The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some of the information sourced to less reliable sources probably does need to be trimmed, though. And yes, I too was expecting something horribly unencyclopedic when I opened the page. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular cat names[edit]

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

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

This article purports to list the most popular cat names in many different countries. As you can plainly see, the article has an adequate quantity of sources. However, none of the sources corroborate the others' information. In other words, every last source has a vastly different list of the top 10 cat names. This can be evidenced by the table that I created for the United States section in this revision. That table shows many different versions of the top 10 cat names in the United States, all provided by equally "reliable" and "verifiable" sources (although how reliable and verifiable they are is unclear). In light of this, it becomes apparent that no authoritative list of the most popular cat names exists, presumably because no one has invested the time or money to do a scientific survey of a random sample of pet owners (and, to be sure, an analysis of a pet insurance company's customers is not a random sample, it is an analysis of pet names chosen by people who insure their cats). This disparity is not necessarily a shifting in the popularity of names over time (as some would argue), but rather the disparity is a result of a complete lack of reliable information based on scientific surveys and studies. Therefore, by providing a list of pet names (for any country) numbered from 1 to 10, we are implying that this is an authoritative list of the most popular names, and therefore we are providing false information and original research.

Furthermore, just because a fact can be sourced does not automatically mean that it is notable. Wikipedia is neither a directory of everything that exists or has existed nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information.

Therefore, I submit that this article be deleted because its content is not notable, and because no authoritative source exists to provide accurate information on the subject. SnottyWong ^comment 23:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although I would like to keep it for very personal sentimental reasons which of course don't count here I can't see any real notability that warrants such article. TMCk (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is actually sourced pretty nicely. I was expecting terrible to the third power, but this strikes me as substantial. —Carrite 02:16, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Not notable? There are 27 refs, and while some are trivial, I also see the The Times, Tampa Tribune, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Chicago Tribune, and so forth. And these are full articles about cat names, not articles where the subject is mentioned in passing. How much more notable can you get? As to whether the information in the article is (or can ever be) accurate... the point that lists generated from people buying pet insurance are skewed is well taken, but the article does say how these lists are generated. They are what they are. They are data. The reader can take them as they will, and no attempt to claim that these sources are more definitive than they are is made. The article is not perfect, but does present material from many sources in a way that readers and researchers might find useful. Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would you suggest we overcome the WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH issues posed by this article? I'm positive I can find several dozen equally "reliable" sources for the most popular cat names in the United States, and they will all be completely different from one another. Should we scour the web for every different source in existence and create an enormous table of the top 10 names from each source, as long as we treat each source equally and don't claim that any of the sources is definitive? SnottyWong ^chat 03:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You see the "...The Times, Tampa Tribune, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Chicago Tribune, and so forth..." but you can't read them because they're not online references so what's your point when you don't know what they wrote? I can't read them either and the rest of the citations just don't fill in the blanks and refute non-notability and OR/sinth.TMCk (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. The complaints about there being different lists is easily resolved by applying verifiability policy and some common sense. Go over each source available and decide, judging by its methodology, sampling etc. if it's good or not, and if the source itself is one we want to include as RS in general. This is not OR, this is about reliable sourcing - which Snottwong does not use consistently in the table s/he made. For example:

• the online poll by the Washington Post can be thrown out, as it's got a small sample and online polls are dodgy. It's not meant to be authoritative.
• The VPI stats, based on 475,000 pets looks rather more trustworthy, and the consistency in results year on year supports this. VPI is a large insurance company which we can assume checks its facts when it puts out data. There are bias issues with this sampling method, but so long as we are open about the sampling method, and as we've no reason to believe that there was something faulty in how the data were handled subsequent to collection, I can't see the problem with this one.
• the youpet.com stats are no good because we have no idea of sample size or anything like that.
• Petbabynames has a sample of over 20,000. It quite possibly has a skewed sample, as it's linked to babynames.com, and so will have a disproportionate number of young mothers dominating the sample. We just don't know. However, it comes up with similar results to VPI, so it's probably not that far wrong, but we don't have to use it. It can give some reassurance to us that VPI isn't making things up.
• bowwow appears to state the sampling method - names ordered for its pet tag business, and has a pretty similar list of names to petbabynames and VPI - so it passes the smell test. But again, it's not as good as VPI as an RS, so perhaps we can just take it as something to boost our confidence in the VPI figures - which are based on the biggest sample size of all.

In short, it seems that if you start to apply some judgement to the sources, the wild differences disappear, and clear patterns emerge that can inform the reader. We can get stricter and start taking out sites that we're not comfortable with as RS regardless of how good their methodology appears to be, and reduce further the cognitive stress for the reader. To argue that the topic is non-notable is a non-starter. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It will be impossible to overcome the problems the list has without resorting to original research and synthesis. It isnt thre job of wikipedia to be an aggregator of other peoples lists. 81.106.133.151 (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. I think this article should be speedy kept because it's so obvious it is properly sourced, and whether we like it or not, cat names are a notable topic. The nominator actually makes good suggestions to improve the article (perhaps the lists should be removed, or the information should be presented differently), but I don't see any convincing argument to delete it. Laurent (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the sources look good enough for the Wikimedia world. Actually, it may be just the job of Wikipedia to aggregate other's notable lists. The raison d'etre of Wikipedia is to be a source where even Merriam-Webster dare not tred (although "roofie" is in there, too). That's why students, or biggest set of reasers, look to us first in their research paths. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Nom doesn't address string of keeps apparent from earlier discussions, see no reason why consensus has shifted in the interim.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the previous AfD nominations bring up the point that no authoritative source exists for this information. SnottyWong ^confess 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I was expecting something awful, but it's entertaining and probably as well-ref'd as such a list could be, especially the USA section. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Even if there is no single authoritative source, the article provides a survey of the sources that exist, and provides their findings. If more authoritative sources exist, by all means add them; in the meanwhile, it is a well-referenced article about a subject of interest to many, and I judge its removal would be a net negative. --DGaw (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not what I expect for an encyclopedia. It is what makes Wikipedia look like a joke. Eucberar (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Eight Seven (song)[edit]

One Eight Seven (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable song, with no references. Grey Matter (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete away. Senses Fail can jump in any convenient body of water as far as I am concerned. I wrote the stub a long time ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*True, although no longer "yours" - appreciate hearing from the original editor.--CompRhetoric (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No references provided, and nothing suggests that the song warrants its own article (if the current information in the article can be referenced it should be merged to the EP article). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Four years later and still no references. A song from a three-track demo? I think the band article is ok, the albumn article is sketchy, but the song is just not notable for a standalone article although it could be merged into the album. --CompRhetoric (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If we can't get a decent source after so long... bobrayner (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any, i guess i should have put it up for proposed deletion. Grey Matter (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bogdanor[edit]

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

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

Appears to be a prolific blogger (and occasional writer). This article however, is poorly sourced. I could not find any reliable source references about the individual, although a fair number of citations were made to the book he co-authored(which may be worthy of an article). Appears to be one of the many wikipedia articles about someone popular in the blogosphere, but with limited claim to notability otherwise.

As it stands, the article is little more than a WP:COATRACK for expressing anti-leftist points of view rather than information about the author. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Sailsbystars (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Sailsbystars (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete: I could only find sixteen cites, total, on Google News [1] about Bogdanor, and none discussing him in any detail at all, let alone substantive detail, as is required. I disagree with the WP:COATRACK premise of the nom - the article doesn't advocate any positions, but merely states that the subject holds them - but I would expect a prominent blogger to have far more G-News cites, and so believe that the subject neither passes the GNG nor the WP:BIO bar.  Ravenswing  20:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not passing WP:GNG. I think this is the more relevant standard than WP:PROF since his main claim to notability seems to be his work in the popular press and he doesn't seem to be an academic. But the sources in the article and that I could find in Google news archive seem only to mention him trivially; for instance reference [1] ("are there no moral barometers on campus") invokes his name only as the co-author of a quote used to start an otherwise-unrelated essay. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, noting that also the creator has changed his mind Tikiwont (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Sputnik's Society Pages[edit]

Dr. Sputnik's Society Pages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unremarkable web site (fails WP:NOTABILITY). Article created by relatively new editor whose edits suggest that they believe they are on 4chan instead of Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is shamelessly self-promoting and is mostly nonsense. Addionne (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. search yields no reliable sources to indicate the subject is notable. Salon reference is about rotten.com, not article subject. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are, it gives insight into the depth of this organization and refs. It is very clear, as well as giving a distinctly notable web isbn on hyperlink 8. It isn't right to delete it. IMO.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UserDeliciousCarbuncle, people could take your commentary as being idealogically motivated. The sinews of websites may seem stupid, much s bonsaikitten.com may seem stupid, however it has an article. You are ignoring the fact that this website has a dedicated repository on a website such as rotten.com, and it may well be argued that it's childish to think that a websites context matters much. Content over context, my friends, before you cast your votes, that is all I ask.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is covered, or covers itself, so notable

Article has good faith sources. The fact that they are titled rotten.com and jerkcity, doesn't mean they are not reliable. No promotion of websites, just bio. This is why it shouldn't go. It comes across as prudish to throw up ones hands after that IMO. But what would I know, I probably think its chan????--Cymbelmineer (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No credible claim of notability. VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two peer reviewe sources, and one reliable website owned by soylent, there's four reliable sources. It is a small article which needs iomprovement, however there is nothing fundamentally wrong with broadcasting a news website. I wonder how many people have investigated the four mentions the site gets on google.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I WOULD LIKE THIS ARTICLE TO BE DELETED. I've changed my mind.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proud.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. I recommend that Cymbelmineer review WP:RS, WP:WEB and WP:V to gain a better understanding of what constitutes a reliable, independent, published source which discusses the subject in significant detail. Links to other websites don't qualify. The website in question doesn't qualify. A website of this "Dr. Sputnik" doesn't qualify. To quote: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."  Ravenswing  20:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dev-C++[edit]

Dev-C++ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No evidence of notability, just a lot of links to product's pages. Just-expired RfC on this issue petered out in a few days, but did not address the concerns about the sources. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google books shows that this is featured in several C++ books, including whole chapters in Liang's "Introduction to Programming with C++" and Yevick's "A first course in computational physics and object-oriented programming with c++" --Karnesky (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I have confirmed Karnesky's findings. I strongly request the nominator do a more thorough search in the future before nominating another AfD. — HowardBGolden (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Thank you for your advice. I've not I think proposed it hastily: only after an RFC where a majority of editors doubted its notability, no sources were found (or at least none anyone thought worth adding to the article), two other editors suggested AfD and one Proded it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand HBG's passion: even the overly conservative search for "bloodshed dev-c++" (in quotes) leads to over 60 books, which should give one pause. But, I agree that you weren't overly hasty based on the RFC & that you acted in good faith. It is not clear whether you agree to withdraw your nomination, based on the notability that is established by multiple books or whether you have additional objections that need to be addressed at AfD --Karnesky (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to John Blackburne: I agree that you didn't propose the AfD hastily. However, reading the RFC you mentioned, the overwhelming substantial (IMO) comments questioned the thoroughness of the search for citations (as confirmed above by Karnesky). I don't mean to single you out in requesting a more thorough search (though I'm sure it came across that way, for which I apologize). Since I started following the software AfDs I've noticed that a fair number of the nominations don't include a search of GScholar and GBooks. Once I do this, I find that there are often many WP:RS citations. These are the AfDs I attend. (Probably most of the nominations here are appropriate (IMO), but certainly not all, as borne out by the GScholar and GBooks searches.) Also, as mentioned by Rilak in the RFC, a lack of WP:RS in an article is not a good reason to nominate the AfD. According to WP policy, the nominator should first look for WP:RS and improve the article if possible. AfD should not be used to get others to improve an article, but that's what I've seen here in many cases. (To prevent any misunderstanding, these comments are generalizations not specifically directed at you.) — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why not add the sources to the article at this point? One is supposed to "feel free to edit the article". That is: Liang's "Introduction to Programming with C++" and Yevick's "A first course in computational physics and object-oriented programming with C++". That would appear to remove Blackburne's objections and improve the article. Brews ohare (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Feel free. I've been doing this for some articles recently, but I only have so much time available. I may be able to do it for this one later, but right now I'm at work. — HowardBGolden (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At least for the near future. Dev-C++ is still referenced in lots of tutorials and online material. I would rather like to see the text stating that it is outdated and a recommendation to switch to another one. I know this is not impartial, but it still is true. When next year C++0x (probably) the new language standard will be released it will not be possible anymore to use Dev-C++ for current C++ programming at all. Crabel (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight (Complete Edition Score)[edit]

The Dark Knight (Complete Edition Score) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The subject is not notable. This article is about an unofficial bootleg soundtrack release. The article for the official soundtrack is already located here. -5- (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the article seems nearly identical to the article about the real soundtrack (including links to the same professional music reviews infobox). The part about this version being released is uncited, and the only citation outside of the infobox doesn't even mention this. No verifiability means no article. Kansan (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as noted above, it appears to be a duplicate of the official soundtrack release. It could be mentioned on the main soundtrack page, but doesn't really deserve its own page. Bob talk 20:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete I propose that the information contained within this wikipage should be juxtaposed to the page regarding the official soundtrack release, if it is true (or at lease verifiable) that the producers where planning to release this album, however their plans fell through.

Otherwise, this is really just a nub of information that could be quite easily assimilated into the wikipage for the film or for the soundtrack. CybergothiChé (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with a merge. There are no references to back up that this was supposed to be released.-5- (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not verifiable, then it is solely a delete CybergothiChé (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Interesting article, It's a damn shame we can't keep it :( Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electrodynamic Space Thruster[edit]

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

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

Violates our policies on original research. I'm also concerned that this article may be pseudoscientific - although this isn't my field, so I can't really judge there. The warning signs are in the 'Possible types of interaction' section: lots of 'may's and 'possible's included in the paragraph. It tries to describe a large set of aerials which would pick up basic fluctuations in the universe -: 'Intergalactic Magnetic Fields' and 'Space-time' - and use them to ride through the local solar system at breakneck speed.

Finally, the concept itself seems to be non-notable: the scientist doesn't seem to have done a great deal else except invent a CrossFire Fusor fusion reactor, which itself seems a little hazy on the science. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Referencing is problematic. The first seven references relate to concepts like Interstellar medium and Space-time, not to the Electrodynamic Space Thruster. The eighth relates to the EmDrive, the article for which states that it is considered in at least one quarter a fraud. The ninth is a link to crossfire fusion, so basically self-referential/original research, and the tenth reference is a Youtube video. Google News and Google Scholar yield big goose eggs on the subject. Based on all I see, I'm going to go with a fairly hearty delete. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FRINGE. Ridiculous gobbledygook that nobody has paid any attention to. Beam me up, Scotty. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don’t agree labeling pejoratively something as pseudoscientific just because we don’t understand the basic physics behind it.

As it is widely known, group velocity of a wave can be faster than light because it has zero-rest-mass, and as far as I understand, phase-shifted electromagnetic forces are a kind of wave group, and can produce linear thrust by interacting with something else. This propulsion method is not claiming to be faster than light. It is claiming to produce phase-shifted electromagnetic forces to interact with interstellar medium in order to produce thrust. Sorry, but I don’t see any type of pseudoscience in these claims. The method seems to be physically reasonable and feasible to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Probonopublic (talk • contribs) 20:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You don't consider "instantaneous interaction with all celestial bodies" (bolding mine) just a tad dubious? Also, the article keeps harping on how it doesn't violate classical (i.e. Newtonian) physics, but "fast interstellar spaceflight" would be in the realm of relativistic physics. Note: Probonopublic is a WP:SPA whose only edits are here and at a related Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For tackling with initial accelerations and low speeds, I think classical physics equations are easier to use. With velocities near the speed of light, the relativistic equations, although more complex, are more suitable, mainly for dealing with time-dilation. As far as I know, action-at-a-distance is an object of study also in Quantum Mechanics[2]. In my opinion, a full discussion of these broad and complex subjects should be posted in a physics forum. Anyway, it is widely known that electromagnetic forces can interact with almost everything even neutral bodies and neutral molecules; hence phase-shifted electromagnetic forces can surely produce thrust force for having similar properties.--Probonopublic (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't understand the science behind this one bit but I do understand WP:GNG and this does not meet it. Nor can I find anything in peer-reviewed journals, or even helium.com for this one. The references don't cover this subject and as such I'm going with delete. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:OR. Article doesn't actually explain how moving electrons around in a loop generates a net force that will accelerate the device. On this encyclopaedia, we obey Newton's laws! bobrayner (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Fraser[edit]

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

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

Notability challenged in 2008. Current article still (in my opinion) fails to establish notability. Could not find articles in References section to corroborate, and if the M Magazine is as described, it appears to constitute a brief mention, not a full article. Other "reviews" at galleries are gallery-generated, and therefore do not appear to be reliable sources. An in-depth Ebsco database search for "Amanda Fraser" yielded no results (for the artist; there's also an Australian paralympian named Amanda Fraser who apparently was part of quite the to-do) Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; adding on to what the nominator said, the mention in the Melbourne newspaper article, based on the description in the mainspace (the link doesn't go to the actual page), seems to mention Fraser in passing more than actually featuring her. (Even if it did feature her, I still don't think that would meet the threshold of notability.) Kansan (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete subject to re-creation or serious improvement. Getting into the Sunday Magzazine of a major paper is one piece of evidence of notability -- but a WP:BLP needs at least two per WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I did a search on Google Australia excluding the paralympic angle [3], and the search results are overwhelmingly Wikipedia and Wiki mirrors, the artist's webpage, the artist's Linkedin page and the like. No evidence of notability.  Ravenswing  20:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was only able to find one reference supporting notability (which I have added to the article). Fails WP:GNG. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 10:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geet (TV series)[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability other than "is popular" (without source). Could find no useful sources that might assert notability in an English (sorry, I only speak English) google/google news search. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I added some bare URL refs to the article, it does appear to be popular enough in India to have received significant press coverage.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reviewing the sources in the article: 1 is a press release, and so is discounted entirely. 2, 3, and 5 do not list actual authors of the articles in question, and are from OneIndia, a source which expressly disclaims fact checking or accuracy (see its disclaimer), and so is by its own admission not reliable. Finally, source 4 mentions the subject only in passing. I can't find anything better than this. Just providing several sources does not show notability—the sources must be reliable (discounting any source which expressly says it cannot be relied on), unaffiliated with the subject (discounting any press releases), and cover the subject to a significant degree (discounting any source which covers the subject in passing while largely talking about something else). I can't see that there is sufficient sourcing to sustain the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, I wouldn't count out Oneindia.in entirely. I see people going both ways in past debates, and no guidance from searching WP:RSN. I can see past discussions where people say it is legitimate, e.g., Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_3, User:Dr._Blofeld/ArchiveFebruary2009#Blof, Talk:Bollywood_films_and_plagiarism#Reliability_of_sources (mixed views). But someone edited the Oneindia.in page a year ago to directly assert that it wasn't reliable (because it has copied content from Wikipedia without attribution-haha, this is actually not that uncommon, but its worse in less developed country journalism, I think).[4], and another editor has cited the disclaimer as proof its not a RS: Talk:Sura_(film)#Oneindia_does_not_appear_to_meet_reliable_source_requirements. It is worth noting however, that as of Dec. 2009, Oneindia was the 2nd highest traffic India-based news site (and 4th overall most visited news site in Indian visitors), even ahead of The Hindu (the 2nd most popular English print newspaper in the country): see [5].

I also found a Geet msg board and while I know that's not good for sourcing, that msg board is insanely active,[6] which suggests that the show may well be quite popular in India.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ratings info: OK, this is fascinating. July 21 Geet forum post[7] asserts that Geet got a rating of "1.0" on the "TRPs". TRP appears to an acronym for "television rating point" used in India. The "1.0" rating seemed to be cause for celebration. In August, a thread[8] asserts that Geet is the highest ranked show on the STAR One network. There are many other threads discussing ratings, did I mention this forum is insanely active?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a little disheartened to see that no one looked into this. Its apparently the top rated show on this Indian TV network (the network is owned by News Corporation, btw, that's FOX, its a major network). Since the AfD started, citations have been added from a number of India's top news sources, including The Times of India and Oneindia.in, and we've been told that this kind of coverage would be normal for a mainstream soap. If this was an American or British show, there is no way we'd be having this debate.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the Blade's reasoning and research. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and trim the heck out of the plot section (yikes). The nom's concerns toward sources are addressed through a simple search which finds numerous English sources. And sorry Orange Mike... but the project is far better served by considering Seraphimblade's concerns at the very few sources in the current unimproved article, and then using the available found sources to clean up and expand using with the critical commentary found about the Indian soap opera. Deletion of something so emminently improvable, does not serve the project... nor its readers. Notable in India, is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You can certainly find mentions in that google search, MichaelQSchmidt, but are any of them substantive and asserting of notability? Things like an article about an actress who appeared on Geet, or an article saying "here's what's going to happen on the next Geet" don't really strike me as particularly useful for the purpose of demonstrating notability. Even "this actor had no job but now he's famous because he got a new job on Geet" and "Geet has 100 episodes", though more promising, doesn't really seem to me to do the job. If the sources are out there, great and I'd love to see them added to shore up the article, but I'm not seeing much of use in the first few pages of the google search you linked. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect, per guideline, "substantive" is not a required criteria for sources. As Indian articles concentrate on the players and their roles, we are still able to accept that WP:GNG is met through the tremendous amount of series-related press... even with production being dealt with in a less-than-primary fashion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have added a few more refs from non one-india sources (including a small review in Screen. This is a soap running in a major Hindi TV channel. It has been covered in the Times of India, Indian Express, Screen and IANS. Any coverage Hindi soaps get in the media is usually about the characters and the actors who play them. Only if the subject is controversial or there are production delays, then the coverage goes into the show itself. --Sodabottle (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article in the current form does not establish the show's notability. Nergaal (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry. Current state is never a deletion criteria unless the state is a violation of WP:BLP or WP:NOT. It IS however, a reason to use available sources to improve the article through the course of regular editing. And big kudos to User:Sodabottle for adding additional sources to further show the series meeting WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selam Ahderom[edit]

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

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

I brought this here a few years ago and it was kept then. Since then, however, there has been no evidence forthcoming that the individual meets the WP:PROF criteria. (Please note the impact value of the publications.) Eusebeus (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I see no evidence in the searches of notability for PROF or any other standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, No recent cited research publication and last moderately-cited paper was in 2003, therefore fails WP:PROF. No media coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC either. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Even though the previous AfD was quite some time ago and the concept of notability has now become much more formal, the previous verdict still seems baffling, e.g. "keep" arguments like "Precedent schmecedent" and SPA voting. I think that if you look at the actual merits of this case, it's an uncontroversial delete. This individual works as a lecturer, but holds no notable position, nor has earned any notable recognition per WP:PROF. The most common way of passing the notability hurdle, research impact (WP:PROF #1), is a complete bust here. WoS shows 6 papers, h-index = 2, and a grand total of 26 citations. Bear in mind that this person's specialty is EE, so the publication record, such as it is, is well-represented by WoS. Page is also an orphan. The fact that it has extremely low views probably is what allowed it to fly under the radar for so long. Should probably be salted too for 2 reasons: (1) current version was SPA-recreated and thus likely to be resurrected yet again if deleted, and (2) given the above observations, it is extremely unlikely this individual will become notable anytime in the near future. Again, an uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, per Agricola44. No evidence of passing WP:PROF here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's a possibility of a WP:BIAS issue, but it seems to be far outweighed by the evidence that he is far below the standard of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He is not currently on the staff of the department in any capacity. [9].

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. landslde support (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka Police[edit]

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

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

Insufficient info Abhishek191288 (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not sure what "insufficient info" means, but the simple fact that an article is a bit short is not enough to justify its deletion. As the police force of a state with a population of 52 million people, it's also inherently notable. (On a side note, the nom appears to have now AfDed three articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bijapur Airport & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hampi Airport) on the basis that they are too short.) ninety:one 19:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Rewrite yes, delete no…1,360 Google News hits as shown here [10] 36 Google Scholar hits as shown here [11]. 407 references to the department at Google Books as provided here [12]. I believe they meet our requirements for inclusion. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The main police force in a state with a population of over 52 million up for deletion? I guess the California Highway Patrol is next on the chopping block. --Oakshade (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as above. This nomination is just waste of time of other editors Shyamsunder (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
• Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:OUTCOMES. Large police departments are usually kept. This one is for a state of almost 53 Million residents, the former Imperial State of Mysore. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. Salih (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I just hit the nom's talk page to suggest he review WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL before attempting any more AfDs.  Ravenswing  20:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iqrar Ahmad Khan[edit]

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

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

National mango coordinator of Pakistan. Non-notable professor with no independent biographical coverage. Gigs (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think there are many professors of Horticulture that are worth featuring on wikipedia. Nergaal (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing one particular professor here, not some strange notion that professors of horticulture are somehow less notable as a class than other professors. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly passes WP:PROF criterion 6 as a university vice chancellor. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crit 6 says "at a major academic institution or major academic society".Yes, the university has 10k students, but that does not seem to be outstanding by Pakistan's standards (1.35 mil post-secondary enrollment). While agriculture I would assume to be important in Pakistan, I don't see why a one of the 7 vice-chancellors at an agricultural university in a country not necessarily known for universities (even if English is an official language there) would be notable. And yes, professors of horticulture are less known than those that do research in a field where Noble prizes are actually won. I don't think he would even be eligible for Physiology and Medicine if he solved the all the famine problems of the world (but for Peace yes). Nergaal (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get the information that he is one of seven vice chancellors? In the English system inherited by Pakistan the vice chancellor is the top non-figurehead job in a university, so it would be very unusual for there to be more than one, and the sources in the article identfy the subject as the vice chancellor, not a vice chancellor. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that he is the VC for the Faculty of Agriculture, not for the University of A. Keep then. Nergaal (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the basis of WP:Prof#C6. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep concur with XXantahippe and Phil Bridger's reasoning. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IDoubs[edit]

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

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

This article was prodded for lack of references, the prod was removed and no references were added, so here we are. Given the absence of references, this article does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. - MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC) MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original prodder per the lack of third party reliable sources to show notability. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet the general notability guideline. No reliable third party references. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International High IQ Society[edit]

International High IQ Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The article does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability of organizations. No reliable sources have been found for the article, even after a previous PROD and previous AfD. After further diligent search and discussion on the article talk page, it appears that no reliable sources can be found about the organization or its activities. Therefore the article is nominated for deletion discussion for lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ORG, and the fact that this STILL doesn't pass our guidelines even after 3 years sitting around since the last AFD is a pretty strong indication that this just isn't an acceptable article subject. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Found some passing references to it, and its founder has written some books, but substantial and independent coverage of this group is scarce, so it appears to fail WP:ORG. The phrase turns up in many cases just as a description of Mensa. Maybe someone with a very high IQ could find refs that are not about Mensa, not passing references, not just books by the founder, and not press releases by the organization. Edison (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Caitlin R. Kiernan. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frog Toes and Tentacles[edit]

Frog Toes and Tentacles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Prod removed by IP with WP:OSE as an argument. No reliable sources given or found to establish notability per WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I could find no sources to support notability for this book, which Amazon ranks somewhere below 5 millionth in sales. Edison (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try Subterranean Press's website, which is mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.151.234 (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• merge a mention of it into the article on the author, who is notable. The resulting redirect will be suitable. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Perfectly_Reasonable_Deviations_from_the_Beaten_Track. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Feynman[edit]

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

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

I'm nominating this for same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Feynman (2nd nomination), only more so. Subject is not notable except as the daughter of a notable person. Notability not heritable etc. I had redirected this page WP:BOLDly to Richard Feynman, but an IP editor reverted that, alas without a reason given. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Handle Editorialy You say that the page should be redirected to Richard Feynman. No need to delete just because an IP reverted that redirect. Ensure there is talk page consensus for that redirect and if so redo the redirect.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I chose AFD because the subject is not notable, and it's what I originally did with the Carl Feynman page, which resulted in a redirect. Given another editor - with no apparent history except this one edit - has, after some time, objected to my redirect (which I boldly did to save the hassle of another AFD which genuinely appears to be much clearer cut than Carl Feynman), I am now going through what I understand to be the necessary formal process. The editor in question has not given reasons either in an edit summary or on the talk page. Bearing in mind that more people watch the AFD page than I imagine watch the Michelle Feynman page, have I gone about this the wrong way? There has been no talk page activity at all since my redirect. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of explanation by the IP I likely would have redone the redirect, noted my reasoning on the target article's talk page (Richard Feynman), and left a pointer on the IP's talk page inviting him to discuss it there.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, it's not a merge. There is nothing particular in this article worth integrating into the Richard Feynman article. Anyway, I felt that instead of engaging one IP editor with no edit history, it was better simply to get a more definitive outcome involving a wider number of editors. There's nothing stopping the IP coming here, given that s/he has been notified. I do think your view of going to the talk page to engage the IP has merit in principle, but shall we not just continue with this AFD now it's started? (and more to the point, could any other editors give their opinions?) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just my opinion. Maybe someone else will give a different opinion. My opinion though is based on the fact that AFD in not needed to create a redirect, even if it's contested. Although discussions here sometimes result in redirects or merges, it usually begins with the initial poster proposing the deletion. Again though this is my opinion, I have no desire or authority to compel action here.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh did you even read the above conversation, and if so would you like to comment on why it shouldn't be returned to redirect form.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Richard Feynman; as she is an editor of a book, it's a somewhat reasonable search term, but as somebody mentioned above, there's little, if anything, worth merging. Kansan (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; Evidently, notability cannot be inherited. Rirunmot (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Not redirect I suppose I'm the mysterious IP editor. I found the redirect extremely annoying, as I had been looking for information on Richard Feynman's relationship with his daughter upon having read an article about her in Discover Magazine, and I was redirected to his article, which made no mention of his children at all. I don't think it's an unreasonable search term, and it was nice to find a bit of biographical information in the history. If Wikipedia's precious bits cannot be allocated to such a person, so be it, but please don't tease me with a redirect into a black hole.  :-) 99.225.74.134 (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the Discovery material meets inclusion standards, then it can go into the Richard Feynman article; the redirect can actually go towards the appropriate section in the Richard Feynman article. The issue is that "Michelle Feynman" is probably not notable as a topic independent of "Richard Feynman". VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, let me get this straight:

She is best known as the editor of Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track: The Letters of Richard P. Feynman, a collection of personal letters from and to her father, which was also published in the UK by Penguin Books under the title Don't you have time to think?.[2] The book includes an introduction by Michelle Feynman in which she describes what it was like to grow up as the daughter of one of the world's best-known physicists. Michelle has also gathered a compilation of her father's artwork in a publication entitled The Art of Richard P. Feynman: Images by a Curious Character. She also appeared in a cameo role in the film Infinity, which dealt with her father's early life.

— Michelle Feynman

Sounds to me like her only connection to the the real world, much less any notability, is through her father. Redirect or Delete. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the article on the book of her father's letters that she edited Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Delta Upsilon chapters. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Upsilon – Sigma Kappa Sigma chapter[edit]

Delta Upsilon – Sigma Kappa Sigma chapter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable chapter of a notable fraternity - fails WP:CORP Toddst1 (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Delta Upsilon chapters. The list could easily accommodate a short paragraph about each chapter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: almost identical afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Upsilon Fraternity House (London, Ontario)
• Merge per Whatamidoing. According to WP:CLUB, "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Volunteering to do the merge, if the closing admin decides that a merge is the best option and doesn't want to do it him-/herself. Just leave a note on my user talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CryptoLink[edit]

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

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

notability was questioned in June 2010 by another user, with no response since, and I still can't any further info on the net. The only information I can find is a blog from May 2010 claiming that this project will be starting in 2010 sometime - http://blog.grc.com/2010/05/19/may-2010/ Whippen (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No indication of notability, no reliable sources. The only references to be found on Google are one GRC blog entry and people discussing this entry. The Wikipedia article was originally mostly a copy of said blog entry. -- intgr [talk] 14:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
• Delete. The text is also flagrantly promotional: The motivation for creating CryptoLink was born out of the frustration and complex configuration required for other popular VPN products, such as OpenVPN. Gibson realised the desire of many people for a simple, user-friendly and robust VPN solution that would not require any technical knowledge or detailed understanding of VPNs to install and configure. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for now. At present this is a statement of intent, not a piece of software. Steve Gibson is certainly notable and he's done notable things in the past. If he is successful in achieving his intent, there won't be any issue about having an article. Right now it's premature. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOR cosmetics[edit]

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

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

After having MOR Cosmetics CSD'd multiple times and salted, along comes MOR cosmetics: highly promotional, vague notability, and highly questionable as an encyclopedic article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: 5 editors now blocked as socks based on the 6 incarnations of this article. See here for details (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Delete and salt to establish a firm precedent. This text is substantially identical to the prior versions speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising the previous five times. Lists of minor trade awards do not confer notability, and this remains unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:SPAM, article seems to be promotional in nature. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt, as above. I'm all in favour of giving articles a second chance, but if they keep on reappearing as spam... bobrayner (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, season according to taste. I tried to find something good here, I really did, but most of the refs I found were for minor trade/magazine awards, and even then I struggled to source most of them. Other refs were stores stocking product. Charitable work and sponsorship also suffered from a lack of sources. There's insufficient "depth of coverage"; insufficient "evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media"; and insufficient coverage by "independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations"; and MOR cosmetics isn't traded on the ASX. Fails WP:NCORP, fails WP:GNG. TFOWR 11:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Gittins[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. Numerous passing mentions: as an attorney, he is often mentioned or quoted about the cases: there are no sources about him though. Similar to a spokesperson: many hits, even in GNews, but nothing about the subject, everything about other subjects. Fram (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Just a quick review of his client list, which has been referenced, shows that Mr. Gittins qualifies under Creative professionals. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you reading the same guideline as I do? I don't see how he fits any of the criteria there. Fram (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Under Creative professionals a major requirement for inclusions is that; "...The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Mr. Gittins has accomplished this through his representation of high profile individuals and situations as highlighted and documented in Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law - ABA JOURNAL - Washington Post and Naval Law Review as shown in Google Scholar and provided here [13]. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 16:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So which "significant or well-known work" has he co-created exactly? Fram (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Nomination asserts "passing mentions ... often mentioned or quoted ... no sources about him though" Page 89 of Above & Beyond: Former Marines Conquer The Civilian World contains a biography of Gittins. That biography is about two pages long, which I suggest fulfills the "substantial coverage" criteria the nomination seems to be suggesting could never be fulfilled for this individual. Geo Swan (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The aforementioned book is really weird. So much of the content for all the "biographies" are direct quotes and it reads like a collection of puff pieces. Still, the fact that he is one of those selected to be mentioned helps to satisfy WP:GNG. Location (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Guantanamo detainees' medical care. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dental care of Guantanamo Bay detainees[edit]

Dental care of Guantanamo Bay detainees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:N. Only sources are publications by the military, not any independent sources about this. Independent sources routinely mention that there are facilities for dental care, or that medical and dental care are available, but nothing more than such very passing mentions is available. Fram (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep or Merge - The topic is arcane, but it is correctly sourced and even has a swell picture. My primary concern is that it seems to be an orphan article. —Carrite, Oct. 12, 2010.
  • The sources are all primary though, not independent. Fram (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether or not the information is accurate, verifiable, and written neutrally. Yes, yes, and yes, it would seem. —Carrite, Oct. 12, 2010.

Please read WP:N. Independent sources are required.Fram (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources and independent sources are not antipodes. There is absolutely NO prohibition against using primary sources on Wikipedia, only that such material must be verifiable and used carefully. See, for example, the final decision of ArbCom on Race and Intelligence. Now, as for the question of independence of sources in this specific case, pretty clearly we disagree on a fundamental level there: this article shows: a book, Congressional Record, Huffington Post, New Yorker, in addition to DoD-originated material. Nothing is "primary source material" here, for what it's worth. A "primary source" in this case would be something like a memoir of a prisoner or a dentist, or internal documents of the medical staff, or the published report of a Red Cross investigating committee, etc. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Modified: Carrite (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. WP:Party and person might help. WP:GNG requires that subjects be supported by sources that are both "independent" and "secondary". Independent primary sources do not actually count towards the rebuttable presumption of notability under GNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE, and WP:ODD. It has three good sources (since when is the US Government not a reliable source?) and is about what had been a controversial topic. An orphan article can be fixed with wikilinks. Many arcane an odd articles exist here at Wikipedia; we don't delete them but rather celebrate them. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not stated that they are not reliable sources, I have said that they are not independent sources. Please don't reply to arguments that haven't been made... And I do hope that you agree that the US Government, which organises the dental care of Guantanamo Bay detainees, is by definition not an independent source about the subject. Fram (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to meet GNG. Kind of an esoteric subject, but that's not a reason to delete in and of itself. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^speak 22:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Guantanamo Bay detention camp#Conditions. All sources in this article are currently WP:PRIMARY. The topic doesn't appear to cross the notability threshold to the point where a full article needs to be devoted to it. Perhaps an article on medical treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees in general would be more appropriate. SnottyWong ^confabulate 22:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Guantanamo Bay detention camp article is already vast and this topic is very esoteric. That's a merge that would add cholesterol without protein. This is a very specialized article, but it's well enough done and relevant enough to stick around, in my opinion. —Carrite, Oct. 12, 2010.

Point taken. However, I don't think we should base our decisions about this article on the problems evident in another article. For example, it is probably more appropriate to split off some of the larger sections from Guantanamo Bay detention camp (like the enormous Criticism and condemnation section) into a separate article rather than creating permastubs on more esoteric subjects. SnottyWong ^prattle 03:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i just noticed, we have an article on Guantanamo detainees' medical care. An article that is hardly known and does not get notable traffic. It might be a good idea to merge it into that article. I tent to change my !vote to that. IQinn (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to merging to Guantanamo detainees' medical care. Good find. SnottyWong ^talk 16:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Guantanamo Bay detention camp#Conditions Guantanamo detainees' medical care per Snottywong. He sums it up correctly. IQinn (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC) -- I just changed the target article after i found out we have an article on medical care. The dental care fits perfectly into the Guantanamo detainees' medical care both articles are weak now with very little traffic. IQinn (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources do not have to be independent to be considered reliable. Read the WP:V policy page more closely. Google news [[14]] shows them talking about the superb dental care there, and that they get the same care given to US military personal. But no deep coverage or anything. Dream Focus 11:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have to read the WP:V page more closely, you have to read the nomination more closely. I have never stated that the sources are not reliable, as I had already clarified in my response to Bearian. However, I have stated, and no one has denied, that the sources are not independent, and independent sources are required by WP:N, which is the reason for this nomination. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (emphasis mine). Fram (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking of the part of WP:V at WP:SELFPUB. You can use self published material, such as the reports by the military you objected to in your nomination, as a reliable source. Dream Focus 02:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but not as an independent source. My reasoning is based on WP:N, but the last point from WP:SELFPUB is quite relevant as well: "the article is not based primarily on such sources." This article is primarily based on such sources though... Fram (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The meme out there is that Guantanamo captives receive superb medical care, and that they receive superb dental care. Coverage of this topic has included wild exagerration. In 2005 there was repeated in the US press an anecdote about how rapidly "Guantanamo captive" Jose Padilla received emergency dental care, that he reported a tooth-ache at 3am and was sitting in the dentist's chair at 8:30am, less than 6 hours later -- a level of care none but the richest Americans could afford. This was an exagerration because, in 2005, the DoD wasn't making public who was a captive in Guantanamo. Padilla had been transferred to one of the Navy Consolidated brigs, where he and one or two captives had an entire wing to themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any policy- or guideline-based reasons why this article should be kept and why the nomination is incorrect? Your reasoning for keeping it is a mixture of WP:OR and WP:POV, but has nothing to do with whether this subject passes or fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The US Government has, in theory, three branches. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I suggest that if nominator felt that the references, at the time of his or her nomination, were not independent, because those references were written by employees of the US Federal government the appropriate, policy based response would have been to raise that concern on the article's talk page, through the addition of appropriate wikitags, or through discussion. I just added a paragraph that cites some non-DoD references about the captives' dental care. Geo Swan (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not athe "appropriate, policy based response", "consider applying a tag" is a possibility raised at WP:AFD, next to redirecting, nominating for deletion, etcetera. Nominating this article for deletion was another "appropriate, policy based response". I have checked for sources myself, as indicated in the nomination. I didn't find any. None of the sources you adde have any indepth coverage of the subject, only passing mentions in articles about clearly other subjects. Fram (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I do not have objection to merger with Guantanamo detainees' medical care. I do have an objection to deletion or the loss of this material in an improper merge. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Guantanamo detainees' medical care. The distinction between "dental" and "medical" care is an arbitrary historical artifact anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave as is, both stories are well sourced and about equal length. In America, health coverage does not routinely cover vision and dental. That would seem to be the point that these prisoners have better care than the majority of Americans and likely better than those in the Middle East. If a corollary article about vision care were created I would support that as well. The articles would do well to discuss dental care statistics for the related countries and maybe to other prisoners of the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somestudy (talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC) — Somestudy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Merge to Guantanamo detainees' medical care. No compelling reason to have two separate articles here as both subjects are pretty esoteric. The dental care topic does not appear to be sufficiently notable for a standalone article. Nsk92 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as stated. Notable but can easily be discussed in context of the parent article. JFW | T@lk 18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Guantanamo detainees' medical care; dental care can be covered there—Chris!_c/t 23:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• merge as suggested. The medical care article need s very considerable expansion--after if eventually gets it, an unmerge might possibly be suitable, but for now it is the best solution. I thing Geo's concerns about NPOV would be better handled in a single article. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Guantanamo detainees' medical care, no need for separate articles, combing will lead to a more comprehensive article. J04n(talk page) 15:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Barton (professor)[edit]

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

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

One sentence BLP on non-notable professor. Prodded twice. Abductive (reasoning) 08:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, A remarkably common name among professors apparently (there are at least two others!). Not finding anything remotely capable of satisfying WP:PROF on this one though. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF#C5 (he holds a named chair) and #C4 (his book appears to be widely used as a textbook). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Named chair at a college with 1,240 students that doesn't offer anything beyond a bachelor's? And what evidence is there that the 3rd edition of Bond's biology of fishes is a widely used textbook? Abductive (reasoning) 19:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - scholar.google.com shows that 'Bond's Biology of Fishes' is cited more than 300 times in its previous editions, and 8 times since Michael Barton took over as the editor with the 2006 edition. Michael Barton is a full professor and should thus expect our usual deference to full professors, but Center College does not qualify as a major university, so that counts against. Getting picked as the new editor of a textbook is still hard to deny. I looked at Michael Barton's published articles via Google Scholar and the one which seems most significant was co-authored with some other people. It is available as a PDF as a 2008 publication at his website at the College (Turner, Duvernell, Bunt and Barton 2008: "Reproductive isolation..", published in the Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society). Since he unfortunately has a common name, you need to try different search terms in Google Scholar but overall I think this is on the Keep side. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How many citations does this allegedly significant Pupfish paper get? I'm seeing 2. Abductive (reasoning) 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to keep... he has few published research publications, but he may be one of those professor types who contributes mainly through textbook writing (as evidenced above, and which I hadn't realized), rather than research, and we shouldn't base a profs notability solely on contributions to research. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? Wouldn't getting selected to edit the 3rd edition of a textbook could as WP:BLP1E? Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on Carl Bond, the original author of the book. Abductive (reasoning) 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficient academic work to show him as an expert in his subject. Abductive quite correctly points out that we are lacking articles on important earlier scientists, but this is not to be remedied by removing the articles on the later ones. A more productive course than nominating article like this for deletion would be to write the ones needed. Agreed, there are 10s of thousands, but if all the effort wasted at AfD were utilized, we might be getting somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FindLaw[edit]

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

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

Declined PROD. The only source given is an interview, arguably for PR purposes, and most other coverage I could find was insignificant or not at reliable, independent sources. There is insufficient evidence to show that the company meets the notability guidelines for companies or the general notability guidelines -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of PR guff but also a lot of genuine coverage like [15]. It's a big service (I use it) so I'd be very surprised if it's not notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, weakly. Easily meets the "I heard of it before seeing a Wikipedia article" test, but this may not be true of the general public. Some small but substantive coverage in books[16] and legal periodicals[17] would appear to meet the general notability guideline. This is now a part of Lexis/Nexis and that may be a merger candidate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article provides an adequate claim of notability and the source in the article as well as others available establish notability. This article is thoroughly integrated into Wikipedia through numerous inbound links. Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google searches reveal lots of coverage. Although a quite a number of them are PR releases, there are ample independent sources from which to meet the substantial coverage threshhold for notability.--PinkBull 19:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not just a notable database publisher, but one of the leaders in its field, with enough evidence to show it DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comment above. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recovering catholic[edit]

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

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

Title is a neologism, subject is non-notable. Original author wrote un-encyclopedic sounding sentences without sources. Has since been edited and sourced by others, but still short and still neologism. Original author has done no other work. Content reads as biased. Subject matter is covered sufficiently in other articles in more encyclopedic manner. Klopek007 (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete By WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary there should not be an article on an expression itself, although there are some anyway. (I guess by WP:Ignore all rules.) The topic of former Catholics should be covered somewhere, but under a neutral title. Borock (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is an article on Lapsed Catholic, but the article that's up for deletion differentiates between the two terms. However, the differentiation is unsourced. Before committing one way or the other, I'd like to see a source for that, but I will say that I'm not impressed by the sources there right now. For example, "The Complete Idiot's Guide" series should hardly be taken as the final word on anything. Kansan (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above: Besides just Lapsed Catholic, the subject matter is sufficiently covered in Apostasy in Christianity, as well as various articles on religion/agnosticism/atheism in general. Klopek007 (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage there is good enough for me, then. Kansan (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is already a lapsed Catholic article, this is a bit of Urban Dictionary-ish work on a neologism. The term has an inherently POV-laced connotation, I note, an ironic pairing of "recovering alcoholic" with "Catholic." —Carrite, Oct. 12, 2010.
• Delete as a neologism without widespread coverage in serious sources. Kansan (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looking at the Google News and Google Books above, there are PLENTY of reliable sources which use this term. Calling it a neologism ignores this evidence, and I see no evidence that any above !voters have made any effort to use the basic tools to search for sources on this term. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I have flagged the article for rescue and will likely be adding sources from these searches over the next day or two. Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merely having sources does not make something worthy of wikipedia, nor does it change the fact that the title, as noted above, has "inherently POV-laced connotation." Klopek007 (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? Need I bring up that we have an article on nigger, perhaps the most beyond-the-pale inherently POV-laced word in modern English? Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the controversy surrounding that term is why it's there. It's been in use for hundreds of years, and these days some insist that it's only ok for certain people to say. Unless "recovering catholic" is actively trying to be made into a slur, then it can't even compare to "nigger"; and even then it would be like comparing a puddle to a lake. Just because there's an article for the most well known racial slur (nigger) doesn't justify having an article for EVERY slur. As noted above, this belongs on urban dictionary, not wikipedia, although it could certainly find a home on a "list of" type article. Further, this term inexplicably picks out a specific denomination rather than Christianity as a whole, or even religion as a whole. That absolutely screams biased POV. Klopek007 (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, but we cover what reliable sources cover, regardless of whether it's pejorative or not. Any other outcome would violate WP:NOTCENSORED. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship is not the issue at all. It's a silly little neologism that's not widespread. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a soapbox. Again, the subject matter that this article is intended to deal with is fully covered in Lapsed Catholic and Apostasy in Christianity in a far more intellectual manner. Klopek007 (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Klopek007. This word doesn't have much in common with the N-word other than that both could be perceived as offensive. Entire books have been written concerning the use of nigger, so its situation is not that similar to this. Kansan (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfiction sources dealing with the term include the following from the first two pages of the Google Books search:

• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]

Pay special attention to the fifth link there--there's clearly enough usage to write a decent article on the phrase and its evolution. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, definitely some decent sources there. Seems like the article would mainly be an abridged version of all the books, though. Perhaps re-name it "List of books entitled Recovering Catholic"? I say this because while I'm sure the authors make some good points, I've still never heard it in common usage. Admittedly, my opinion of deletion is slightly weakened, especially if this article had a competent author. Still think delete though, for reasons already stated. Klopek007 (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that were all the sources that existed, that might be appropriate, but in fact it's just the smallest of surface-scratches. I haven't even looked at the Google Scholar link yet. Jclemens (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per ubiquitous search results and per Jclemens. This article seemed like a good example of the use of the word. Article needs major cleanup. The term is probably somewhat insulting to practicing Catholics, and so hopefully some of the delete !votes above are not being influenced by that. SnottyWong ^speak 22:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The example you provided is more of an op-ed, which newspaper readers are often free to write. Using a term in an opinion piece does not indicate that it is notable. Kansan (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Op-Eds don't just use a word, undefined, if it's a non-notable neologism. If it's used in such a manner as this example, it means the author expects that his or her audience will understand the term and its implications. Sure, it's not a detailed etymological analysis of the term... but it is evidence of its common usage. Jclemens (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Based on large number of Google News and Google Book search, showing the term is well used in this context. Dream Focus 11:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Now that I've had a chance to upgrade the article, there are 8 books that are referenced in the article or used as further reading; no more than 2-3 appear to be self-published, and no editor has posted a "delete" !vote since I posted research to validate the term was neither a neologism (note multiple reliable sources from 1992) nor non-notable. I've also removed the OR, linked relevant other articles, added it to a few relevant categories, and essentially fixed all the major outstanding problems with the article that the nominator and initial !voters complained about. WP:HEY applies. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficient sources now., DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Are there still plans to expand beyond stub form? Perhaps alternate viewpoints so as to achieve NPOV? Klopek007 (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to point out and fix the deficiencies you see using reliable sources. What POV do you think is missing? Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps response from Catholics, both layman and clergy; view of atheists/agnostics who have never been religious at any point in life. Wynn Wagner's book is included for further reading, but no views from that are mentioned. Honestly I don't have much experience with stubs, nor with the deletion/rescue process. Klopek007 (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Improvement can and should continue beyond the AfD process--ideally, it's supposed to be ongoing throughout the article's lifecycle. Wagner's book looks interesting, and even though it appears self-published I think "archbishop" would qualify him as an expert in Catholicism. I don't have access to it, though, since Google books doesn't appear to have preview access. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Upsilon Fraternity House (London, Ontario)[edit]

Delta Upsilon Fraternity House (London, Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable fraternity house.  7  07:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: as WP:CSD#A7. Toddst1 (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: almost identical article listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Upsilon – Sigma Kappa Sigma chapter Toddst1 (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Delta Upsilon chapters per WP:CLUB: "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a building, not a local chapter. Unless it is some sort of landmark (many old frat houses are) it should be deleted. The chapter itself might be a candidate for a redirect to List of Delta Upsilon chapters, but not a house. Abductive (reasoning) 03:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Fellowship North[edit]

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

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

Speedy deletion tags repeatedly removed by editor without explanation. I can see nothing notable about this organization.Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for a lack of references that establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the article: "Weekly attendence: around 25". Yep, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is no coverage in reliable third party sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly NN if only 25 attend. Too small even for my common suggestion of a merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But sort of a no consensus that appeared by comments from the community to be trending in the direction of a keep. -- Cirt (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Red Dead Redemption[edit]

List of characters in Red Dead Redemption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Characters have no independent notability from the game. Listing the entire cast would violate WP:GAMEGUIDE. PROD was declined, so I'm bringing this to AfD. Additionally article would need major copy edits to bring it out of universe, clean up grammar, and provide any sort of sourcing (though these are secondary issues). The only character that might be notable enough for the article is John Marston (Red Dead Redemption) (which could possibly have his own, but that's for another discussion). There just isn't enough coverage for a list of characters to pass WP:GNG, and Red Dead Redemption revolves only around Marston and is presented find currently without a list of characters, as any notable ones are presented throughout the plot. Teancum (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as it was created by a banned user in violation of the ban. Nymf _hideliho! 20:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Red Dead Redemption. There have been edits since creation by non-banned users, in good faith, so I don't think the speedy applies as such. That said, I don't see why a section of the main article couldn't list the characters and their voice actors (if any - never played this game). The main article is not overly long, so there's room to add characters without forking the article. Much of this content would, of course, be pruned down, and I don't think that's a bad thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I again want to point out that the plot mentions and introduces all important characters. I don't know if that changes your thoughts, but it seems superfluous to me to have a character list/section, particularly for those important enough to be part of the plot. --Teancum (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article was created by a now banned sockpuppet [23] whose other article contributions were reverted, apparently he adding false information. So the article needs to be proofread by someone who knows the series. The article's subject is clearly notable though, as a quick Google news search does reveal.

Network World states My favorite part of the game, surprisingly, is the voice acting, the well-written characters, and the storyline. John Marston is a complicated character, having been a bad person who is trying to make things right. The other characters in the game who give quests are equally as complex, such as the female rancher who initially saves Marston, to the marshall in Armadillo who can only do so much against the lawlessness going on around him. There’s dozens of other crazy characters you meet in this game, and some of the most entertaining portions are listening to the conversations between these characters when you’re riding off towards the next mission location.

And there are others. [24] Working on the article now, and tagging it for Rescue. Dream Focus 20:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not really following how the entire list of characters has even remotely enough significant coverage. If you're thinking Marston on his own might, I could definitely see that, but you'll be very hard pressed to find any reliable info whatsoever on the rest of the characters, let alone significant coverage. If anything John Marston (Red Dead Redemption) could be created, as I stated before. If you're wanting to work on something that can actually come out of this, that's where I would focus. Whether it was created by a banned user doesn't have much bearing on why it was brought to AfD. --Teancum (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you read ALL of what I wrote, not just the first couple of sentences? The quote is about the characters in the game, it saying others are equally as interesting, and listening to their conversations the best part of the game. Many major games have character list articles. Dream Focus 04:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I read it all, but that quote is very vague, mentioning simply "other characters" - not Jack Marston, not Bill Williamson, not Bonnie McFarlaine. Again this is easily covered in a John Maston article with a section describing his interactions. This is different from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Control races, where at least more than one race has coverage. No sources I've ever found do much more than list a secondary character's name if they're mentioned at all. Usually it mentions Marston's interactions with other characters, and not other character's roles in the game. Big difference. Let me be clear though - even though I don't see this list as passing WP:GNG, Marston himself would, and I'm all for an article on him as an individual, but a list of characters article when only one has received significant coverage is trying to dodge a bullet. Saying that other games have articles is simply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to bring those to AfD if you want to, but their inclusion is irrelevant here. Additionally, if the article is going to be rescued, it needs to be sourced. Finding sources here is nice, but implementing them into the article (and doing some major copy edits since this is clearly just a translated version from the Spanish Wikipedia) are what will make the article notable. --Teancum (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is all covered at the Red Dead Wikia, which may end up being a more appropriate venue for this information. SnottyWong ^squeal 22:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they allowed us to simply place a redirect from Wikipedia straight there, I'd agree. Just because information fits in more than one place, doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. Otherwise we'd just erase all the history and science articles, and tell people to go get a textbook. Dream Focus 04:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point though - those sorts of articles either have, or are likely to have, significant coverage from reliable sources. This one is not. If it had coverage for the entire cast, or even a few of the main characters that would be enough, but you'll only find sources on John Marston, which is enough to create an article on him, but not enough to carry the weight of the entire cast. In fact it seems like we'd be trying to go around the standards and rules, trying to justify an article on several individuals stating that not everyone needs to be notable. That might be true, but when the only character with coverage has a decent amount of coverage, its best just to create an article on that character. --06:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Characters relevant to the plot belong in the plot synopsis of the game's article. Critical reception of the characters, if exemplified in the quote above, is brief enough to be covered in the reception section of the game's article. I see no reliable coverage specific to the characters that is significant enough to justify a seperate article. Marasmusine (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the individual parts of a combination do not have to be notable--if they were, we'd be able to justify articles on each; the alternative is to merge the entire contents into the main article, not just a mere list of characters. How we divide up material about an overall notable subject is not affected by WP:GNG; WP:N is explicit that it does not refer to article content. As consensus is clear that a discussion of the characters in a work of fiction is appropriate, they have to be covered somehow. NOT GAMEGUIDE only prohibits detail which would be useful only to those actually playing the game, not just reading about it. I do not see it here. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that Notability isn't an issue, if one treats this as an extension of the main article. However, WP:WAF applies - this is excessive plot information. Marasmusine (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're also over-generalizing it. One character is notable. That doesn't hold the whole article up, particularly if that character is better served with their own article. Also as noted above the characters all have plenty of mention in the game's plot to cover the major players without becoming a WP:WAF violation. --Teancum (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a hard one as I would normally have said to merge it into the main article. Although the article has some in-universe issues, that can be fixed. The information, I feel, is worthy of inclusion in some way. So I default to Keep. - Pmedema (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a long list so I wouldn't merge it to the main article if it's going to take up article space. Deletion? Maybe not. Some of the characters have notability, including references from the New York Times & Network World. See here. Minimac (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ismail Boqor[edit]

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

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

I'm going through African unreferenced BLPs and can't find any sources for this one. The claim to notability is an award I also can't find any sources on. This was a contested prod some time ago. Banana (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am the one who nominated the article for PROD (link). My rationale: there was no establishment of notability, no explanation for the "Argent Medal of Honor", and there were no references; it had been tagged as such since May 2009. None of these issues have been addressed since the PROD was removed. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: can anyone dig up any info on this "Argent Medal of Honor"? If it is a national award for valor, then WP:MILPEOPLE demonstrates that this individual may have notability. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - in the absence of any reliable sources to establish notability. Anotherclown (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knockout Theory[edit]

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

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

I don't see anything in the article to assure me that this band meets WP:MUSIC. The subject is an unsigned high school punk band who have apparently disbanded. None of the references appear to be a reliable source. One of them is the band's website; another gives a fleeting mention of the band's 2008 performance at a community center, in front of 200 people. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The band is not notable. There's enough there that it's not a CSD case, but I doubt any third party interest exists for a broken up high school band. Huadpe (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:BAND and is not notable. In fact, their "Main Website" is no longer theirs/about them. - Pmedema (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability.--Kubigula (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The band never received enough independent coverage for notability, and the article reads like a promotional bio for getting gigs. That's especially odd for a band that no longer exists. Maybe a band member or fan is trying to keep the history alive... which should be done somewhere else. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Alzate, Ph.D.[edit]

Oscar Alzate, Ph.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Run-of-the-mill associate professor at the University of North Carolina. Highest cited paper, 45. h-index is 11. The subject for which Dr Alzate gets the most cites, Bacillus thuringiensis endotoxin, has many other papers written about it. A Google Scholar search shows 471, 470, 443, 355, 334, 266, 249, 237, 214, 197, 164, 141, 126, 113, 109, 86, 80, 79, 78, 77, 77, 74, 74, 73, 69.... citations in just the first few pages of results. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 03:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if associate professors are notable enough to be featured on wikipedia, then the universities themselves would have offered them tenure already. Nergaal (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What is considered a "notable" h-index by wikipedia standards (to factors of order unity)? Leaning towards delete since it doesn't pass any other criteria but looking for a bit more information. Also, I find highest cited is 66. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article on h-index says, "A value of about 18 could mean a full professorship, 15–20 could mean a fellowship in the American Physical Society, and 45 or higher could mean membership in the United States National Academy of Sciences." I got Alzate's highest cited number from the article. Abductive (reasoning) 16:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These values are very specific to disciplines and to subdisciplines within those disciplines. My department has at least one assistant professor (still probably two years from going up for tenure) with an h-index of 20, many full professors in the mid 40s, and only one national academy member. For this reason your earlier comparison to citation counts within the same subdiscipline is very helpful, I think a better approach than just looking at absolute numbers and trying to find the right threshold. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Yes, it is very difficult to know what's a good h-index number. But an h around 11 is worth reporting as it was considered low in all the AfDs I've seen. Abductive (reasoning) 19:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • How did you guys calculate the h-index? Nergaal (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Using Google Scholar or WebofScience, one sorts the list of publications in order from most to least cited. (With Google Scholar, care must be taken, since from time to time a higher cited paper may be hiding on the next page.) Then one counts down the list. When the number of citations is less than the count, stop. The number just before the citations dropped below the count is the h-index. For example, if a researcher has one paper with 66 citations, then one with 10, then one with 7 and one with 2, s/he has an h-index of 3. Abductive (reasoning) 00:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Citability is fairly low for biology, nothing else in the record to indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The evidence for passing WP:PROF#C1 is not strong, but the other criteria seem even farther out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above discussion (somehow I missed that line in previous skims of the h-index article). Even if it survived, and article rename would be in order, since Firstname Lastname, PhD is a pretty pufftastic title. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Day during the American Civil War[edit]

Independence Day during the American Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

At best, this should be a couple of sentences in another article. At worst, its simply bollocks: sourced to a dead link and something without a meaningful description behind a pay wall. (The material behind a pay wall may be worthless for notability: contemporary coverage of Independence Day events during the war does not establish the topic as existing any more than similar coverage would lead to an Easter during the Spanish Flu pandemic article. SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. With no publicly accessible sources provided, it's hard to ascertain whether this is even a topic worthy of encyclopedic coverage. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If there is cited information it could be added to the article on Independence Day itself. Borock (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to American Independence Day; clearly, there's good stuff here that should go in that article, but a separate article just doesn't seem necessary. The Easter/Spanish Flu is a bit of a strawman because both the holiday and the Civil War relate directly to the essence of the United States existing as a nation. However, whether something is behind a pay wall is not a reason to delete; see WP:PAYWALL. Kansan (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have any active editors seen the content of the linked sources? It would be helpful if someone could identify these sources with publication data so that the rest of us can find out whether it is worth trying to look them up by some other means (like going to the library and looking for the publication in print or microfilm). Right now I don't even know what publications the sources are from. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not and TBH, it is somewhat of a borderline case of whether it would be worth pursuing. Perhaps what postdlf found could be a good enough starting point. Kansan (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I think this article is a complete dead end. There really is only one statement of fact in the whole thing, and even that statement (about some "members" of the South holding a business meeting" or something on July 4) is too vague to really be informative or worth preserving. And the "references" given are completely unhelpful to anyone trying to track down or verify information. Better to start over, and the main Independence Day (United States) article can incorporate any information on its observance during the Civil War. I found a promising source here, particularly under the notes section on p. 62, which directly addresses the topic and provides further sources. postdlf (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: if there is anything worth salvaging, we wouldn't know, because we can't verify it. In the end, the intersection is just not notable enough for an article, and while we might be able to AGF on the paywall, we can't assume notability. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The book identified by Postdlf contains an entire chapter on how the Fourth of July was observed in Virginia during the Civil War. So it may well be possible to write a decent article about this topic, although it will probably not look much like the current version of this article. If anyone chooses to redo this article to bring it up to a decent level of quality, they should make sure to post here in this AfD so that the "delete" recommenders have a chance to change their minds, if they so choose. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm normally not really willing to reconsider on notability issues (either you have it or you don't), but I think that if a good source was able to assert notability, I might reconsider this case. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the recent (albeit short) The Fourth of July: and the founding of America (Peter Bolla, 2007), a history of the changing celebrations of the day, mentions very little about the Civil War, and that which is there is entirely focused on the North. Shimgray | talk | 18:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the information above, sources can be found to considerably expand this admittedly very weak article. That they are available is sufficient for a keep--they do not have to be in there already. I just point out the one of the key purposes of these discussions is to enable people to reconsider--that's why it is not a vote. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Kentucky, 2010#District 6. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Barr (Kentucky)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate and WP:GNG without independent sources or even a claim to notability other than running for office. TM 02:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. It's borderline call on notability as a politician, since he is the official nominee of a major party for a federal office. But that's another debate for another day, and he is not notable for other reasons. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Kentucky, 2010#District 6. Article is a close paraphrase of the subject's campaign website.[25] Subject fails notability per WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Cindamuse (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Kentucky, 2010#District 6 as per Cindamuse, no bar on expanding if elected. Codf1977 (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No outside coverage in reliable sources, trails 51-37 in the polls. Can it now, and if the earth splits open and other miracles happen, it can always be undeleted. Tarc (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:Wikipedia is not a source for election candidate biographies. Fails WP:RS and WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:POLITICIAN. Do not delete, as this is a plausible search term, and to save us the trouble having to find an admin to undelete the existing article if he should win. Ray^Talk 15:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Flatterworld (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, with recent comments post relist and sourcing notes and improvements, leaning towards a Keep on this one. -- Cirt (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunanda Pushkar[edit]

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

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

Non notable. Only claim to fame is her association and subsequent marriage with Shahshi Tharoor and the IPL Kochi controversy. The article has been deleted and recreated by the same user several times. Shovon (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:N--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable on her own. --Sodabottle (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment. The article has no inline citations but the external links section contains 2 news articles specifically about her. Is it enough? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added references for every statement currently in the article. While she is most known because of the event with the equity, she has since become notable for both her marriage and, really, being famous now in general. This very in-depth article convinces me of her notability. Silverseren^C 05:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep she qualifies because she is notable for more than 1 thing and gets coverage for it [26]. LibStar (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsman (EP)[edit]

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

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. could find no coverage on this in gnews. its band Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lola Barbershop also being nominated. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails the guidelines for notability as set out at WP:NALBUMS. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources are of vital importance to wikipedia. In this case there are available online sources of questionable quality and offline sources (the magazine itself) which are hard to access and not currently utilized. I don't see any consensus in this discussion regarding the best way to handle the situation. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cashbox Top 100 number-one singles of 1965[edit]

Cashbox Top 100 number-one singles of 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The first reference for these lists is this, a personal fansite compiled by a single user; the other reference is a site called musicseek.info, which redirects to a domain squatter. Some were also referenced to a personal website hosted by members.aol.com, also now defunct. I have looked around and have not been able to find any reliable site that archives the Cash Box positions, just the aforementioned fansite which is clearly not a reliable souce per WP:RS. Without any sort of reliable source, these articles are completely null and void, despite the obvious notability of Cash Box. Yes, we will lose this interesting info, but if we can't source it, we can't keep it. Of course, this would also mean deleting the Cash Box positions from other articles and adding it to WP:BADCHARTS since the positions can't be verified. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is absurd. Why pretend that not only you but anyone who would read this are not smart enough to know that the top single listed for a given week on a weekly magazine's chart was published in that week's issue of the magazine? You're editing the music charts section of an encyclopedia and feign ignorance to such a thing? We don't require online archives of data in order to present that data so long as it's clear exactly where an editor would expect to corroborate the data. I don't defend the legitimacy of these sites such as the one at cashbox.com that claims to be run by the new owners of Cashbox Magazine (and am not the editor who cited them), but you can't seriously defend your attempt to source the material if that attempt consists entirely of Googling for official online archives of a magazine that went defunct in 1996, and you're unable or unwilling to track down so much as a single magazine issue and/or whatever archiving of such as there may be offline. Abrazame (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cashbox is a genuine source. Why lie about that charts? Sometimes fans work is better than any other work. Can't see a valid reason to delete. Lucio Garcia

Fansites are never acceptable as reliable sources; see WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: Agree with TenPoundHammer. The source for these lists are entirely unreliable fansites. We need something more substantial. Rapastone (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(To TenPoundHammer) But the fansite isn't the source, it's an online archive of the source, whose demise predates the internet era. The source, if you'll note my post above or just give a moment's thought, is the magazine. More specifically, the source is 51 or so issues of that weekly magazine per list.

• Delete All Agree with above. Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 20:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I don't know that you're accurately characterizing the site. Clicking on the "About Us" button, one finds the two guys heading the organization are not the same person who compiled the chart data archive, and still others are involved in the new incarnation of the magazine. It's not Conde Naste over there, but at some point something becomes more than just a personal fansite. I'd have to see a good bit more to accept their notability for new, original data, but as stewards of their copyright's archives, I don't know that we can dismiss them out of hand. Abrazame (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – These are notable charts: even Billboard notes Cash Box, in the same breath as its own charts, as a key part of music charting history (Michaelangelo Matos. "Counting 'Em Down Through The Years", Billboard Sep. 20, 2008; 120 (38): 34). A distinction needs to be made between "not currently verified" and "unverifiable"—it's the latter one that is a reason for deletion according to policy. Presumably all these charts can be verified using reliable sources: books like this one, or the original print magazines themselves. So it's an editing question rather than a deletion one. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. The charts are notable enough, and I don't see it as an issue that there is no reliable online source for verifying them. The book source provided by Paul Erik (and the "Related books" given by Gbooks when you click that link) do the job of verification very nicely. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. The charts are notable enough, (maybe keep asking for more sources?).E-Kartoffel (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all -For Musicseek.info, I found a back-up copy stored at the Wayback machine/Internet archive like this copy from 2007 http://web.archive.org/web/20071231123721/http://musicseek.info/ we have to check also if the Internet archive had archived some back-up copies who was located at members.aol.com. You can also ask additionnal infos to Eo--Sd-100 (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Barbershop[edit]

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

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

fails WP:BAND. hardly any coverage [27]. also nominating its EP album: Sportsman (EP). LibStar (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails the guidelines for notability as set out at WP:MUSIC. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though not a policy or guideline, WP:TNT is what's being recommended here. If somebody wants to work on this then I'll be happy to userfy it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John_Taylor_(captain)[edit]

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

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

This page is completely illegible

Sorry if the formatting isn't correct, nominating an article seems to require some strange steps. I can't see any reason to keep this page: it looks like a badly formed argument about something, but I can't make heads or tails of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeraldemon (talk • contribs) 2010-10-12 02:26:53

• Delete. The article tries to untangle various Revolutionary War John Taylors (one of whom may or may not be John Taylor of Caroline), but fails miserably. Best to start over with a clean slate. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It's an article where the people editing don't seem to understand the concept of an article talk page. So instead they've annotated the article. There was a legible article here, once upon a time. On the other hand, the mis-placed talk page commentaries dispute pretty much all of its content. The cited sources are no use. Aside from the fact that several of the citations don't fully identify a source at all, the ones that do appear to be pointing to mentions of a John Taylor, which have apparently been stitched together on the assumption that they are all talking about the same John Taylor. In short: Yes, this is a confused, badly written, badly sourced, uninformative, mangled, mess. Uncle G (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the annotator is correct, then this article apparently confuses several people into a single biography. (See Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein.) It would probably be best to delete this page and start over, but allow the creation later of biographies of any of the individual John Taylors who are notable and can be distinguished from each other. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have moved the in-line comments to the talk page for reference. This should make it easier to assess the actual article. It is possible that the subject(s) of the article is/are notable, but currently it seems to confuse numerous different people, and to be so poorly sourced and explained that it is very hard to judge. If the article or articles are ever to work, then a clean slate would be best, and this one ought to be deleted.--Korruski^Talk 10:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agreed, a fresh start here would be best. Looking at the old stub version provided by Uncle G, I'm not terribly confident that the original subject met notability, either - and a rambling list of multiple John Taylors is certainly not. Best to start over. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubify to the version noted by Uncle G and find someone willing to wade through the comingling of three (or more?!) biographies and fix this article up to a proper biography. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No clear indications of any notability based on the sources in the article Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubify to the version noted by Uncle G. Edward321 (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh We're from Dear Old Wesleyan[edit]

Oh We're from Dear Old Wesleyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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