< 18 October | 20 October > |
---|
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability per WP:WEB, zero mention of this online apart from company site, this article and a Crunchbase entry. Single WP:Primary source is sole reference in article, no references from WP:Reliable sources. First-person personal account of site's construction suggests WP:Conflict of interest. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP: all available sources appear to be local, promotional and link-sharing sites. I could not find coverage of any significant depth in independent sources. Not presently a notable organization. —Tim Pierce (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP of a musician which doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Per MUSICBIO, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band". There is no indication that this individual has demonstrated notability outside of The Clarks. All sources in the article are WP:PRIMARY and Facebook. SnottyWong speak 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Jeopardy!. PhilKnight (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable aspect of a television game show. WP:NOTINHERITED, and this is a clear example of a minor, non-notable feature of production for a television show. Main television show article does not even mention Jeopardy! Clue Crew within the article.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article survived an earlier AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bart Hendrikx) but was later speedy deleted per CSD#A7 (Logs).
If I didn't fill this out correctly, sorry. This is strange territory for me. Help is always accepted. Eddylandzaat (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to York Region District School Board#Elementary schools. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable elementary school fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong speak 22:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:COPYVIO. This article contains no commentary. It is a simple reproduction of a subjective list created by the magazine for publication with the express purpose of selling magazines and as such is violation of their intellectual property. After Midnight 0001 21:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not appear to meet the Notability (sport) requirements, particularly those reserved for High School sports people; High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Note that the first clause would exclude all school papers and school websites along with most sport specific publications. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage, especially game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews E. Fokker (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EP with no evidence of notability. Albacore (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 18:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability, can't find significant coverage in reliable sources for this software; the name doesn't help, either. Software is apparently unfinished and official website is apparently dead, so I don't think we will be getting any more coverage of it. T. Canens (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of the article is of no importance or significance: i.e. a real person, who appears NOT to meet criteria for notability for inclusion. Also main editor of this article appears to have a close connection with the subject: i.e. person himself . Mootros (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a promotional (auto)biography, and fails to establish notability as per WP:BIO. This is related to AfD Harsh Vardhan Jain. -Addionne (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn and no !votes for delete. (NAC) Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No more indication of Notability beyond it opening a month ago failing WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a failed piece of proposed legislation. It did not receive consensus and was therefore not enacted. The article's name is also ambiguous; "Bill C-215" has been used several times when proposed legislation has been introduced. (see this link, for an example from 2005.) PKT(alk) 18:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is for deletion on the basis that the subject fails the relevant inclusion guidelines. The consensus in respect of the coverage presented is that (a) it does not establish notability and (b) is related only to one event. Mkativerata (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. Disputer said there were lots of google hits, however most if not all of the google hits I have looked at are trivial coverage and not enough to establish notability. He is a non-notable amateur hockey player who has yet to play professionally or meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Players at this level are routinely deleted. DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. hoax DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article was PRODded in 2008 with the reason "Probable hoax, no mention of a second son for King Faisal I of Iraq in genealogies on the Iraqi Royal Family", and deleted. Undeletion has been requested by an IP, so I have restored it and bring it here. I have found nothing online that did not appear to be a Wikipedia mirror. The official Jordan government page on the Hashemite Royal Family shows that King Faisal I had only one son, Ghazi. The only link in the article goes to an organization called "Royal Academy of Science International Trust" which appears to be real and claims to have been founded by Prince Mohammed; but per WP:V we should not keep this without a reliable source for the claim that Faisal I had a second son. The SPA author also created articles about the Prince's son (PRODded) and daughter (deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Nisreen El-Hashemite, where other evidence is cited that Faisal I had only one son). JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing this for deletion. It has been at the bottom of the unpatrolled list for 30 days and if nothing is done it will tacitly default to keep. This is a copyvio through translation from the French of various blocks of texts taken from http://limousin-grandmont.com/cariboost1/index.htm. What the bibliographical sources in the footnotes contain, w have no way of knowing, and the links to the maps are not relevant. A few sentences in the lead have been taken and translated from the fr.Wiki article. The creator /translator of the article may have a COI. Kudpung (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is very tenuous. None of the books published by this organization appear to be notable; ergo, the company likely is not notable either. A quick Google search ([13]) shows that the only sources that have written about this company are its own official website (of course) as well as several FRINGE websites, such as that of Israel Shamir. None of the sources appear to be reliable, or sufficient to establish notability. Neither the Southern Poverty Law Center nor the Anti-Defamation League has commented on the subject, nor have any mainstream news outlets. Anti-Semitic, yes. Notable, no. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Self-published author of questionable notability. Provided sources are mainly blogs. No significant coverage (Twitter mentions are not significant coverage) from independent third-party reliable sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"work with editors at newspapers, magazines, and websites to obtain positive reviews and create feature coverage for [an author's] book" [14].
There is no way to determine which author (traditionally published, or not) has attained credibility in this way, unless they make a statement. Is this truly credible, in a 3rd party neutral kind of way, when the credibility from the source could have been purchased/bought? Elfpunk (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails as per Future Films criteria of WP:FILMS Mspraveen (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There already exists a more comprehensive article, List of college men's basketball coaches with 600 wins, which includes not only Division I head coaches but also all NCAA levels' coaches with at least 600 wins. The article I'm nominating is basically a subset of it, rendering it obsolete. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Jerome Grandsire and Emmanual Marty and redirect Funpause to Big Fish Games. –MuZemike 00:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails to provide any indication of notability, nor any supporting references. Having worked at a company with best-selling games, unfortunately, is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:
- Addionne (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:AUTHOR. Books are self-published ("A. A. Alvarez Publishing"). Rd232 talk 15:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published book ("A A. Alvarez Publishing"); major contributor to this and A. A. Alvarez appears to be the author. Rd232 talk 15:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. CopyVio, no evidence of suitable cc license Ronhjones (Talk) 22:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With a prize pot of £100,000 and final events taking place at the O2 Arena, this festival should be more notable, but apparently it isn't. Only one significant result in gnews: a local paper covering this year's winner (along the lines of "home town band makes good"). All provided references are from primary sources (the festival's own website and its MySpace page). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, this article was uploaded today and I am unsure why exactly it is being marked for deletion. It seems the point of view of Dan61 is that a search on gnews is the way to determine whether an article should stay up. Is this correct? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.3.220 (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fair enough. The blog is owned by the contributor, so it's not a copyright issue. If you Google "Surface Festival" there are lots of worthy news stories on blogs etc, however, if you feel that the Festival is not worthy of Wiki and does not fit your criterion please delete as appropriate. However, we would be sad to see it go :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.174.235 (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dan, The reason there is not much out there in terms of “news” is because the Surface Festival launched on 1st October 2010. Therefore it has only been around for 19 days. In 2011 the Festival claims 500 shows, 24 global sponsors, 14 cities across the U.K. and Europe and £100,000 of prizes to be won at the o2 in London. Over the coming months one will see major articles about the event in key publications that are relevant to the music industry. The news stories about this event will grow substantively in the coming months. May I suggest to you therefore that it would be wise to keep the article and to reassess its suitability in a month or so.
In respect of the copyrighted material, I completely agree with you that it is impossible to ascertain whether permission has been granted unless proof is given. Therefore I can arrange for an email from Surface Festival to be sent tomorrow to Wiki confirming permission for the material to be used. If a reference is required on the page we can add that too. Please advise on the best course of action. Thanks for your time and assistance in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.174.235 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion is complete nonsense and of course will not happen. Clearly the article will be removed, therefore please feel free to remove the article as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.174.235 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While we are waiting on the outcome can we remove the massive red box at the top of the article which suggests the page is about to be deleted. It looks messy and ruins the article. If this cannot be done please remove the article, or the original poster (my collegue) can remove it tommorow when she gets into the office, if that helps. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.174.235 (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we will remove the artical tommorow. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.136.229 (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotional autobiography, doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO in any case. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable browser-based computer game. Whilst no doubt a fun game, it's developed by a redlinked developer, has had no mentions in the press that I can find, and makes no claim to notability in the article itself. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page has no information and no references - and though I am sure the game will come out, this article would invariably have to be completely rewritten and renamed. It is a prime example of using Wikipedia as a Crystal Ball, and gives the impression of having been written for promotional reasons. I am reluctantly putting it here instead of nominating for speedy deletion, which is where my instinct would have me put it. -Addionne (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear notable as it is, even though he has worked with some who apparently are. Another indicator of lack of notability (though by no means policy-related or fool proof) is that the article was not created until the date of this person's death. -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) 12:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable? He played on 5 Grammy nominated albums, and was one of the most well respected side men in the business. To be notable is not just to be famous. Some of the best musicians in the world are mostly sidemen. His contributions to a great number of blues albums is definitely a mark of notoriety. He was an arranger, composer, musician and author. He was a teacher. Through all those things, he impacted a number of people. Again, he was continually asked to perform and record with the biggest names in the blues industry. That's notable. The current list of recording credits is nowhere near complete, he has played on hundreds of records, and has toured with the best blues musicians in the world.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A single-source article where the main author fails to follow Wikipedia guidelines in many respects, despite discussion on Talk page. While the article has multiple references, the topic is about some difference from standard procedures, where there is only a single source for this idea, and where this idea is not actually explained. There are many other problems. My suggestion is Userfy rather than deletion, but there seem many hurdles to cross before this article could be made acceptable. Melcombe (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Melcombe said, this article is from a single soruce. Right, since so far there is only one paper in a conference proceedings (Note: please see Correction below ----Yuanfangdelang (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)). However, the ideas as well as the analytical logic of the new method are right. The current ones take an optimization to determine the threshold as well as the expectation of piecewise models. This is wrong. Why? The segmented variabel X, the combined residuals R of all piecewise models and the matrix M of the piecewise regression coefficients are all random variables in the data iteration for searching the unknown threshold. How can we use the min(R) to determine the expectation of the M, E(M)? Is the correspondence between the min(R) and the E(M) a certain correspondence? The answer is NOT. It is a random correspondence. What corresponds to the E(M) is the E(R) but not the min(R). Thus, the current methods are theoretically incorrect in Mathematics!!![reply]
The second serious mistake is the assumption of the enforced continuity. This is not a statistical hypothesis, no one can assume the continuity in a random space if the unknown threshold(s) exist in it. In a staitstical point of view, we need a probabilistic inference for the continuity.
Since the optimization is wrong, and the continuity cannnot be enforcedly assumed, we cannot take the current methods to estimate the unknown thresholds. We must find another way.
No one has ever doubted the current methods. Ligong Chen is the first and the only one.
I strongly urge you to retain these new ideas so that more and more people could have an opportunity to realize the mistakes in the current system. However if you think that this article violate the wiki rules due to some original researches, I can eliminate the part of "Preperation of Concepts".
I have invited many people to discuss the new analytical logic and the new method. Actually the new method had been discussed with many statisticians at the two conferences (2007 JSM and 2009 JSM), no one could deny it. I believe that more and more people will accept it.
Due to my English writing skill is poor, I wish someone could help it and clean up all linguistic issues.
Anyway, please give me a last notice before you delete this article from the wikipedia if you insist to delete it. I would like to make a copy before the deletion.
Thanks a lot! ----Yuanfangdelang (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|}According to the weblink, I carefully checked the policy, and made an evaluation for the article as following:
The article does not violate any copyright.
The article is clearly not a vandalism but a serious introduction to a new statistical method.
The article is not an advertising or other spam.
Yes, the article can be considered to be merged with the existing article, such as segmented regression and/or Spline,etc.
The article cited many literatures from the published journals and conference proceedings. It is not a hoax.
The source of the article is reliable since it is an official website of the American Statistical Association, and the paper published in the conference proceedings can be officially cited in any case.
I don't exactly understand this term.
The article does not breach the policy on any of living person.
The article is not redundant but still in construction and will merge with others.
The article does not represent an overcategorization. It is in the domain of Regression in Statistics.
The article is not unused or obsolete. It is new. However, I cannot be ensured if it violates the non-free policy on not.
The article is not for a personal purpose but for introducing a new method into a wider range of the public.
This term needs to be clarified by an authorized person.
Therefore, I strongly urge that you change your mind to delete it from the wikipedia. A formal merge procedure is needed as soon as possible once I finish it. I believe that the people in the future will realize that this article as well as all the discussion on it will be an important event in the history of Statistics since it will cause a strong impact to the current knowledge system of Statistics. ----Yuanfangdelang (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|}
Some people even including myself here thought the methodology in the article Piecewise regression analysis came from a single source. This was wrong. It exists at least two different public sources. One is the Chinese journal of Public Health; and the other is the proceedings of the 2007 JSM and the 2009 JSM. Actually if we take into acount all the other literature in the references, the whole methodology came from more than just the two soruces above since the new method is based on the criticisms on the all existing theories and methods. Therefore, it is a multiple-source article; and the method is an improved one. Thus, I cannot agree with the deletion proposal except in the case that thoes who proposed to delete can prove the all sources listed in the references are not reliable public sources; or they can prove that the new methodology as well as its fundametnals are totally wrong. In fact, no bady can do either.----Yuanfangdelang (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot hide my comments and even delete my correction. Thanks! ----Yuanfangdelang (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New article on an actress that doesn't improve on the one deleted after the previous discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorna Bennett (actor)). Similar but not identical to the deleted article so wasn't a G4, so I prodded it but the prod was removed, so bringing it here. It's a shame that we have to waste more time discussing this but... Michig (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin close) there isn't really a policy-based reason to delete the article. Secret account 22:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Wikipedia:Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.
Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:
Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The BLP1E arguments ahve not been rebuted. Consensus to delete has been established. Courcelles 18:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Wikipedia:Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.
Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:
Appearing on 22 episodes of a game show and setting a record in a high school quiz bowl are not criteria that proves notability. Article also contains WP:OR about records he "is believed" to hold, such as "the longest ever 'real-time' champion since he taped his first show on December 14, 2004 and his last regular play show on July 9, 2005" Bulk of statistics in article are also unreferenced. Article contains anectodal mention of a hike the subject made across the US for charity, which again does not prove notability.
Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article's subject matter is not notable. No info save the possible authors own site. WP:FAILN The article appears to be speculative. The citations failed to provide any information regarding the subject of the article nor were germane regarding the subject matter discussed. The article looks good but fails because there is nothing to write about as there is no information in the the available regarding the subject. Several claims are made, most unlikely none likely to be substantiated.
The cartridge is a project that has been in the works for some years. It is likely a pet project by Jonson vis a vis Jonson Arms. Apart from Jonson Arms no one seems too interested to discuss the topic or write about it.
Possible conflict of interest WP:COI
Possible sockpuppetry/meat puppetry
Please check Talk:7.62 Jonson regarding the latter two issues. DeusImperator (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trout DeusImperator & Keep Seriously DeusImperator? Adding a few dozen citiation needed tags to an article? The proper procedure is to add one top banner mentioning that it has little or no citations. I'm sure in the amount of time you took to add all those tags, you could have found the top banner, shaved, ate lunch, and watched something intersting on TV. Your trout is in the mail. As for the article, I'm sure with one or two passes by someone who knows hunting, the article will be in just as good of shape as any of the thirty other articles on lesser used ammunition. Look at List of rifle cartridges, most have their own pages. The fact that I can find sources means I am voting for a keep. I just don't know enough about the topic to be a useful editor on the page. Sven Manguard Talk 06:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article makes many claims which are unsupported. The claims the contributor regarding any numeric values should be supported. There is no evidence of that anywhere. Further to that, what is the Johnson Factor? And how would someone know whether it complies with this Johnson Factor if no one knows what this Johnson Factor could be. And as for the cites no cite provided even relates to the cartridge. Also, what has the Delta L problem got to do with this cartridge? Red herrings? Most of the cites are for areas which made claims which cannot be substantiated or were over reaching. Sorry about the over zealous cites though.
The other thirty or so cartridge are listed and written about and some form of media. However, 6.5 Jonson is listed nowhere. it is not a notable cartridge.
Unsubstantiated claims which were claimed that should be verified:
None of the footnotes even provide evidence of what it is being cited for in the footnote let alone saying anything about the Jonson cartridge. Just because there are footnotes does anyone bother fact checking them? It is footnoted so it must be true. Heard that before. One of the best one (before it was removed) was the Delta L problem being listed for the cartridge; what a laugh. How could it even have a Delta L problem as neither CIP nor SAAMI have even published anything remotely regarding this cartridge (and I have access every single publication by both entities).
I have no doubt that the cartridge can be used to hunt. But is there evidence that it was used to hunt the specified species? And really how many hunters out there hunt with the Jonson cartridges? Not more than a maximum of 5 in total and I am being generous.
As for stealing editors time... Let me explain... No one can be stealing anything that is given away freely. So unless the wiki has chosen to pay an editor, you volunteer your time. If the wiki is stealing your time then find a place that does not steal your time.
DeusImperator (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as deletion reasons not supported or referenced
Please replace the 7.62 Jonson and 9mm Jonson articles until this discussion can be attended by persons without obvious bias
The references at this top of this page cannot be verified because the 7.62 Jonson and 9mm Jonson articles have been deleted without complete discussion or verification and only the word of one person
I will repeat that this is a one-person attack on articles that were well researched, written from interviews with the inventor/designer of the rounds, and it was expected that others would contribute to the efficacy of the information, not attack them for no reason and delete them from wiki for little reason and with no discussion, except his own comments.
Here's one as an example: None of the footnotes even provide evidence of what it is being cited for in the footnote let alone saying anything about the Jonson cartridge. Just because there are footnotes does anyone bother fact checking them? It is footnoted so it must be true. Heard that before. One of the best one (before it was removed) was the Delta L problem being listed for the cartridge; what a laugh. How could it even have a Delta L problem as neither CIP nor SAAMI have even published anything remotely regarding this cartridge (and I have access every single publication by both entities). See the Delta L note another wiki member made Talk:6.5 Jonson and you'll see this comment is bogus. Meksikatsi (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree there might be areas that depend on "talking with the inventor" in this article, however, an article should not be deleted because parts of it are not reliably sourced. My comments on the Talk:6.5 Jonson page address this point. DeusImperator complains that the author references Delta L as not being applicable to the Jonson rounds as they are not CIP or SAAMI registered. Delta L does not only refer to CIP and SAAMI registered cartridges, so is this error alone on the part of DeusImperator enough to disqualify him from commenting on the article? No. Then why should an entire article be deleted on the basis that some of the article's comments are not referenced. Take out the offending comments, sure. But deleting, without proper discussion over time, entire articles that refer to actual, commercially-viable rifle rounds should not happen.
For my personal edification, how would one reference comments in an interview from an inventor? If these articles are deleted, then I agree with meksikatsi that the 6 mm PPC article should go also, for some of the same reasons, for forum articles are not reliable references, as AliveFreeHappy has noted, and that article relies on them. 100%BulletProof TALK 17:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not putting that much effort in although others are. I can support the article author and provide some other references, as in the Australian article I just added. But I repeat that I believe the other Jonson cartridge articles should be put back up until a time where it's obvious there are no other references to be made and to let the author fix what is wrong. Putting an article up for AfD and deleting it in the same month without any input from the author or other contributors doesn't seem to be serving the wiki community.
I do see your point on the OtherStuffExists rule but my point was that not all the info in the Jonson articles is undocumented. I think that you can get rid of the offending material without destroying an entire article about an existing and commercially manufactured rifle cartridge and weapons. 100%BulletProof TALK 19:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delta L problem does not apply to this cartridge if one were to look at the min. max chamber dimensions provided it is when the cartridge max published size is greater than the chamber min size published. So how would there be a Delta L problem here? Who published this dimensions? And if it is a wildcat cartridge a Delta L issue is a non-issue because a Delta L issue is ever present. But no one is going to run around screaming Delta L problem Delta L problem Delta L problem. IT IS A GIVEN! If it is a proprietary cartridge the cartridge owner exercises control over reamers etc. so it should not be an issue unless company is unable to maintain and produce equipment to the correct tolerances. All equipment would have to be purchased form Jonson for this cartridge and if the cartridge was not to fit in the chamber who's problem is that? The Delta L is not mentioned in the article but just added whimsically to the references. Someone with a modicum of intelligence removed it as there was nothing in the article talking about it anyway.
I stand by the statement I made regarding the footnotes. None of the 4 mentioned support what they are cited for let alone talk about the 6.5 Jonson. The values referenced by Footnote #1 Where the heck does Layne Simpson talk about the Jonson cartridge in the article 20th Century Top Cartridges does he give any values regarding velocity for the info box? And if foot note #1 is used what is it attempting to cite?
What is the Jonson factor? What is the algorithm. What it is should be defined in some manner or removed. DeusImperator (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cartridge volume, pressure, barrel length, bore friction and propellant are the only considerations as far as bullet velocity is concerned. Whatever is claimed by this Jonson factor would have to follow real world physics. Unless something magical/supernatural is happening inside this cartridge none of these velocity values claimed are approachable. The article is written to increase interest in the cartridge which has no prior notability going for it.
I have run the capacity numbers and have come up with the following a the absolute chamber volume of (minus the base volume) the 6.5 Jonson and found this value in grains H2O capacity of 102.4431124 for the 6.5 Jonson. The volume of the .264 Winchester Mag Absolute volume above the belt rim gives 101.9756434 grain of H2O. Obviously if one understands the measurement the .264 Winchester Mag will actually hold about 10 grains more if the volume is calculated in the same manner as the 6.5 Jonson was when not accounting for belt rim volume. So quite a bit extra credit has been provided for the 6.5 Jonson. So following the PV=nRT and F=PA how could the 6.5 Jonson provide a higher velocity than the .264 Win mag given equal pressures (not looking a propellant factors)? Oh that is right MAGIC or in this case the Magic Jonson Factor!!!
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ARTIST, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article was originally titled Alex King (bet_winner), and was prodded on grounds of WP:SINGLEEVENT, failing WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E apart from the one event, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources for anything other than the single prank noted. Article has now been renamed, but is still almost entirely about the person who played the prank. The prank itself had brief coverage in the UK national press, but still fails notability per WP:Notability (events) , including WP:EFFECT, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:SENSATION. Top Jim (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been at Wikipedia for years, and although there are many versions of the article in the history, it is always at some level of self-promotion. The sourcing in the current iteration of the article is nonexistent. There seems to be a better, more neutral version of the article at this old diff, but in that version as well, the only sources that seem to be writing about this organization are written by the organization's founder. I looked for reliable independent sources] I could use to clean up this article, and didn't find any. Google books wasn't any more help. If no one outside the organization is writing about it, then there's no independent information from which to write a better article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from the talk page: Sorry for having been so slow to respond to all of these issues. I created the page initially, which I understand that I shouldn't have done. Others have since picked up an interest in updating the article. I am writing now hoping that it is okay that I add some references here in the deletion discussion. Here are links to some other sites that discuss various things about the Deep Democracy Institute.
http://www.ita2010.com/Max-Schupbach http://eurotas.org/about-us/newsletter/no-60---16-05-2010.html http://www.turningforward.org/associates.html http://www.livingdemocracy.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=103 http://practicalmysticmusings.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/deep-democracy-conflict-resolution-and-polarity/ http://www.processwork.sk/en/contacts.html http://www.aamindell.net/blog/2010-news http://www.janus.org.br/ http://pacificinstitute.org/deepdemocracy.html http://www.iapop.com/dissertations/hamann-organisational.pdf http://www.processworkaustralia.org.au/community.html http://www.dawnmenken.com/contact.html http://processworkireland.org/resources.shtml http://infolokerterbaru.com/info-deep-democracy-institute--facebook.html http://www.aamindell.net/news-2007.htm http://www.processworklane.com/pocr.htm http://events.linkedin.com/Evolutionary-Leadership-Business/pub/448170 http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/08/26/be-gracious-dont-lose-twice/
Stanfordsiver (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This Deep Democracy Institute page is important in that there is discussion of it in numerous other places, and this is growing. The Institute has a number of projects which is drawing interest in different parts of the world due to the principles of deep democracy, and the impact of the application of those principles to conflict zones. Nick Turner Nickturnerwiki (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The Deep Democracy Institute offers leadership programs around the world. The global reach of this program and related activities open up new and diverse networks and partnerships across sectors and disciplines. This page offers a valuable information source for the diverse entry points, locations and contexts of a growing community of leaders, conflict resolvers and entrepreneurs.
Julia Wolfson, Turning Forward, Australia Julia.wolfson (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I checked the first three links on that list, and none of them were reliable, independent sources writing in detail about Deep Democracy Institute. Maybe someone could weed out the other links that aren't helpful? The ones you should leave are the ones that are published independently of the organization, and write in detail about its importance- newspaper articles, magazine articles, books by people who aren't in the institute, for example. Just a bunch of links to associate organizations doesn't do anything but make it difficult to find the useful sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
After seeing the histories of notices and issues with this article, I wrote the current version with the intention of greater neutrality and description than the previous version. I also followed examples that I saw on other wiki articles. I understand that the wiki editor thinks that the previous version was actually better and I would be happy to change back or to incorporate the best of both but I don’t yet understand completely how to do that in the most neutral way. Hoping to receive thoughts from others and recommendations for improvements to this one or integrating the two.
Also, I see the discussion of the sources and want to add here some independent information about DDI. Some of it is through a DDI URL but opens an article or interview that is sourced elsewhere: I am adding it now to the discussion in hopes that the notice to delete will be removed and also I, and others, will be integrating these sources into the main article soon.
Interview with ShrinkRapRadio
Interview at Ukrainian Business School
Interview at Ukrainian Business School
Article in Journal of University of Stellenbosch Business School
University of Stellenbosch Business School
article on deep democracy discussing ddi
Deep Democracy, Conflict Resolution and Polarity
Deep Democracy Institute’s New Programs on Arny & Amy Mindell website
Evolutionary Leadership in Business
I know that there are other articles and interviews, which I will track down and add to this list and to the article’s references.
Nickturnerwiki (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Nick Turner
I have been a participant for several years in the original Deep Democracy Institute program in the West Bank, Palestine. and i'm doing my Master program in Conflict facilitation and deep democracy because of their effect on me from Palestine. I think this page adds a lot to that program and I know that many of us have read what is here and hope to see more. I know that there are some articles written about their work in Arabic and I will search for online sources and references to add to what is here. I hope that this article continues to grow, as the institute is doing, and feel that is deserves support. Mohammadargh (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
end of copying
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non notable software. unsourced and very few google hits - nothing to establish notability. noq (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain, we have added a link in the Wiki Article about a very recent implementation of Koopcas to a big cooperative in Northern Luzon Philippines, they are the first cooperative that publishes to the web regarding their implementation of KoopCAS, more cooperatives will follow soon. This can be referred to as making this software notable. Please do consider retaining this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.71.133 (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Boldly redirected to Secrets Can Kill, the video game that this is an element of. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't speedy this because it doesn't fit neatly in any of the categories, but it seems like an obvious delete. This is an article about a particular plot element in a particular character's life in a barely notable Nancy Drew video game. Tried to prod, but creator removed the tag saying this article serves as some sort of "tribute". I'm not sure what that means. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N ? I think so. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure skin care product manufacturer; not notable. —Chowbok ☠ 08:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable magazine, too new to be notable yet. No reliable third-party sources. Prod was removed by probable COI editor (same name as founding EIC of the magazine). Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. CSD G11. This article is an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to fail the notability for organizations guidelines. There are 466 colleges affiliated with the Uttar Pradesh Technical University and there is little independent evidence of notability for this business college in the article or available on Google and none on Google News. This private college offers a PGDM (post-graduate diploma in management) but not an MBA. Currently the references provided are generic and do not establish a case against the general notability guidelines. There may be a better (certainly easier) case for an article about the SRMS group of colleges. Earlier PROD (and improvement templates) removed so raising for wider discussion.
Note, rather than a 'free-standing' college of education, this organization is a private business school in turn part of the private group of educational companies managed by Shri Ram Murti Smarak Trust. The PGDM course is affiliated with the University, presumably by having associate lecturers on loan. Consequently the most appropriate interpretation of notability can be found at Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Education in the bullet point called Departments or degree programs with Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines#Faculties and academic colleges providing similar guidance that there is no assumption of automatic notability for such organizations. Fæ (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe this local amateur league, the highest division of which sits at the notional 13th level of the English football league system, merits individual season articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30 days in the New Page Patrol queue because nobody knows what to do with it, so I'm offering it for a decision by the community. The article has an extremely promotional tone and is peppered with inline links to his own website. No inline sourced references. Notable or not, this is blatant advertising and would need a massive rewrite and many WP:RS to conform to policy. Article was posted by a single use account (WP:SPU). Kudpung (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Moment of inertia. –MuZemike 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article pretty much amounts to a how-to article. The first two paragraphs are just introductions to moment of inertia and mechanics, which leaves the last paragraph about how to measure the equivalent moment of inertia of worm and wheel. Moreover, this topic is completely not notable. Wizard191 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability guidelines under WP:MUSICBIO. Artist has released one album which has not charted. Can't source the Billboard quote Plad2 (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Obvious G10 Courcelles 07:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy blanking was proposed under CSD G10 John Nagle (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy deletion was proposed, and is contested, so an AfD is appropriate under WP:DP to resolve the issue. See this version of the article for the content.)
The main issue here is the title of the article. The article content is a list of members of the R. family who have been convicted of crimes or are out on bail awaiting trial. This totals six people. All criminal activity is properly cited to reliable sources such as the New York Times, and is not in dispute. The question is whether putting those items in the same article constitutes "synthesis" under Wikipedia rules. There was some previous discussion of simply titling the article "Rubashkin family", but mixing the crooks and the non-crooks in the same article seemed to create WP:BLP issues. The use of the term "crime family" is the sticking point. An alternative title might fix the problem. This needs some neutral observers. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely original research. The product/company isn't all that notable D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. It is noted that there is also no prejudice to merging, and that can always be done post-AFD, with additional discussion and consensus-building if necessary. –MuZemike 00:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A BLP article that, by its very nature, can never be neutral point-of-view D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep per nominator, see note below. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP, an article that is inherently NPOV by its very nature. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as nonsense/vandalism by PMDrive1061 (talk) --Lenticel (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable..is there an SD tag that will work, since WP:A7 doesn't qualify. Only an elementary/middle school http://www.orchard.org/ CTJF83 chat 04:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The arguments for deletion seem to outweigh and refute the arguments for retention here. –MuZemike 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BAND coverage consists of social networks, youtube, or cd/music selling/user reviews CTJF83 chat 04:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSONG only very few very trivial coverage CTJF83 chat 04:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This topic does not need a disambiguation page armagebedar (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 18:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is listcruft. It violates WP:SYN, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and most importantly WP:V, since it is not at all clear how the information is to be verified, partly because it is nowhere clear what information is being presented. We learn that Puerto Rico is a "servient territory" of the "dominant sovereign state" that is the America, but this doesn't help us learn what relationship actually obtains between these two entities, especially since entirely different relationships exist between the USA and the other entities listed under it as "servient" (how often is that word used in the literature anyway?). This list does not tell anybody anything, as its opening tacitly admits. Srnec (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some second-rate band's third-rate prank is not notable D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. GedUK 12:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains no useful information and is about a complete non-entity. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as the rough consensus indicates. Note that, in order to preserve attribution, if any editor wishes to move forward with splitting, the edit history will need to be undeleted. –MuZemike 00:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with the article is that it weaves together disparate incidents that are only marginally related to one another into one giant SYNTH so as to demonize a particular ethnic group. It treats events that occurred at different times and places, over a period of 100 years or so, as if they were part of a single unified plan, which is not how these events are treated in the literature. The way it is phrased and written, it also places blame on a particular ethnic group, when blame for such acts is usually directed at specific organizations or governments. The various parts of the article should be merged into the appropriate articles and "Serbian War Crimes" itself should be a category, as is the case with Category:Croatian War Crimes.
Athenean (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –MuZemike 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any serious claim of notability for this "cinematography film teacher and author". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. CSD G11, advertisement. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:CORP. looks like an advert. hardly any coverage [49]. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable BLP, even among Internet "celebrities". Orange Mike | Talk 00:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notable achievements? She works for MTV Brazil and was featured on G4_TV, those two are sufficient enough. Also what do you consider a major site? These sources listed on the page aren't exactly sites that go unnoticed, these are major sites. If you want to argue that the sites aren't good enough sources, then there are thousands of other wiki pages that should be up for deletion too.(98.223.177.254 (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Isn't MTV, G4, and Virgin Gaming reliable enough? That's three. (Rhymestyle (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The result was delete per a rough consensus for deletion as well as the arguments for deletion outweighing the sole argument for retention, which was also refuted. –MuZemike 00:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This blog seems to fail WP:WEB. I do not think that the coverage it has received meets any of the three prongs of WEB as it was trivial or appeared in other blogs. Perhaps most notable among its coverage was that Nature rated it #7 of science blogs written by scientists for the general public based on Technorati hits. But Nature only actually profiled the top five (and only put the full list online). At that time, the blog was listed as number 4,989 by Technocrati. It also received a profile on a med student blogsite hosted by WebMD, but this does not seem to be the sort of source, especially alone, that would meet WP:WEB. Novaseminary (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can find nothing in the MSM about this person, nor in books, nor anywere in fact. This person is just not notable mark (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP: BAND, refs mainly consists of non independent, not reliable sources. Also see the EL, its mainly stuff written by the group itself. Unioneagle (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Stagflation. –MuZemike 00:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. No evidence of notability, no external sources provided. LK (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stagflation. The difference between "Stagflation" and "Slowflation" is subtle, basically the same principle, and the terms should be considered as part of a single article, listed under the far more recognizable name. "Slowflation" is a neologism without much of a following, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article lacks reliable sources verifying the notability of this organization, and I wasn't able to find appropriate sources to add with my own search. Prod removed by creator with the comment, "All information has been check for accuracy by the owner of the companies, Eric Sooy," but without the addition of sources or information about the company's notability. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Teliosis (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable artist in her own right. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable concert tour. fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. References serve to only advertise tour dates and do not qualify as "significant coverage in multiple independent sources" Nouse4aname (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Nouse4aname (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Try Subterranean Press's website, which is mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.151.234 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No proper info about the airport Abhishek191288 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]