources and are arranged by the author. (User) Mb (Talk) 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging in Bhaktivedanta Book Trust will be an WP:UNDUE. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is to include only a limited information on him in relation with the books he translated and edited for the BBT.--Gaura79 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, limited information can be merged into BBT if a section on all BBT authors is written. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 02:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also taking into consideration his position in ISKCON's Governing Body, I think he deserves a standalone article on Wiki.--Gaura79 (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the guy is the top shot in GBC Sastric Advisory committee, the group of selected knowledgeble brahminical advisors. [33] From it's inseption so far as I know. Wikid ^as© 03:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply As this is a BLP, please provide reliable sources. If none are provided, then the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minutes of the Governing Body Comission are a reliable primary source, regardless where it is cited. Are you disputing that Gopiparanadhana is a key member of GBC SAC? Or that it does not exist?[34] [35] He is also the author of the Foreword to Surender Unto Me for example, a study material of the Vaishnava Insitute of Higher Education, also used in Bhaktivedanta College and referenced in Vedabase, not nessesarly notable, but interesting to note.[36], the website of Iskcon Ministry of Education calles him: "one of ISKCON's most renowned devotee-scholars, Gopiparanadhana Prabhu" [37]. There is a lot of work for the article to become decent or good, but the subject itself is quite notable. Wikid ^as© 00:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply How is this "Sastric Advisory committee" notable? And, how is being a member of this committee make one notable? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -- Governing Body Commission is notable, and this person is Notable -- there are more than WP:ONESOURCE as per sources above. Being a guru, besides being an advisor to GBC is also notable. Sources for the article need further improvement. Wikid ^as© 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree with Cunard's articulate statement, below, on why this article should be deleted. Do you have any response to the lack of reliable sources? If not, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. At the moment, the article presents nine references; however none of them are sufficient. I have analyzed and listed the sources in the article as of this revision:

Analysis of the sources in the article
1. This article from the Miami Herald is insufficient because it is not specifically about Gopiparadhana. From what I can see in the blurb, the article appears to be about Elliot Klein, an oceanfront condominium owner. 2. http://catalog.bbt.info/d_show_author.php?id=3&target_language=1 is insufficient because it does not appear to be a reliable source; neither does it appear independent of the subject. 3. http://www.iskconeducation.org/index.php?p=news&id=98 is insufficient because it is not a neutral, third-party source. The article begins with, "We are happy to announce that the fifth Bhagavata Sastri course at Govardhana is going to start in just 75 days from now ..." Furthermore, this article only mentions Gopiparadhana once. 4. http://www.krishna.se/Gopi.html does not appear to be a third-party, reliable source. 5. The subject's translation of Śrī Bṛhad-bhagavatāmrta does not serve to be a sufficient source that establishes notability. 6. This e-book that was translated by the subject does not establish notability. 7. http://www.krishnamedia.org/e-books/Mukunda_Mala_Stotra.pdf – same as #6. 8. Srmiadbhagavata.org is not a third-party source because it lists Gopiparadhana under the heading of "Who We Are / Teachers". 9. http://in.linkedin.com/pub/gopiparanadhana-dasa/10/971/21b – LinkedIn is not a reliable, third-party source because the content is user-generated and thus has not received the editorial fact-checking that reliable sources receive.

Analysis of the sources in the article

1. This article from the Miami Herald is insufficient because it is not specifically about Gopiparadhana. From what I can see in the blurb, the article appears to be about Elliot Klein, an oceanfront condominium owner.
2. http://catalog.bbt.info/d_show_author.php?id=3&target_language=1 is insufficient because it does not appear to be a reliable source; neither does it appear independent of the subject.

3. http://www.iskconeducation.org/index.php?p=news&id=98 is insufficient because it is not a neutral, third-party source. The article begins with, "We are happy to announce that the fifth Bhagavata Sastri course at Govardhana is going to start in just 75 days from now ..." Furthermore, this article only mentions Gopiparadhana once.
4. http://www.krishna.se/Gopi.html does not appear to be a third-party, reliable source.
5. The subject's translation of Śrī Bṛhad-bhagavatāmrta does not serve to be a sufficient source that establishes notability.
6. This e-book that was translated by the subject does not establish notability.
7. http://www.krishnamedia.org/e-books/Mukunda_Mala_Stotra.pdf – same as #6.
8. Srmiadbhagavata.org is not a third-party source because it lists Gopiparadhana under the heading of "Who We Are / Teachers".
9. http://in.linkedin.com/pub/gopiparanadhana-dasa/10/971/21b – LinkedIn is not a reliable, third-party source because the content is user-generated and thus has not received the editorial fact-checking that reliable sources receive.

Translating books does not make an individual notable. Neither does being an advisor on a committee establish notability. Only significant coverage in reliable sources ensures an individual's notability. I do not see this here.

This article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a leader of ISKCON, roughly equivalent to a bishop. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 22 January 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. NW (Talk) 05:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation[edit]

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

WP:N / Plagarism Nefariousski (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cite/reference tag added 7 months ago, no work has been done to improve since, station has been defunct for over 20 years, article uses weasel words, article provides little to no encyclopedic value and large portions of article are copypasted from other webpages verbatim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefariousski (talk • contribs) 01:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. The fact that a station or company no longer operates is not a reason to delete an article. Licenced television stations are always notable. As for the claims of plagiarism, please indicate what has been copied from where. Removing copyvio text is better than deleting an article. - Eastmain (talk • contribs • count) 02:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. What part of the article is copied and pasted from other web sites? "Defunct for over 20 years" is not a valid deletion reason, or we'd have no articles on DuMont Television Network or Paramount Television Network. Company history was apparently cited by the Supreme Court of the Philippines here, more info can easily be found. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to DWWX-TV#History. Mandsford (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, misguided nomination. No evidence of plagiarism/copyvio provided. Notability exists in the fact that it was a licensed TV station. The article could use a serious touchup though. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 00:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, still needs resources, but is notable and had a substantial role in Philippine television during Martial Law. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although this station is defunct decades ago, it is notable since it took over ABS-CBN, one of the leading networks in the Philippines during the Martial Law era. -WayKurat (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and Move to DWWX-TV#History and ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation#History. - Gabby 18:51, 17 January 2010 (PST).

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

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

The result was redirect to Portia. Tone 11:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portia (Shakespeare)[edit]

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

Delete Portia is already about the Merchant of Venice character, the Julius Caesar sounds very minor, and Portia (disambiguation) is the right place to handle any disambiguation of "Portia". I doubt normal people searching Wikipedia randomly put parentheses around search terms. Cybercobra (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: RfD Portia (Shakespeare) (disambiguation) --Cybercobra (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The disambig page is quite clear. StAnselm (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portia (disambiguation). Polarpanda (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portia (disambiguation), this is what I intended to do when removing the prod template. Alternatively, it could redirect to Portia, with a hatnote for the other character. The page was originally an article about both characters, and still contains the history of that article, also there may be links to it from external sites, so the redirect is probably worth keeping. snigbrook (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought it necessary, but the page seems to get around 600 hits per month. Therefore, redirect to Portia (disambiguation) seems most prudent. (By the same token, Portia (Shakespeare) (disambiguation) should also redirect there.) Cnilep (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Portia (disambiguation). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portia (disambiguation) as an ((R from incomplete disambiguation)) (and delete Portia (Shakespeare) (disambiguation)). -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and delete Portia (Shakespeare) (disambiguation) as well. I have re-organized Portia (disambiguation) to include both entries in their proper places. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Cyprus Free Press[edit]

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

No third party reliable sources found to support this blog being notable. 16x9 (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only links/sources I can find are in forums, social networking sites, and lists of similar entities. Notability not established. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 January 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. NW (Talk) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Toronto blackout[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS - this blackout had no notable lasting effect such as the Northeast Blackout of 2003 did. –xeno^talk 00:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article previously deleted. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines.eja2k 00:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a point-of-order it was deleted as a prod (and the re-creation could be considered a "contesting of the prod"), so that doesn't really have too much relevance. –xeno^talk 00:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One might hope that Toronto Hydro and Hydro One took steps to make their networks more reliable as a result of this blackout, but I cannot find documentation of this. One might also hope that people in Toronto learned to take precautions against a possible future blackout, but most people probably didn't. But it did affect a lot of people who worked or lived in the affected area. - Eastmain (talk • contribs • count) 02:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs • count) 02:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's WP:NOTNEWS for Wikipedia. The 2003 one was, however summer's over. ConCompS talk review 02:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —DoRD (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This was a minor blackout--I live in Toronto and it was a nuisance, but hardly worthy of an article. The 2003 blackout on the other hand was significant and obviously goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS. freshacconci talktalk 03:10, 13 January 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.