< 24 October	26 October >

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) 00:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MigdalOr[edit]

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

Small congregation that lasted for two years, and is now defunct. Fails WP:ORG. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Jerusalem Post article only mentions this congregation in passing, and thus fails as a source. The college newspaper links are broken, but even given the presumption that it qualifies as a reliable source - not generally the case for small colleges - the article titles don't give the impression they are about the subject. Almost all the statements the article makes have been citation tagged for some time, and a review of the article's edit history suggest that the notability of the subject's been at issue for years. Ravenswing 16:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the main Orthodox Jewish feminism article where it would serve as a good example of that outlook. It's WP:NOTABLE as a short-lived example of an Orthodox-oriented prayer group focused on women. Looks like it wanted to be another Shira Hadasha group. Pity that the original writer has been inactive. IZAK (talk) 21:00, 1 November 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) 00:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Florida Marlins Draft[edit]

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

List cruft. Many of these individuals will never be notable. I believe we've had successful AfD's for these pages before. Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant info from 2007 Major League Baseball Draft. Vodello (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Keep per past established consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2006 Seattle Mariners draft picks and cleanup with reliable sources. Vodello (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2006 Seattle Mariners draft picks, a similar AfD, which closed as keep. All of my keep arguments can be found there. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I was thinking of that AfD (though misremembering the result). I still think it's list cruft, though yours are unquestionably better written than this one. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since the Major League Baseball draft gets a lot of media attention, with particular attention to how individual teams did in the draft, I don't see that this list qualifies as "listcruft." Articles on baseball players and teams also frequently refer to past drafts, so the subject has enough enduring interest to qualify as encyclopedic. Meets Wikipedia criteria for stand-alone lists. BRMo (talk) 14:10, 31 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) 00:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne (mixtape)[edit]

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

Non-charting album is not notable. Rednevog (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS. Ravenswing 16:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mixtapes almost never survive AfD, unless they chart or have a cult following. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 28 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) 04:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The First Flight[edit]

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

Non-charting album is not notable. Rednevog (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose not when its covered by reliable sources and is released by a notable artist. Candy o32 22:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see no significant coverage in reliable sources, only passing mentions. The most discussion of the mixtape comes from Simmons himself in an interview, but that's not independent third-party coverage. This is a free download to create "buzz", not a charting album. It fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Hekerui (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS; reliable sources must be proven, not assumed to exist. Ravenswing 16:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 28 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) 00:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Tarver[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable as a guitarist or writer. More than a single reference is needed to support this BLP article. Rednevog (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there is no dispute that the subject meets criterion 6 of WP:BAND, as established in the initial AFD barely 60 days ago. Depth of sourcing is a ordinary editing issue, not grounds for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability requirements, just like the last AfD. Edward321 (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Generally, unless there is an exceptionally good reason, two AfDs so soon is considered taboo. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snow Keep. For the reasons stated by all the above keeps. Suggest the nom, who is a new editor, may want to watch the AfD pages for a bit and read the notability guidelines carefully before his next AfD nomination.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:52, 28 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albi the Squirrel[edit]

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

Whilst the articles subject has had mentions in several news articles, I do not believe it warrants an article of its own as it is not suitable content for an article. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unencyclopaedic content. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is neither a memorial nor a news site. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lot more coverage than your average squirrel, but not enough to overcome WP:NOTNEWS. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Albinos are unusual but not exceptional. WP:NOTNEWS. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:45, 29 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Presley[edit]

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

He is a retired minor league baseball pitcher who never even pitched above the high-A level. In fact, he spent only 30 games in the minor leagues. I don't believe that's very notable. Also, there aren't any real "sources" outside the BB-Ref and The Baseball Cube links. Alex (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A relative to Elvis Presley with a fair amount of coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to get around WP:GNG, WP:WPBB/N, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Vodello (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm All Shook Up, but I have to vote delete. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks enduring notability, per Alex and Vodello. BRMo (talk) 14:28, 31 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. I was tempted to relist this but there's a consensus that, win or lose, the subject meets WP:GNG. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Raby[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an article for a person who is a candidate for office but otherwise lacks notability. WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3 addresses this point specifically, that just being a nominee does not automatically confer notability. This article also fails the general notability guidelines, as the coverage is either a) name-drops within an article about their more well-known, notable opponent b) simple voting/registry directory of who is running for this seat, or c) on the local level only, with no national interest. Per the further explanation at WP:POLITICIAN on what to do with failures, a merger to the appropriate district page is a viable option to deletion. Tarc (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. He is the nominee of a major party for a national election, elected in the primary election. He's notable. Flatterworld (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO, Bad faith nom. Tarc has been involved in an ongoing dispute with another editor who started an ANI debate related to politicians who are running for office and the election is a week away. That editor left Tarc a snarky comment notifying Tarc of the ANI discussion. Tarc response is to open this AFD with a comment at ANI saying, so off we go with a few trial balloons. In 8 days we will have a better understanding as to whether or not these candidates win or lose and thus deserve an article or not. Anybody who casts an !vote now, which is supposed to give guidance to a closing administrator, is doing so via a crystal ball. It doesn't matter if they meet Politician today, what matters is will they when this is closed? Thus, in light of the ANI discussion, I consider this (and all other nominations made by Tarc on the subject to be POINTY.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go into some detail, he may not meet POLITICIAN, but how about GNG:

No trivial coverage in the Huntville Times [1][2][3] (The first story was later picked up and carried by US News and World Reports [4]

WHNT TV [5] has significant coverage of Raby.

Times Daily has significant coverage of Raby. [6]

Tuscaloosanews has more than passing coverage on Raby (and if this is the even I think it was, it was covered in CardPlayer Magazine.com and numerous poker magazines as well. )

Decatur Daily has more coverage on the Lucky Palace piece.

CBS WSFA tv ABC TV WAAT TV and many other TV stations covered Palace/Raby.

Even CNBC [North Ala. PACs in bribery case once run by Raby MSNBC] Bloombergpicked up the AP story: "North Ala. PACs in bribery case once run by Raby"

An LA Times article which is an interesting read and unrelated to everything else above from 1994!

There recently was a political scandal of politicians in Alabama. Do a quick search on "Steve Raby Lucky Palace" and you'll see some of the story. The long and short of it is that several Alabama Politicians (a quick view and I don't think he was one) were recently indited for corruption related to a casino deal. TMCnet, which I don't know how reliable, appears to have an in depth somewhat objective reporting of the incident here. Apparently Raby ran 4 PACs until shortly before they were given money from a casino seeking to expand gambling in Alabama. There are questions about where that money went and and the role Raby did or did not have. Raby got tons of coverage from this incident and like I said, I heard about this incident separate from Raby.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - A major candidate in a notable election for a federal office. This meets WP:POLITICIAN. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, please do not claim that a notability guideline says something that it actually does not. WP:POLITICIAN explicitly states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". Tarc (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You omitted the remainder of that sentence, which reads "although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" This person has certainly received such coverage. - Dravecky (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was addressing this user's specific deception regarding the politician guideline. The part you cite is what to do if the subject does not meet the guideline; it is not a part of the guideline itself. Tarc (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, it is part of the guideline. DC T•C 12:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The Golden Rule doesn't stop at "Do unto others" just because that "as you would have them do unto you" bit doesn't mesh with your goals. - Dravecky (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no it isn't a part of a guideline, it is a pointer/reminder that general notability can still cover a politician who does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With elections upcoming it is a real bad time to nominate individual politicians for deletion. Wholly inconsistent with the spirit of our BLP policy. Unless they are unequivically unnotable (not this person), these afd's should be speedily closed per our BLP policy.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Alabama, 2010#District 5 per precedent in similar articles (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Weber, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rami Bader (politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naheed Nenshi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Coyle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Johnston, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Marie Buerkle (Politician)). I interpret routine election coverage to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Also, the coverage about the candidate is in the context of the election, so (per WP:BLP1E) redirect to the election article. Location (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? The tag will now stay until the election; I'll cast my !vote then. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has plenty of sources, meets GNG. NOTNEWS does not apply to notable persons in such circumstances. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articles mentioned above are sufficient to pass GNG. DC T•C 11:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources clearly indicate notability under the GNG. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: (criterion 2.5) rationale clearly indicates that the nominator has failed to make any attempt to check for sources, since a very brief perusal of the links in the header here shows numerous reliable, third-party sources in newspaper articles. An identical rationale has been used for multiple other AfDs, and such a rationale very clearly does not apply here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I am able to read, thanks. That reading includes what was in the refs section of this article, and as noted, I discount coverage that is local and routine in an election cycle. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that is why this is yet another bad faith nom.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the SLIGHTEST comprehension of what "bad faith" actually means? It means if in reality I nominated these things for reasons other than what I stated or somehow misrepresented myself, e.g. I work for the person's opponent, the nomination is based on deliberate falsehoods, and so on. All of the articles I have nominated I have done so because I believe they fail the politician (person is only a nominee) guidelines, and fail the general notability (sourcing is local/routine, primary sources, or to generic data sites). If you disagree with either or both, fine, that's what a goddamned discussion is for here. But this BS by you WILL stop, one way or the other. Tarc (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT. This request is taking the wrong path. The proper path is to use the Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates, invite all those involved in both articles, and discuss the issue until consensus is reached. There's no need for a rush to judgement in any of these cases. (Note: One person requesting a Merge is not a consensus, see Ed Potosnak example.)That's why these Merge Templates exist, and that's why they're (normally) used when the issue involves (but not necessarily limited to) a claim that a person is notable only for one event. If consensus is reached, then an actual merge of material rather than a simple delete, or even a delete and redirect, is done. See Scott Harper for an example of this. See Ann Marie Buerkle for an example of the opposite, showing no history at all of what was in the previous article. That article was actually deleted, then a redirect was added after the fact. That's why it's wrong to do deletes in these cases, and that's been the consensus achieved in many, many AfD requests for various political candidates over the years. An example of a non-merge redirect is Lisa Johnston (AfD consensus here). That's simply wrong, as a nominee notable even for an event still has notable information - it's just a question of where it belongs. There is no evidence of any actual merge of material in her case, which makes the election article shockingly unbalanced (aka Undue Weight). There seems to be a lot of confusion on the definition of 'merge' in these discussions. It is not a synonym for a redirect. There are two steps, and both must be taken. Or, the article should be allowed to continue to exist, with 'improvement tags' added as needed. Flatterworld (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least temporarily. per Flatterworld and Bds69. Man, what a waste of time and effort. There is merely ONE editor, Tarc, that wants to flat out destroy the work of many editors 7 days before Election Day. The information is going to be destroyed for no good reason other than Tarc wants to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. As to this particular article, just wait one week and then after Election Day there will be time to decide which articles are to be deleted and which ones will be merged. There is no harm to Wikipedia in waiting, but there is huge potential harm to Wikipedia in destroying editor's work prematurely. It makes Wikipedia look like a partisan free for all. Also, complete deletion is absolutely wrong. There are less destructive ways to handle these articles.--InaMaka (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information is not destroyed if redirected; all editing history is preserved under the redirect. Less appeal to emotion, more commentary on the merits of notability pls. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The merits of fairness are very, very clear. There is just 7 days until Election Day. We can debate ALL of these articles (both Dem and Rep) after the election. Me thinks you are way too focused on disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point and to destroy the work of editors. You have shown no harm in waiting, but there is plenty of evidence that premature destruction will harm Wikipedia in many, many ways. Remember the burden is on you to explain why the deletion assists Wikipedia in its mission. The burden is not on the editors that are pointing toward fairness. Also, don't tell me what I should talk about and what I shouldn't talk about. I not appealing to emotion. I'm asking for common sense to be applied to these articles and we just wait until Election Day. It is only 7 days. What is the big yank, anyway? Why do we have to destroy all of this work immediately? I don't see why you have this hurry up and destroy attitude. Most of these articles have been posted on Wikipedia for months now, what does a few more days hurt? Once again the burden is on you to explain that.--InaMaka (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the burden is on me, to explain why this person fails the notability guidelines. But when you begin to dive into bizarre claims of fairness and "its close to election day", it begins to sound like you're here less to build an encyclopedia, and more to set these up as a stop on the voter information trail. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The rule does not state "that mere candidates are not qualified unless there is an election coming." If you believe that there is a time that is appropriate for deletion for notability or not please tell me when timeframe is and please tell on what Wikipedia rule you base your timeframe. Is the rule based upon when you, Arbor, want notability to apply (a fairly whimsical standard)? or it is 10 days before an election? 20 days? 30 days? 40 days? 100 days? 250 days? one year? What is the timeframe you, one mere Wikipedian draw this mythical line? Should we re-write the Wikipedia policy on political biographies of notability to include a proviso that requires other editors to come to you and ask you, "Is it time now, Arbor?" Each and every argument that you bring up in not based in actual Wikipedia rules. This suggestion that there is some kind of "time out" for the election is your personal brainstorm--novel as it may seem--should be discussed in the proper forum and this discussion area is not it." --InaMaka on 9/24 [7] (emphasis mine) Arbor832466 (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arbor: Your point is? I remember that you argued that Wikipedia should keep Stephene Moore even though Moore is one of the most unqualified candidates ever. Her only claim to fame is that she is the current Congressman's wife. She is uniquely unqualified, but you wanted to keep her and you got your way. Now, of course, on November 3rd, after she gets beat like an old mule on Election Day the article about her in Wikipedia will be gone. She does not qualify for her own article.--InaMaka (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Location, in line with WP:POLITICIAN. This is a longstanding consensus, and on the merits of the article applies indisputably in this case. No notability exists, or is even likely (the seat is rated safe for his opponent), and furthermore the article itself is a thinly veiled campaign bio, arguably suitable for G11. That the nominator has had serious disagreements on this topic with some of the above commentators does not make this nomination out of process, since it is, IMO, indisputably correct on the article's merits. Ray^Talk 05:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for clarities sake, the criticism of Tarc stems not from his nominating the articles, but rather the manner in which he did so WHILE an ANI discussion was ongoing on the subject. (Notice that at least one other person has nominated similar articles, but nobody challenged that persons noms as POINTY.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Snow Keep. This person has been the subject of significant press coverage including the Huntsville Times and WHNT television in Huntsville. I would ask that you review WP:Politician and note that the coverage is independent of the subject of the article, i.e. the candidate. A quick look at the bottom of the article under references shows the article reaches notability and should never have been brought here in the first place.JodyB_talk 13:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beginning to sound like a broken record here. In nominating these, I discount local, routine election coverage. If the only thing the person has ever done in their life is this current run for office...i.e. not a mayor, state congress, etc...then they do not in my opinino deserve a wikipedia article. So please, knock off the "speedy" caterwauling. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, speedy keep doesn't work here (ignoring the fact that it's been a few days), and that point has been discussed at length elsewhere. But please, Tarc, Caterwauling? Let's tone it down a little, shall we? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you get the same accusationsd of bad faith, over and over...a charge that was quite definitively rejected at An/I, it begins to get frustrating to still see it lobbed about. I make no apologies for word choice. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, I will strike the speedy and replace it with snow because it's obvious this is going to fail. JodyB_talk 20:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really Tarc, my argument was perfectly in line with WP:Politician. I know you may be facing a massive loss here on all these you submitted but caterwauling??? JodyB_talk 14:16, 27 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy User Model[edit]

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

WP:NRVE Linclark (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient references provided. I'm more than a little concern that this user's first action after registering is to nominate an article for deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My first action ever was to remove vandalization from Mike Tomlin's page during one of the Steelers Super Bowls, this is just the first edit I had to create an account for. I was reading up on the Technology Acceptance Model when I found the link to this article. I don't actually do any research in this area but use these theories as reference theories for my Masters research in Semantic Web technologies. This theory simply isn't notable by academic standards.

Strong Keep. I see what looks like coverage in multiple sources in the reflist, and a quick search of Google Scholar reveals six more based on the terms "Lazy User Model" and "Lazy User Theory". While the number of GHits does not assert notability, there seem to be many published, (some peer-reviewed) scholarly papers which refer to the subject of this article to varying degrees. -Addionne (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have significant discussion in scholarly sources, for example this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think it fails WP:NRVE, it has sufficient references and it's notable enough for inclusion. --Addi hockey 10^e-mail 21:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be quite appropriate and notable with necessary references. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a coi tag to the article for the duration of this AfD. A major contributor is Mikc75, whose username implies he could be Mikael Collin, the writer of two of the papers used as refs in the article, and owner of two of four external links (now removed for irrelevance). That said, I do not think this affects the notability of the article - just maybe means that some of the refs used were selected over others for that reason.

Comment - It's not a BLP, so I don't think that the supposed author of one of the references editing the article is necessarily a conflict of interest. The COI guideline basically says it's okay as long as it's not used for purposes detrimental to Wikipedia. I don't really see any evidence of an edit war or POV pushing so I think it's okay. I'd personally suggest removing the COI tag. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 21:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I agree for the most part, however in this case, his paper is the originator of the theory... That said, I'll remove the tag, since the COI is declared here, and this looks like a pretty clear SNOW KEEP anyway. -Addionne (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you search in Google Scholar for lazy user theory, you see that there are only 4 papers which come up. Only one of these has citations, and it only has two. The minimum for notability that is generally accepted in the academic community is 6. This paper hasn't had any significant impact on the academic community and the Wikipedia article was posted by the author of the original paper. If this article is kept, then any research paper should have its own Wikipedia page. Linclark (talk) 13:18, 29 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) 00:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project rooster[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable films, seems like something made up one day with friends. matt (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete hoax, just somebody messing around. It somehow has five seasons but won't start until 2011? Huh? Note that there is a "Project Rooster" that's some kind of fan project related to Halo and doesn't seem to be related to the supposed subject of this article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 28 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 speedy deleted by User:Starblind. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape Wiki[edit]

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

Non-notable wiki. It's been AFDed under two previous titles (see here and here), and I can't see any evidence that it's any different from last time. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.
Comment'—Why is there an AfD entry for a red link?—RJH (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's been speedied under A7. Which, on reflection, might have been the better course of action. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:28, 25 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger's Bay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tiger's Bay

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

This article borders on being the 2nd definition of patent nonsense and based on some of the writing was almost certainly copy+pasted from somewhere. (Though I couldn't find the source - there are lines like can be seen HERE, as well as what are obviously section headers and sub-headers.) It also fails to provide any sources other than one at tigers-bay.com, despite some major claims that should be sourced. The website is prominently featured throughout the article, despite that the subject - at least on the surface - being about a location. Addionne (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I do not think conflict of interest is reason for deletion, I do feel they should be declared - and so it is important to note that the major contributor to the article is also the webmaster of tigers-bay.com. This is according to this revision on the user's talk page. -Addionne (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copy-pasted ad for a non-notable website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Starblind. Edward321 (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice to re-posting a different article. The location itself might be notable, but none of the content in this verifiable, so at best it's a case of starting all over again. Should someone prove notability, keep but replace the entire text with a stub. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:34, 28 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Fox[edit]

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

Actress is a relation of numerous undoubtedly notable individuals, but I doubt whether based on the information provided here and on google she can be said to meet WP:NACTOR, her bio here consists of student and minor theatre roles, and one-off character parts in individual episodes of television series. Ajbpearce (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Ajbpearce (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited and subject has had no major roles. Edward321 (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Named roles in multiple notable productions[8] might be arguable as pushing at WP:ENT, however lack of length and depth and coverage of this youngster's career is more strongly indicative of failing WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Walker (English footballer)[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who has not yet made an appearance in the first-team. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation if and when he makes an appearance for the first team at Chelsea or elsewhere. Currently fails WP:ATHLETE. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep player has recently been given a first team squad number whih suggests first xi appearence is imminent, represented his country at a youth level, he has travelled with the first xi on multiple occasions and he is expected to make an appearence for the first xi in the very near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseareservesfootball (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which means that he is "notable" in Wikipedia terms, which is all that matters for present purposes. Wikipedia doesn't guess at the future: WP:CRYSTAL. A squad number of 54, however (even if that's right, and I can't see it on the Chelsea website), suggests to me that he's hardly high in the manager's thoughts, and it'd be unusual for a 19yo keeper to play for the first team of a leading Premiership side unless there was a complete 'keeping crisis. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject has not done anything of note yet. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Imminent isn't achievement. When he meets WP's standards, someone will make an article. Peridon (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all relevant notability criteria. Argyle 4 Life^talk 02:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at best he is Chelsea's fourth-choice goalkeeper, which suggests that a first team appearance is anything but imminent unless the other three fall under a bus or Ancelotti wakes up one morning and decides "Right, we're top of the table so I think today I'll rest my first, second and third choice goalies and play an untried kid in a Premier League match". Neither scenario seems especially likely. Recreate as and when he makes it as a pro -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Wp:ATHLETE and Wp:GNG. Come back when/if he becomes notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too am on the verge of many notable activities. Easily re-creatable if he plays for the first XI. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he doesn't meet the required criteria at the moment. This article can be easily recreated if and when he makes his debut at the fully professional level. Bettia (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the various notability criteria, as above, along with Jack Mills (footballer) and Aziz Deen-Conteh. He hasn't played for Chelsea or any other professional side. A clear cut case. SCIAG (talk) 15:28, 31 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) 00:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott M. Sipprelle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an article for a person who is a candidate for office but otherwise lacks notability. WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3 addresses this point specifically, that just being a nominee does not automatically confer notability. This article also fails the general notability guidelines, as the coverage is either a) name-drops within an article about their more well-known, notable opponent b) simple voting/registry directory of who is running for this seat, or c) on the local level only, with no national interest. Per the further explanation at WP:POLITICIAN on what to do with failures, a merger to the appropriate district page is a viable option to deletion. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO, Bad faith nom. Tarc has been involved in an ongoing dispute with another editor who started an ANI debate related to politicians who are running for office and the election is a week away. That editor left Tarc a snarky comment notifying Tarc of the ANI discussion. Tarc response is to open this AFD with a comment at ANI saying, so off we go with a few trial balloons. In 8 days we will have a better understanding as to whether or not these candidates win or lose and thus deserve an article or not. Anybody who casts an !vote now, which is supposed to give guidance to a closing administrator, is doing so via a crystal ball. It doesn't matter if they meet Politician today, what matters is will they when this is closed? Thus, in light of the ANI discussion, I consider this (and all other nominations made by Tarc on the subject to be POINTY.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about less caterwauling and more commentary on the actual substance here? Regardless of the AN/I, attempts have been made to deal with the the notability concerns by Prod and by merge/redirect. As both have failed, XfD is the next step in the process. Tarc (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith. First, the timing one week before the actual election when this article has been around for quite awhile. Second, 'redirect' is not a synonym for 'merge'. See Scott Harper for how to do a proper merge into an election article. Third, the entire 'exchange' is here. I did not start the 'snarkiness'. However...in the last couple of days I've stumbled across, by clicking a blue link, other deleted/redirected articles done by other Wikipedians as well, with no discernible posting/discussion/consensus, which is why I became concerned enough to request a freeze until after the election. This is not the place or time, but eight days from now will be fine. At that point tempers will be cooler and a rational discussion will, presumably, follow. If I had known of the Douglas Herbert article earlier, I myself would have marked it for Merge, but it linked to the 'total U.S. election' article/chart rather than the state's election article, which is what I've been working from. If this Scott M. Sipprelle article had been marked for Merge earlier, I would have supported leaving it as a separate article until after the election, at least partly because of its length making a merge more problematical as far as readability for our readers. Quite honestly, this whole debacle reminds me of Florida's infamous "clearing of the election rolls" shortly before the 2008 election. There's simply not enough time to do a thorough job in deciding each and every one of these candidate articles at this point in time, and if we get it wrong then our readers are the losers. Wikipedia exists to provide information for people. How does it contribute to our mission if we remove candidate links to Project Vote Smart, the FEC, Open Secrets, Follow the Money, WhoRunsGov - all the nonpartisan information available but which doesn't show up in a Google search - a week before the election? Let Tarc get one article 'okayed' for deletion, and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts he (and his friends) will take that as a license to delete the article of every candidate they don't like. If that happens, there's no possible redress for our readers. And will I be able to keep up with all their deletes? Not likely. And once they're deleted, how do I know if they should be restored or not? Flatterworld (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what's changed since the last AFD? DC T•C 19:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's ignore POLITICIAN for now, it is clear that he hasn't won a national position. Thus question thus becomes has he met the General Notability Guidelines. Guess what, I think he has (this list will only include each source once):

The Trenton Times has specific in depth coverage on him [9]
Asbury Park Press
New Jersey Jewish News
According to Politico, was the first candidate to attack an opponent over HealthCare [10]
Before his campaing he publshed a book wherein he was hailed as a Wall Street insider/executive. Amazon Bio
In 2000, long before his political asperations, he was interviewed as a Wall Street expert by The Street - Pretty, It Ain't: Scott Sipprelle Paints a Picture of New Market Realities.
New York Times did a piece on him in 2000 as well. "INVESTING WITH: Neil Barsky and Scott Sipprelle; MRG Nucleus Fund"
How about 2008 article on in Bloomberg (Actually this is more on his brother Dwight, but Dwight is notable because of the company shared with Scott.)
A recent Reuter's article about Scott joining the board of MSCI this is about Scott the businessman, not Scott the political candidate [11]
How about the New Yorker in 1999 James Collins, The Talk of the Town, “Wall Street Follies,” The New Yorker

Mentioned in international press

Israel [12]
Jewish Telegraphic Agency

He also is mentioned (but more as a competitor in a contested race) in the WSJ [13], Jerusalem Post[14], Philadelphia Post [15] I could go on and on... this guy may not meet POLITICIAN, but he clearly meets the GNG.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is clearly a lot of coverage of this individual in the media, and it's easily enough to meet WP:GNG. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets the notability guidelines. This is a bad faith nom and should be immediately withdrawn.JodyB_talk 20:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can we stop questioning the faith of the user who proposed this with a very clear, policy-based explanation, and instead focus on refuting their points, also based on policy? A "bad faith" nomination is one which is made solely as vandalism or to cause disruption. The fact that the nominator gave a policy-based explanation of their rationale very clearly indicates that this was not a bad-faith nomination, and making such blind accusations is not in any way constructive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe fairy tales, thank you very much, particularly those told one week before the election. Flatterworld (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please clarify. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I am on your "side" in this, your posts do appear to be breaching (if not crossing) the line.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sippelle won the primary election. Once a candidate becomes a nominee, the presumption of notability is pretty much there. Flatterworld (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here I have to disagree with you. It is not, but when dealing with a major candidate for a Senatorial/Representative/Governor position, then it will be very hard to show somebody who doesn't fulfill GNG.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adequate sourcing to constitute notability in Wikipedia terms. I favor a very low bar for inclusion of politicians as a public service. Carrite (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - There seem to be a string of these AfD which appear to be in bad faith. The nominators are selecting the challengers in the races and saying they don't meet WP:POLITICIAN, yet they don't nominate the incumbent's article. Not to mention the timing is a pretty strong indicator of the bad faith. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the nom's defense, the incumbent by definition fulfills POLITICIAN, and is nom'ing both parties candidates. That being said, I do believe it was done to be pointy by doing so during an ANI discussion on the topic and announcing that he was sending up trial balloons.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2010#District 12 per precedent in similar articles (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Weber, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rami Bader (politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naheed Nenshi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Coyle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Johnston, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Marie Buerkle (Politician)). I interpret routine election coverage to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Also, the coverage about the candidate is in the context of the election, so (per WP:BLP1E) redirect to the election article.Location (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er location, did you perhaps miss the coverage from 1999, 2000, 2007, 2008---long before he was an aspiring politician wherein major news sources where talking to him because of his notability? Or the coverage from 2010 completely unrelated to politics, but as a businessman?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman: Thanks for your message. I've reviewed the article, its sources, and various Ghits about the subject. There is no doubt that he is a very accomplished man, however, I have difficulty convincing myself that notability would stand on his business merits. I'll monitor this debate and the article for changes/updates. Thanks! Location (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just wanted to check on this one to see if his business coverage/accomplishments swayed ya.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? The tag will now stay until the election; I'll cast my !vote then. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has plenty of sources, meets GNG. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed, there are plenty of sources here to satisfy the GNG. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT. This request is taking the wrong path. The proper path is to use the Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates, invite all those involved in both articles, and discuss the issue until consensus is reached. There's no need for a rush to judgement in any of these cases. (Note: One person requesting a Merge is not a consensus, see Ed Potosnak example.)That's why these Merge Templates exist, and that's why they're (normally) used when the issue involves (but not necessarily limited to) a claim that a person is notable only for one event. If consensus is reached, then an actual merge of material rather than a simple delete, or even a delete and redirect, is done. See Scott Harper for an example of this. See Ann Marie Buerkle for an example of the opposite, showing no history at all of what was in the previous article. That article was actually deleted, then a redirect was added after the fact. That's why it's wrong to do deletes in these cases, and that's been the consensus achieved in many, many AfD requests for various political candidates over the years. An example of a non-merge redirect is Lisa Johnston (AfD consensus here). That's simply wrong, as a nominee notable even for an event still has notable information - it's just a question of where it belongs. There is no evidence of any actual merge of material in her case, which makes the election article shockingly unbalanced (aka Undue Weight). There seems to be a lot of confusion on the definition of 'merge' in these discussions. It is not a synonym for a redirect. There are two steps, and both must be taken. Or, the article should be allowed to continue to exist, with 'improvement tags' added as needed. Flatterworld (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least temporarily. per Flatterworld. Man, what a waste of time and effort. There is merely ONE editor, Tarc, that wants to flat out destroy the work of many editors 7 days before Election Day. The information is going to be destroyed for no good reason other than Tarc wants to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. As to this particular article, just wait one week and then after Election Day there will be time to decide which articles are to be deleted and which ones will be merged. There is no harm to Wikipedia in waiting, but there is huge potential harm to Wikipedia in destroying editor's work prematurely. It makes Wikipedia look like a partisan free for all. Also, complete deletion is absolutely wrong. There are less destructive ways to handle these articles.--InaMaka (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable per comments above. Neutron (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ per Location, Tarc. Tarc's actions are completely in line with past practice and Wikipedia's deletion processes. That some are seeking to change the rules for this one election, and Tarc opposes them, does not mean this nomination is disruptive or in bad faith, since it stands well on its merits. Ray^Talk 05:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarities sake, the accustations of bad faith do not stem from his nominating them, but rather for the timing of the nominations and the attitude demonstrated at ANI.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Striking my !vote since this AFD will not close before the end of what is a decently contested election. If Siprelle wins, this AfD is vacuous. Ray^Talk 17:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On reflection and more reading of the sources, I conclude that coverage is sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. Ray^Talk 21:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The subject met WP:GNG guidelines the first time this came to AFD for his business activities. Because he already met the general notability requirements for reasons unrelated to the redirect target proposed earlier, a redirect would be completely inappropriate in this case. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 05:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully abundant sources. The only way to keep out articles like this would be to say that candidates for major parties who have not been elected can NVER be notable, regardless of the extent of sourcing, controversy, etc. I do not like to rely on the GNG more than necessary, but it certainly applies to anyone with multiple NYT articles. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 29 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Jones (author)[edit]

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

Article's references don't demonstrate notability. I have searched for evidence but haven't found any, but the common name doesn't help! Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It meets A7 criteria because it is an unremarkable person. At Home With Gok Wan does not appear to be a reliable source for notability. Morgankevinj(talk) 00:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 28 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) 19:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Medical Eponyms Discouraged Because of Nazi Associations[edit]

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

There's a problem on this article that I cannot quite pin down. Three main areas of concern:

"Fringe view/POV fork" concern - Unclear whether we have authoritative sources that say modern medical practice or some significant group of people have discouraged these terms, or that they have become deprecated/discouraged due to Nazi era associations. For example, are there significant views and discussion of this? Or is this actually an article covering a fringe view by a minority, and therefore in effect a POV fork of medical terminology or of the individual articles?
Vagueness of criterion - "Discouraged" is a very vague word - discouraged by whom and how much? Title may be too vague for a list to exist ("list of people disliked by President Obama"?)
Accuracy and encyclopedic significance of title - It's not actually clear whether these terms are actually deprecated due to Nazi association, or merely discouraged by a few writers. The cites seem to be about about "associated with" not "generally discouraged because" and it's not clear if they reflect a mainstream or accepted view.

Apologies for vagueness, there seems like "something here that cannot sustain an article", or that needs much stronger citations and a better focus and title if it is to do so. Maybe other contributors can pin down the issue better and reach a consensus on fixing it if possible. Possible treatments:

The content may need merging back into the individual conditions with a cited note on medical acceptance of the terminology;
The article may need replacing by a category on the related conditions such as Category:Medical terms deprecated due to Nazi era associations;
At the least the page may need a rename if it is a valid topic for an article.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT a medical dictionary, let alone a prescriptive one that tells people not to use certain terms for whatever reasons. A "list of diseases named for Nazis" is likewise not a suitable topic for a standalone list, but might be of use in an article about Nazi-era medicine. Sandstein 18:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fringe. Roscelese (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too small to stand as a list, too vacuous to stand as an article. Sourcing issues to boot. Carrite (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as non-encyclopedic.--Mjpresson (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename after improvements.--Mjpresson (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've tagged it for rescue, because while I agree that the current article is pretty minimal and lame, the topic appears to have sourcing, and a list of such associations is not indiscriminate--the active burying of Nazi associations is a notable topic. I believe that, if rewritten, this could provide a fascinating tie-in between sociology, medicine, and history. Jclemens (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR as an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. SnottyWong ^spout 16:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there are sources. I do not see it which sense it is non-encyclopedic. It cannot simultaneously be invalid as being a directory and as being overspecific; they;re logical opposites. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. If you actually go to WP:NOTDIR, item number 6 is labelled "non-encyclopedic cross categorization". SnottyWong ^confabulate 23:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discouraged means that all the major medical boards asked people to start using other names, and now all major medical publications call them something else. Quite encyclopedic. Something people can actual learn from. The old names used for things should have their own articles redirecting to the new names everyone uses, with a note in the new name article that it was once called something else. I'll go do that now. Dream Focus 02:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this Google Scholar search shows plenty of scholarly discourse on the topic. I will be adding it to the article as time permits. Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now substantially rewritten the article, sourced every entry, we have five reliable sources currently in the article from peer-reviewed journals documenting that the issue is a current concern, and Google Scholar has pages more hits. Issues raised above of dictionariness, fringe, size, and sourcing have been thoroughly eviscerated. Can I get some !voters to please review and revise their initial comments, please? Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps rename. There is definitely a phenoma here with the names syndromes being changed. That much is sourced and checkable. Whether the first person it was named after was a Nazi and whether the syndrome was renamed because of the Nazi associations is a little more contentious, but there does seem to be sources. One solution might be to broaden the article to cover all medical name changes for whatever reason.--Salix (talk): 07:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is relevant information to people who want/need to know about Nazi-related matters. (But the page's name should be changed to all lowercase.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think perhaps a better list would be List of medical eponyms with Nazi associations with a separate section for those that are discouraged or declining. Clearly there are sources discussing medical issues with Nazi associations, as Jclemens has shown. Would that the other members of the ARS would approach the articles they attempt to rescue like this. AniMate 08:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the compliment. Yes, I agree that the current name is less than optimal. I think your renaming suggestion has merit, and I like it better than the current name--hopefully, getting rid of the "discouraged" in the title and handling it in the text would answer one of the nom's objections. A rename discussion is already underway on the talk page, and assuming it's kept, I see no reason why the existing name would be kept. Jclemens (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- probably renamed (as AniMate). This seems to me a notable topic, to which articles on the current names may want to link in explaining a previous name for the same condition. Yes, there are POV issues, but the whole thing seems to be based on a WP:RS artciel in an academic journal (not that I know anything of the subject). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If a good rename canfound that would solve a lot of the keep/delete issues, if not then the article would have a problem. I've refactored the intro and content to avoid most other issues so the only keep/delete issue left seems to be whether a NPOV title can be found for it. AniMate's suggestion or some variant may work. Will think about this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I think what we can establish, based on my review of the literature so far, is that 1) Some medical doctors are advocating that specific terms be discontinued, 2) the basis for this urging is alleged Nazi references, 3) for each term under consideration, there is some RS description of the Nazi connections. To that end, I support AniMate's suggestion for renaming. I was going to do the tablification of the entries if the article is kept, so thanks for taking the initiative and doing that. Looking at the IMAJ reference, which appears the most complete, we've probably got enough for a much bigger table. I absolutely agree that an NPOV approach to the topic is appropriate--the Israeli authors appear to have a pretty expansive definition of Nazi involvement, and I bet if we dig well, we can find some objections. Ultimately, I think this topic has the potential for FL status if we can work out the remaining issues. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Jclemens. There are plenty to pass WP:GNG. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significantly covered by reliable sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've expanded the table by a few more entries, and added two more journal references, including one which I found specifically to address NPOV concerns by advocating that these eponyms be kept. I maintain my concerns that the article is mis-titled, and question whether it should continue as a list, rather than a prose article. Neither of these, of course, are insurmountable issues and I have been working collaboratively with the nominator to address these--an effort which will continue past the AfD, assuming the article is kept. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because none of the nom's three concerns seem to stand up (at least on the article as it currently is). This article lists conditions that were eponymously named at one time, and now are not (in at least some defensible scope of use). It makes no claim that the doctors were Nazis, or that their work on these conditions was due to or beenfitted from unethical practices during the Nazi era. It's enough that doctors with a Nazi connection, real or claimed, have lost this eponymous status. I see that broad scope as important to the neutrality of this article, even if the re-naming itself (in some cases) may have been less neutral. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 1 November 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) 04:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of concluded webcomics[edit]

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

Orphaned list, blatant redlink bait. Fewer than half the entries have articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100% unreferenced redlink farm. Might be okay as a category though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lists of this type are very appropriate for Wikipedia, even if they contain red wikilinks. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything ends, why have a separate list for currently active and dead comics? We don't do that for dead tree comics, do we? 76.66.196.13 (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wow. Alright, this probably is a more useful list than List of webcomics referencing penises in their 150th issues, but not by a whole lot. I agree with Andrew that a viable category could be sustained, but I can't see how an article is appropriate; this is close to a WP:BULLSHIT failure. Ravenswing 16:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but categorize, per above. It appears that Category:Concluded webcomics already exists (since 2005). I've categorized all that weren't already in there. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia , and encyclopedias are intended to be a permanent record, included both what was important. 76.96, we should have a list of notable ceased paper comics also. Quiddity, RG, on what actual reason do you think there should only be a category? (Personally, I think the only reason is if there are too few things for a viable list, like less than five. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Partially because I'm unsure that it's a notable criterion for differentiating content (i.e. it's better than "webcomics that use color" or "webcomics that run gueststrips", but not much). I'm not even sure if it's a viable category (no other "concluded" media categories exist). The only comparison I can think of is "defunct companies" (hmm, that leads to Category:Former entities, in which the "Lists of former entities" subcat is fairly sparse, but the other subcats are more abundant than I recalled. So a category might be viable? I've never been very familiar with our cat system). There don't seem to be any categories or lists for "television shows that have ended/concluded", which would be the obvious go-to comparison. (2) And partially because it is often hard to distinguish between "hiatus" and "concluded", in the realm of webcomics. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary, poorly executed fork of List of webcomics. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 13:42, 29 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. Tone 17:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Allison Kilkenny[edit]

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

lack of notability Minbbb (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)— Minbbb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Allison Kilkenny is a journalist who has written articles in all of the places mentioned on her Wikipedia page. The facts on her page here are true. She is noteworthy because she has been producing articles in magazines and online for years, and she also co-hosts an online podcast today. There is no reason to remove her page here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldskeptical (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC) — Oldskeptical (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Allison Kilkenny is published on several prominent internet news websites (including The Huffington Post), featured in a book published by The Nation, and currently is the host of a popular podcast called Citizen Radio. In this podcast Kilkenny discusses some of the most important issues of our time with notable intellectuals and journalists including Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Amy Goodman. She is gaining wider notability and already has a great deal of credibility in the blogosphere and the emerging world of podcasts. Most importantly, Kilkenny is part of an emerging movement of independent voices taking advantage of new forms of media (in her case podcasts) to express themselves and share information. Therefore, this page should not be deleted. MCVMCVMCV (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)— MCVMCVMCV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have read Allison Kilkenny's work on The Huffington Post and have listened to her commentary. She brings a valuable viewpoint to discussions of current concern and is quite worthy of this listing on Wikipedia. There is no reason for it to be deleted. Mikegoldnj (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)— Mikegoldnj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks to be a vanity article. No independent reliable sources whatsoever. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, embarassing old-style vanity article complete with "look at my webcam!" self-taken picture. Geez. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks suspicious to me that this article was created with what was clearly a single purpose account: Special:Contributions/Wikiaddictiam. Considering that this account is also the one that uploaded what appears to be a self-taken webcam photo, I think it's safe to say that Ms. Kilkenny created her own Wikipedia article which is an immediate red flag. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Suspicious all around, actually. The article was created by a newly minted SPA, AfD by a newly-minted SPA, and immediately supported by a cadre of newly minted SPAs. I like the lady's politics, but I not only suspect a vanity article, I suspect a vanity AfD, and wonder whether the next act involves prompt public claims of (presumably right wing) censorship. In any event, let's get this in black and white: sorry, SPAs, but the only facts we can take into consideration is not the putative importance of her message or her alleged new-media credentials, but whether she has received the outside recognition necessary to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So far, with the top Google hits for her almost uniformly self-created or otherwise non-independent, she has not. Ravenswing 16:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a few sources about her specifically are found - I looked yesterday and found nothing. She should be mentioned on the huffpost article, perhaps, as part of the editorial staff. I also noted the amusing way this AfD started, but it had no effect on my evaluation.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wouldn't include her, no. First off, how many bloggers do the Huffington Post have? If it was a small number, you'd think she'd be prominent enough to pass the GNG. If there are a lot, then that doesn't suggest she's notable. It's not that we list every reporter of the Boston Globe or Washington Post staffs in their articles. Ravenswing 19:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding comment by Ravenswing, who wondered "whether the next act involves prompt public claims of (presumably right wing) censorship": I like the subject's writing and was trying to follow a link, got lost, Googled, and was surprised to find the Wikipedia article. I like radical politics, but I like Wikipedia and its integrity, too, which is why I AfD'd the vanity article. I promptly received Wiki-talk claiming the subject was “clearly targeted for political reasons”. Minbbb (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; a reasonable explanation, and in any event, we'd regard the AfD on its merits. Ravenswing 17:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage of the person appears to exist, in fact nothing seems to exist except for a few articles talking about her boyfriend. Fails WP:GNG and this. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:33, 30 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. The article has a single dead weblink as a source. That's not sufficient to support the existence of an article per WP:V. Can be recreated if there are reliable sources describing such a state, rather than the movement that wants to establish it. Sandstein 07:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Emirate of Somalia[edit]

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

No evidence found that this is indeed a country, article relies on a single source. Fails per WP:OR, and WP:V. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources I found here talk about a possibility of establishing this administrative area. I can't find any sources confirming the date in our article (12 September 2008). I think that redirecting and a mention in the article Al-Shabaab could be a sensible solution. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last news date though is over a year old, there has been no new information about this taking place. A redirect and a mention is a good idea here if this is to not be deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shabab and Xisbul Islaam established their own administration over a year ago in Kismayo. The country that you should really be asking yourself if it really exists or not is the Federal Republic of Somalia. By all means though, delete the article, let fantasy-land continue forever. Ingoman (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case looks similar to Afghanistan 1996-2001. First there was Somali Democratic Republic of Siad Barre (analogous to Democratic Republic of Afghanistan). Then a Somali Civil War begins (analogous to Afghan civil war). Various structures resembling government/administration are established in different parts of the country. Some retain the UN seat, international recognition, etc. - Interim presidents (analogous to Islamic State of Afghanistan). Eventually their influence on the ground is reduced to that of a rump state (or even a "new" Government-in-exile is made from scratch), but the UN seat/international recognition is retained - Transitional National Government (analogous to a degree to the Northern Alliance). Currently we have the successor of the TNG - the Transitional Federal Government - retaining full international recognition, but controlling only some limited parts of Somalia (analogous to the Northern Alliance). If we disregard the secessionist (Somaliland) and autonomist (Puntland) administrations/governments - the rest of the territory seems controlled mostly by Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam. Thus in those parts is established an Islamic Emirate of Somalia (analogous to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) - as the Transitional Federal Government is analogous to the Northern Alliance.
So, it seems that if a source is given describing the "Al-Shabaab (and/or Hizubl Islam) established an Islamic Emirate in Somalia, administering territories under their control, headquartered in Kismyao" - then we should definitely keep the article. Regardless if the source is old - maybe it was later dis-established (because of internal problems between the two groups - or because of outside intervention) - but this has to be confirmed by source too - but even if it currently doesn't exist (or is succeeded by different entity) the article will still be valid and notable as it will describe the time of its existence. Also, it is possible that we just haven't found newer sources, but that the emirate/administration still exists today.
On the other hand, if there is not even a single source for this - then maybe the content should be merged into Al-Shabaab or another article. Alinor (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is sources here, I dont like to go out and delete articles on a whim, this article is running on one source currently and if not deleted at the very least be merged someplace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didnt look to hard, though many sources dont describe an exact name for it there are dozens of news articles documenting the fact that Al-Shabab is trying to establish an islamic emirate in Somalia. Ive seen articles from 2010, 2009, and 2008 documenting such a fact.

[[16]]XavierGreen (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article is misleading, as it informs that the Islamic Emirate of Somalia exists, which isn't confirmed by any reliable source. We should merge only verifiable facts, not someone's speculations. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: That al-Shabaab is notable is without question. That the outfit claims to wish to establish an "Islamic emirate" in Somalia is likewise without question. If they do, no doubt the Somalia article will change to suit. An independent "Islamic emirate in Somalia" article, however, is not supported, unnecessary and would contain no information not found in either the main article or in the Somalia article. Did we create a separate article to describe the regime established by the Islamic Courts Union? No, we did not. Ravenswing 16:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the ICU article that you list already contains a country infobox with capital city, etc. So, it could be considered to serve multiple purposes - represent the ICU in its aspects of "movement", "government" and "state". In the current case it seems like the "Islamic Emirate of Somalia" administration is composed (or was if the split is not resolved) of two "movements" (Al Shahab, Hizbul Islaam), thus it is not appropriate to use any of their articles for the joint government/state aspects.

Additionally, the ICU rise to power and fall was too quick (less than an year) - in contrast to the 2-3 years in the current case. Alinor (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: And if someone wants to use a country infobox for the Al-Shabaab article instead of the existing one, that's up to interested editors involved in that article. That being said, "it could be considered" has no place in such discussions. We are not here to surmise or speculate. Finally, what does the ICU's duration have to do with anything? We've got articles on ephemeral statelets that existed for days, let alone a year. Ravenswing 13:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"it could be considered" - you said that we haven't article for the ICU state regime - and I explained you where it is described. Then I explained why the same arrangement can't be utilized for the current case - "because the administration is/was composed of two "movements" (Al Shahab, Hizbul Islaam) it is not appropriate to use any of their articles for the joint government/state aspects."

"We've got articles on ephemeral statelets" - if this is the case, then why do you object the current article - do you question the existence of "Islamic emirate of Somalia" administration or there are other arguments? Alinor (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ICU regime is described in the ICU article and in the various pertinent Somalia articles; it does not have a separate article. This current occupation - they haven't gotten close to an "administration" yet - can equally be handled in the two movement's articles. As far as the ephemeral statelet articles go, that's not only what we have, without duplication, those statelets uniformly (a) established governments, (b) announced the same to the world, and (c) claimed a de jure territorial boundary which was (b) generally distinct from the larger/former state in which they existed. Should these movements declare (for instance) an Emirate of Southern Somalia, appoint or elect an emir, and display the trappings of a state (such as flags, legislatures, provinces and the like), I would say it'd qualify for an article, in the same fashion as Somaliland and Puntland have. Ravenswing 22:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what the article is describing - the "trappings of a state". It is another thing if you question the validity of explanations/sources. Alinor (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: What "trappings?" The article gives a "flag" and a "coat of arms;" those of al-Shabaab. Its "Amir" is purportedly Moktar Ali Zubeyr, whose day job is as the leader of al-Shabaab. It claims that the capital is Kismayo, oddly enough the HQ of al-Shabaab. It has a list of towns with "dates of capture." That's it; no other information on "trappings" is given. There's not an inline citation in the lot, backing up any assertion. Its sole source is a broken link. Nor are there any useful sources given in either the al-Shabaab or the Hizbul Islaam articles, neither of which make any reference whatsoever to this alleged "Islamic Emirate." Truth be told, I've no idea why you're fighting this hard over something that's just this side of a WP:HOAX violation. Ravenswing 13:05, 31 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 withdrawn. No outstanding "delete" votes and numerous changes. — Timneu22 · talk 16:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plant cover[edit]

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

Only source is an original research paper written as an essay by the author of this article. This article is not written in an encyclopedic fashion, and the text arrives at a conclusion. — Timneu22 · talk 11:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I've worked with and taught the use of quadrats, so I know the principle concerned with them. This doesn't go any further than mention an alternative method, which I can't work out from its name(s). The first part (about the common method - quadrats) is already covered in the article on this method. The last part tells nothing and could be OR. There is a possibility of COI, too, as the creator claims to be Christian Damgaard, and refers only to Christian Damgaard's work. Peridon (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep following improvements. (I can't see the new method of assessing cover being any less subjective, but if it's used, it's used. Personal opinion and cynicism.) Peridon (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the wording and added a new reference on the issue of subjectivity - Christian Damgaard (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now included more references. I think the page should be modified rather that deleted. Plant cover is a concept that is very often used in plant ecology (67.700.000 hits in Google)

Christian Damgaard

Comment The refs look better now - but the article still doesn't address the difference between the two methods of assessing cover. I assume this newer method is the point of the article. Peridon (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I have made a few revisions, including adding a ref to quadrat, and added some more information on the pin-point method. Christian Damgaard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Damgaard (talk • contribs) 08:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Despite the refs being "improved", I find it completely unacceptable that this topic has a Christian Damgaard essay used as a source, since the article was written by Christian Damgaard. We don't put thesis papers or other WP:OR on here. That information needs to be removed. Huge WP:COI and ADVERT there. — Timneu22 · talk 01:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opinion - I think of myself as an expert on the subject, but please modify the page Christian Damgaard (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Damgaard paper is not an "essay" or a "thesis paper" but a peer-reviewed journal article, which is perfectly acceptable as a source. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the page once more, now the conclusion is ommited Christian Damgaard (talk) 15:49, 26 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 incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator:Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (film) and redirect to Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy#Cinema. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. -- Cirt (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have not (yet) found sources that are reliable, stating this has started filming yet. Therefore, it fails WP:NFF. However, if there can be shown to be WP:RS sources confirming filming and principal photography has started, I will withdraw the nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate for a few weeks as there are multiple sources speaking toward the project,[17] and the more recent of them indicate the beginning of filming is quite imminent.[18] For instance, in an interview of the director posted October 23, it is reported "(Director) Alfredson speaks knowing that principal photography is only days away..." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objections to that. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Quite speedy response. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate I agree with Michael above, the film will obviously be notable once it is further along in its production, it just isn't right at this moment. It should be incubated for a bit until more reliable sources crop up (and until pricipal photography has begun, as an initial requirement). Silver seren^C 22:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate and delete if the project stalls and nothing more is heard of this after a few months. As an aside, the Alec Guinness version was a 7-hour miniseries (great show BTW), I'm very curious to see how they cram the story into anything resembling a theatrical film. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the adaptations section of the novel's article, where this project is already discussed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem in redirecting the current title to the paragraph in the book's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy#Cinema section, but still feel that the project benefits from the current article being incubated and further improved and expanded while waiting in the wings... off of mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of shocked that the Alec Guinness version doesn't have a seperate article, since it was incredibly notable and even got Guinness a BAFTA as Best Actor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, get to it then. :P Silver seren^C 18:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the sources available for the 1979 TV series, it should be do-able to spin one out of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy#Television and set it up as a nice seperate article. If Andrew does not do so, I may have a go at it myself. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:52, 28 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 hoax JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Magical Goldfish (:[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable piece of fiction. May be a hoax since a search for "Narnibethia" only gives this page. And while Google search for the "Magical goldfish" does turn up some results, they don't appear to be talking about the same one mentioned in this article. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 17:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 18:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete apparent hoax, nothing on Google under the author's name whatsoever. And we don't publish the full text of poems anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious hoax. --Divebomb (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious hoax. Roscelese (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I have actually tagged the page as a G3, instead of just stating it should be speedied here. Yoenit (talk) 20:16, 25 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven L. Thorsen[edit]

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

This BLP has remained unsourced for over three years. Although the information in the article makes him sound notable, I can find no independent sources to confirm the information and verify that he meets the notability criteria as outlined at WP:ARTIST Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also looked for sources for this one at least twice, but had no luck.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promo piece for an obscure artist. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Delete, I cannot find coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Reach Out to the Truth 16:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only source of bio a promotional piece by one gallery, no evident notability. . dave souza, talk 23:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources other then existing EL's found. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lets try:

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

Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Nothing so far. incidentally the tags should generally be dated when they are added, though it hardly matters. Rich Farmbrough, 16:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note Thorson seems to have taken the name "Painted Bear" - also the copyright images would appear to be released under multi-license. Shame in a way they have copyright in their names, but there is a tendency to think WP stuff is totally free, whereas it is attribution-licensed. Rich Farmbrough, 16:06, 28 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) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C. district 8C03 election, 2010[edit]

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

This article is about a race for a neighborhood commission in a municipal district of Washington, D.C. It has clearly generated some media coverage and there are reliable sources, but it is ultimately still a very local race and all of the sources are local to D.C. I have tried hard to clean it up and fix the sources, but it does not seem to me that it passes the general notability guideline. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither of the candidates for this advisory position would meet the guidelines of WP:POLIITICIAN, and Wikipedia is not the news. The only reason this seems to be here is that one of the candidates used the "n-word" in the campaign to see which of them would be the neighborhood rep. Mandsford 20:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An election is to a position which doesn't confer notability is unlikely to be notable. Otherwise, I endorse the reasons detailed by Mandsford and Tim Pierce. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete We've already deleted one of the non-notable candidates per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry T. Pretlow II, and this is just an election so minor it doesn't even confer notability on the person who wins it. Unsurpisingly this article was created by Dc archivist (talk · contribs) who, along with other accounts, has a lengthy history of edits attempting to promote Larry Pretlow, see User talk:JzG/Archives/July 2010#Heads up for the gory details. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not a promoter. I have contributed articles not regarding Larry T. Pretlow II. However, I am in Washington, D.C. along with most of my subjects. Get over it. Matter of fact, this version of the article that's been approved is not even the one I submitted, so why did you post the delete notice on my talk page? I didn't resubmit the article. Leave me out of your conspiracy claims. Dc archivist (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When proposing an article for deletion, it's customary to place a notice on the talk page of the editor who originally contributed it, so they can participate in the discussion. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this foolishness. It is somewhere between WP:TABLOID and WP:COATRACK. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 28 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter L. Hagelstein[edit]

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

An associate professor which seems to fail our WP:PROF notability guidelines. Yes, he's been the recipient of accolades from people in cold fusion circles, but that insular community's self-reinforcing attempts to make their ideas famous should not be confused for external notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep His notability was firmly established by the mid 1980s, for his role in the X ray laser and SDI. If you want an approachable biog of these years, try Broad's "Star Warriors". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GBooks shows plenty of hits indicating notability. Edward321 (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF criterion 7. If he's the guy who came up with a working x-ray laser, then that has had a significant impact on programs in national defense and the science fiction field generally. We need not discuss whether his work in the field of cold fusion has made any real contribution to his notability (which, as with most pseudosciences, is a minefield). Ray^Talk 18:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least twice covered by NYT. There are plenty of profs that have articles and never get covered in the news, but this guy seems to make it. Nergaal (talk) 19:24, 28 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 Frappé. Tone 17:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frape[edit]

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

Contested prod, thus listed here - Neologism of dubious importance, anyway a violation of WP:NOT a dictionary Travelbird (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to frappe as reasonable typo. Startpage.com sources not promising. JJB 15:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Redirect to frappe It is certainly a reasonable typo. Otherwise I would agree with delete per WP:NOT Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to frappe per reasons stated above. --m3taphysical (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per above. Peridon (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to frappé to avoid double redirect. Although a fairly new word, 'frape' may gain more currency and a future article may be justified - but not yet. pablo 11:17, 29 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rockefeller[edit]

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

Nelson Rockefeller's youngest son is perhaps a respectable small businessman—nothing wrong with that. But I see nothing about him that sticks out above any number of other such figures who don't happen to be Rockefellers; the citations in the article argue against any sort of larger notability. Perhaps his best claim to fame so far is having been leading pass receiver in the Ivy League in 1988, but that's pretty small potatoes. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand that notability is not inherited, but I think the combination of being Nelson Rockefeller's son as well as the Chairman of the Board for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and Historic Hudson Valley is just enough for a stand-alone biography. Location (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What Location said. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's done enough on his own, and there are sufficient reliable sources about him. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 28 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) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aris Sterodimas[edit]

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

Bio stub for a plastic surgeon. No indication of notability except that he has published a number of book chapters and peer-reviewed publications. The Web of Science lists 31 publications that have been cited a total of 41 times. Most cited ones have counts of 8-8-6-5, with an h-index of 4. I do not find any citations in WoS to the book chapters. Does not meet WP:PROF. Crusio (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to perform a correct search. There are 35 articles cited by Pubmed.If you do not know how to search, please learn your job, otherwise please quit your job.Secondly there are 5 book chapters written by Dr Sterodimas and your job is to cite them iotherwise again quit your job. There are more than 15 lectures given on tissue engineering in the last 3 months and he is considered as a leader in Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.108.194 (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC) — 194.219.108.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Crusio's citation findings are correct. Article is recitation of training with no real claim of notability aside from publication count. Aggressive tone of previous SPA entry completely uncalled for – I would respectfully submit that the slim notice of his work, according to citation count, contradicts the claim that "he is considered as a leader in Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine worldwide". Are there any reliable sources that back this claim up? If not, I would say this article is unlikely to survive AfD. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:PROF. Location (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not DeleteLeader in Plastic Surgery and applications of ADSCs in Regenerative Medicine.Do your homework guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.120.225 (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC) — 188.4.120.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment to the anonymous IPs: instead of jelling, a much more effective strategy here is to provide evidence of Dr. Sterodimas' notability. I'd be the first to withdraw the nom if sufficient evidence comes up. --Crusio (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Crusio When you make claims against a manuscript, you have to provide evidence by searching correctly.I just advised you to do your homework my friend.
Comment to Crusio Let me help you. Click on the link below as you are not capable of doing your homework.Lets see after that If you learn....

http://books.google.com/books?id=K-HYbvHxcKcC&pg=PA328&lpg=PA328&dq=sterodimas&source=bl&ots=8kwY1L92y-&sig=tgWbMirFNHhBAXbfTYsqwu5q_SY&hl=en&ei=iL_FTICAHcHFswa4wrzSCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBjge#v=onepage&q=sterodimas&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.120.225 (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC) — 188.4.120.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I think you misinterpret the comments in the nom. Web of Science lists 31 articles (their coverage differs from PubMed) and it is really not important whether there are 31 or 35 articles. What is important is that they have hardly been cited by other researchers, that is, they have made no impact. The comment in the nom about the chapters does not mean that I doubt they exist (as your Google link shows for one of them), but, again, that nobody has cited these chapters. Now before accusing others here of not being capable of doing their homework, I suggest you try to understand what is being said here. Start with reading WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These book chapters have been recently published ( check on the date of publication). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.120.225 (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and? At best, this may mean that he may become notable somewhere in the future. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Crusio (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Crusio. Ray^Talk 20:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per Crusio. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. GS gives h index of 4. Not nearly enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Do not Delete Pioneer in Regenerative Medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.108.194 (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC) — 194.219.108.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Do not Delete~~ 35 publications on pioneer in adipose tissue engineering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.120.225 (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC) — 188.4.120.225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Needs some trimming, though. Tone 17:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain House[edit]

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

This seems to be a spam article D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepDelete seems to be mainly SPAM with no significant content backed up by reliable sources. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may or may not be notable, but the current content is an advertisement. Reads like a paragraph copied straight from a brochure, which it very well may indeed be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any problems with content can be dealt with by simply removing the promotional content and leaving the first four sentences and the last one, which are purely descriptive. Notability is obvious with these three books being published about the subject and many others with significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if this is truly the first clubhouse model mental health rehab center, its a highly notable subject within the subject of "clubhouses", which exist worldwide. (see foreign lang links). the article, as well as the article this is being proposed for a merge with, is overly promotional, which can be remedied. a very important idea within mental health.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 28 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. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Wekeela[edit]

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

Non-notable summer camp. Of the references provided, only one (the BusinessWeek article) mentions this camp at all, and that only in passing as an example of the point being made, not as the main thrust of the article. Spammy text could be addressed, but lack of notability cannot. All ghits are promotional in nature. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest I do to improve the article? It is for a class project. The other references are from newspapers how are they not valid references? (Axs912 (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

In addition, there are other articles about summer camps that don't even have references. I have references. I am committed to making this right and appreciate any help (Axs912 (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment You raise several points; I'll address them one at a time.

The other references are from newspapers. How are they not valid references? The other references do not mention Camp Wekeela at all. They are about summer camps in general, but not about Camp Wekeela.
In addition, there are other articles about summer camps that don't even have references. Please refer to WP:Other stuff exists -- the presence of other bad articles on Wikipedia is never an excuse to add another.
It is for a class project. I recommend that you and your teacher review the guidelines at WP:School and university projects. While Wikipedia can be a great teaching tool, the content still has to meet Wikipedia guidelines.
What do you suggest I do to improve the article? Find reliable sources that actually discuss this camp, with significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Strong keep based on sources. ADD: And certainly userfy would be a backup much preferable to deletion due to WP:BITE. Axs912, the best approach is to take info found in several of the reliable magazines and books at that link and bring it into the article. You get a week from the nomination date of today, and you will probably get a "keep" result if you do the job right. Read as much WP policy as you can stand. Best wishes. JJB 15:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Changing to strong because North Jersey's article is from The Record (Bergen County), and the inter-camp article by Northstar Pubs is also about the camp operator, and that is a minimum satisfaction of WP:GNG, while the many other sources discussed indicate that the minimum can easily be built on. A couple newbie mistakes can be easily enfolded; tone is already much less promotional than many AFD candidates. JJB 18:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Additional reliables are BusinessWeek 2001, a Japanese journal 2002, and the ACA (primary). JJB 19:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What link are you referring to John? — Axs912 — continues after insertion below

The word "sources", which is the Google Books link. Lots of WP links are inline. JJB 18:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dan - if you take a closer look at the college weekend college days article Wekeela is mentioned.

I really appreciate your critique and advice. (Axs912 (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment The sources mentioned by JJB are merely listings of job opportunities. These types of business directories do not confer notability. And to Axs, the "mention" of Camp Wekeela at ZMags only refers to the fact that the article's author happens to be affiliated with Camp Wekeela. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the businessman of the year award? That doesn't talk about the Camp? Northjersey.com is not a reliable source? (Axs912 (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment There is nothing in the article or in the NorthJersey.com reference to indicate a "Businessman of the Year" award has been won by anyone associated with Camp Wekeela. The NorthJersey.com reference has been corrected since the article was originally posted to indicate that the interview is with the current owner of Camp Wekeela. I still don't know that this consitutes significant coverage for the camp. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I did not mean award pardon my mistake. The article clearly talks about the camp. It talks about the owner of the camp. This article is significant coverage. It uses Camp Wekeela as an example of camps being out there and people living their lives by running a camp. Its educational. The world is in need of jobs, this article exemplifies how this man uses a camp, Camp Wekeela to provide for his family and community and several families in the world. (Axs912 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete It's a camp. The article strikes me as at least mildly promotional and a bit like a brochure. So it provides a man and some families with jobs? So do several carwashes I know, not to mention computer shops, takeaways and so on. On a side track, I was pleased to learn from the article that Europe is in the world. I was beginning to worry about where we were. I will admit that here we don't have the culture of commercial camps that the USA seems to have. Kids go camping with Cubs, Scouts or Guides (or in the case of my younger relations, with me...). Peridon (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking on and looking at the history of the article, hasn't this already been deleted once at least? I'm sure I've read this article before but it was only posted today. Peridon (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the negativity? This article has never been posted before. How about some advice on how to improve it and make it better? (Axs912 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment If I had thought the article could be improved, I would not have nominated it for deletion. The problem is not that I think the article is bad, but that the subject does not merit inclusion in the first place. This AFD process is not a critique of the quality of the article; rather it is a discussion of the notability of the subject. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: of the first 13 AFDs when searching "camp notability", there are 7 keeps 4 deletes 1 merge 1 redirect; Keeps are Camp Pioneer, C Tuckahoe, C Ozark, C Ramah (2nd nomination), Resica Falls Scout Reservation, C Miriam (2nd nomination), Treasure Island Scout Reservation. That's not a keep argument, but an indicator of general consensus that IF the WP:GNG is met according to a plurality (not necessarily majority), the article should then be kept, whether or not the sources make it into the article immediately. Turning to the GNG, while it is true that the 38 book sources I linked are largely advertising, the fact that there are also significant-coverage sources in that set and in the article (without looking at all links to pick out which), and the fact that they are industry guides and thus good for establishing notability en masse (I think the camp goes back to 1946), should get us over the hump, along with the need to WP:WELCOME new editors. I'm also not clear on Dan's large number of contributions to this discussion. Also, Axs912, it is perfectly appropriate to add the bold word "keep" (code is '''keep''' with 3-apostrophe delimiters) to your first comment above to preserve your position. JJB 18:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or incubate Keep if the article meets basic guidelines, incubate if it doesn't. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The closer should note that Axs912 said at his talk today, "It seems now when I click on two of my references that I can no longer access the information it had about Camp wekeela." Personally, I think it's good enough to pass even if two links go dead. JJB 23:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus here (mercifully, because these NOTNEWS AfDs rarely produce clear outcomes) that there is insufficiently lasting coverage or impact associated with this event to transcend NOTNEWS. Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KFC Commercial Controversy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/KFC Commercial Controversy

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

Per WP:DEL. Non notable so-called "controversy" apparently exacerbated by Australian internet trolls and vagabonds (including the fella who wrote this ridiculous article). Fail to meet notability guideline. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, except from blogs and quips from The Young Turks. Should be an uncontroversial deletion.Eachlucky (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. VER Tott 15:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received coverage around the world, for example The Age, The Guardian and The Huffington Post. VER Tott 15:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I reckon the question is whether this is a "non-notable so-called 'controversy'" per nom or whether there has been protracted coverage and comment about the ad. How has Wikipedia dealt with similar matters in the past? No opinion one way or the other as to inclusion-worthiness at this point. I suspect a merge to some sort of hypothetical Racism in advertising article would be the best outcome. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge per WP:NOTNEWS. Note that the nominator's fourth edit was to nominate this article for deletion. Possible merge target: Criticism of advertising#Socio-cultural aspects: sexism: discrimination and stereotyping. SnottyWong ^babble 17:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS article with an extremely silly tone, even going so far as to have a "impact on relations" as though this was an armed border skirmish or a nuclear test that broke some international treaty. Company runs dumb commercial locally, nobody cares, bloggers in another country whine about it, it gets pulled and still nobody cares. As the article even admits the whole thing was basically a misunderstanding due to misinterpreting another culture. For what it's worth, it's already detailed in a couple of sentences in the KFC article, giving this even less reason to exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS I agree with Starblind. Also as an American I found the entire "Impact on relations" section offensive. It's inappropriate (as well as ridiculous) and should be deleted from the article. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added in a quote from the company referencing it to a major newspaper. This is an interesting and informative topic, which someone could actual learn from. I demonstrates how different cultures see things. Dream Focus 23:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per SnottyWong. Definitely WP:NOTNEWS comes into play. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - massively blown-out-of-proportion wikinews.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to KFC. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per WP:NOTNEWS. Poorly written, poorly referenced and very minor news. Certainly wouldn't pass WP:CRIC. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not News. Tie Oh Cruise (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has received coverage in some of the French press (Rue 89, Le Nouvel Observateur, Le Post (part of Le Monde)) DeansFA (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All the Keepers seem to be running the argument "appears in newspapers, therefore passes GNG". I'd remind them that the GNG is a necessary but insufficient basis for article creation - articles must also not violate anything in WP:NOT. From WP:NOTNEWS: "...most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Consider the enduring notability of this "controversy" - are we still going to be talking about this in ten years time? Not the slightest chance.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why they call them "inclusionists". Tarc (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:NOTNEWS Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. controversial ads appear all the time. something has to be more noteworthy than that. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill news blip is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. At best, worth a 1-2 line mention is a List of controversial ads, if someone was so inclined to create it. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This incident received significant coverage in international press. VERTott points out some sources quickly, so the nomination is factually incorrect on that point. Arguments I see favoring deletion just think its a dumb controversy, but everything is a dumb controversy unless someone dies or gets hurt. I typically point out in AfDs like this that past events like this are recorded in wikipedia everywhere, e.g., 1981's Ketchup as a vegetable controversy, the 1835 Great Moon Hoax, 2010 United States tomato shortage, etc. Some of these do get zapped but the articles inevitably come back later if the event did get worldwide coverage (indeed, I swear this is the 2nd time I've seen an article on this!) So unless deletion really benefits the project, its a worthless exercise.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS LibStar (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, LibStar, my point is a valid use of OTHERSTUFF, " identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is though, "ketchup is a vegetable" still receives coverage, mentions, and references to this day, and the Moon hoax was written about by Asimov and others over 150 years after the fact. The tomato shortage article is beyond retarded, and should be sent off for an AfD as well. The project would be benefited by deletion because it is one more "gee, that was interesting...for a day" article gets kicked to the trash heap. An encyclopedia is not a repository for those funny "local flavor" stories that they talk about at the end of the local news. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tomato article was kept in a recent AfD.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes milowent, I can read. Yes another case of "keep it's in many sources!" verbal diarrhea that completely ignores WP:NOTNEWS. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep like milowent says i think this will be of interest also years from now even though others dont Aisha9152 (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSINTERESTING does not actually address concerns raised by either the nominator or those who have weighed in to delete. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i said it will be of interest meaning notable interest in the future i did not say its interesting Aisha9152 (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've argued that it's not notable now. To argue that it will become so in future is drawing a pretty long bow.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why is everyone misquoting me im saying its notable now and will be notable in the future. Aisha9152 (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons usually help, rather than vague "keep it's notable" hand-waving. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 1 November 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) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

失楽園[edit]

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

A disambig page with a Japanese title. No need for this in EN wiki - if anyone knows a rule I could use to speedy pages like this, I have a couple more. JaGa^talk 22:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Wrong Wikipedia. Dictionary definition of non-English language. Carrite (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Lost Paradise as this is its original language title. All foreign language original (original language of the subject) titles should have those redirect to the English title used on Wikipedia. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Japanese language disambiguation pages are allowed on EN. See WP:CJKV. As long as the original language titles (ie, if we have two articles on Japanese subjects with the same name in Japanese) match, then a dab page can be built. This one however does not qualify, since the original language of Milton's poem is English, not Japanese. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Thanks for the info. So, should Chinese character articles in EN wiki solely be redirects and disambiguation pages? This sounds like the policy I'm seeking. --JaGa^talk 12:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems to be the case. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is permissible; en.wikipedia users come from all over the world. bd2412 T 02:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Redirect to A Lost Paradise, the primary topic for shitsurakuen. There is no need for a CJKV disambiguation page because even though there is a manga with the same title, they are pronounced same so a simple Roman character redirect works. --Kusunose 17:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Lost Paradise. The hatnote there provides the needed disambiguation, as Kusunose pointed out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no redirect. This was a bad idea. It seems pretty clear that there was no ambiguity to begin with. If someone enters "失楽園" into the search engine, it will already guide them to A Lost Paradise, see [19]. In addition, so will following the link from [20]. Making a redirect for the benefit of users from elsewhere in the world may sound courteous and thoughtful, but its impractical. Should we create redirects in all the world's writing systems for all articles? That type of help is somewhat condescending, along the lines of "I will speak v-e-r-y slowly to you, okay?" Mandsford 21:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having redirects created doesn't mean that all such redirects must be created, or for one writing system to all writing systems. This argument is akin to WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), I would say we should not have foreign-language redirects unless those words have some usage in the English language. It's OK for Wiktionary, but not Wikipedia. Sounds like an opportunity to clarify policy. --JaGa^talk 18:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is already clear, but it disagrees with your suggestion. "Redirects from non-English names are encouraged." WP:ENGLISH. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason for this. The wikiproject that the IP refers to seems to make disambiguations of characters that are the same in the native language, but have multiple English translations. This case is a one to one conversion, so it does not apply. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the disambig isn't needed, but the redirect can be kept. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:00, 26 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, Mike Cline (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC) This one needs a bit more discussion. There appears to be valid arguments by seasoned editors on both sides.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Mandsford says. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto as Mansford says. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above notes on what Mansford says. And also WP:PERNOM -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:54, 26 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. SNOW DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ibado's idea on classical civilization[edit]

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

I really don't know what this is supposed to be. It might be a couple of personal essays. Or it might be verbatim copies or translations of magazine articles? Either way it doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Anyone have any idea who or what Ibado is? I can't find any source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling for "Ibado Isse" produces hardly anything but MySpace/Facebook or other directory-ish listings. Forgetting about the ramblings essay text of the article, it's clear that this isn't relating a notable viewpoint. Mangoe (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy as original research. Ibado Isse seems to be the name of the user, Ibadomohamedissewarfa, who created the article, which reads like two (unrelated) school essays. Jimmy Pitt talk 16:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, and Mr. Longoria is probably his teacher. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity insertion of school essays or something, while talking about himself in the third person (Orange Mike thinks that's a bad sign). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're Julius Caesar, yes. I don't think this is him. --bonadea contributions talk 14:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wanted to tag it for speedy deletion, but I couldn't figure it out well enough to choose a proper tag. Whatever it is, this is not a Wikipedia article. Edward321 (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also delete the newly created and closely related article Ibado's lit. analze which is another personal essay. A student using Wikipedia for his essay assignments? --bonadea contributions talk 14:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Peridon is fairly good at extracting sense from things (having had to understand pencilled texts - not txts - from people in a hurry), but cannot work out what the heck this lot is about. Whatever it is, it is definitely unencyclopaedic and unreferenced to boot. Which is what it needs. The boot, that is... The references might help to make it comprehensible, but Peridon cannot foresee their appearance. Peridon (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ibado's lit. analze too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

related nominated article: Ibado's lit. analze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Snow delete, incoherent homework, unencyclopedic, unsalvageable. No need to keep this around for a week. Hairhorn (talk) 01:53, 27 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) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craze Productions[edit]

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

No reliable sources despite being tagged since 2008 Rojomoke (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. This is a virtual or digital record label. Google News contains a handful of relevant hits, but they're all press release announcements of artists or personnel signing and similar stuff. Fails WP:GNG, and no showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Keep and add sources" was tempting after seeing the google news hits, but Ihcoyc is correct: I can't find any reliable secondary sources, they all appear to be press releases and advertisements. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:56, 25 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) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hakim Dilbar Muhammad Khan[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article about someone who is claimed to be a notable Pakistani, murdered in a land dispute. No references, nothing relevant on Google. Reading between the lines he may not have been "notable" outside his own immediate locale. Fails WP:RS, WP:BIO andy (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources; reads like a memorial or quasi-advertisement; probably a BLP violation re: those accused of complicity in his death. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find sources and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Edward321 (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of coverage in sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This book confirms that the subject got a lot of media coverage and there is more coverage in this book. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first book unfortunately doesn't give any sense of the nature and quality of the coverage, i.e. whether it satisfies WP:N still less WP:VICTIM. All it says is "This crime got a lot of media coverage and many stories were being circulated about the way investigation was being carried out." andy (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 28 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) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Cornell-Farrow[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, original article began with two fake references, fact tags were removed without explanation from unreferenced assertions that he's been signed by a major label etc. Top Jim (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well known artist in Adelaide, being signed is getting him more known and the EP has sold more than 5,000 copies according to a manager at JB Hi-Fi. --ReidLawrence (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that even being signed to a major label doesn't on its own confer notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Top Jim (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable musician who fails WP:MUSICBIO, and lacks significant coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am from Melbourne and Reid is constantly played on Triple J and some indie stations.--118.210.5.150 (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide WP:Verifiable sources that he's been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio network? Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just visiting Adelaide are you? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of songs currently on medium to high rotation on triple j. Suprise! No Reid Cornell-Farrow. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I file this whole thing under 'deeply suspicious'. "Related acts: David Bowie"? He started (past tense) his first album in early 2011?? Cute stories about how his dear mother got him into the music industry? "Discovered by Danger Mouse"? And he plays on an antique stratocaster? There is nothing in this article that doesn't require me to suspend disbelief. And more to the point, there's not a single source, reliable or otherwise, pertaining to anything in the article. We can verify his existence, and that he played for the St Ignatius school band at a special olympics gig earlier this year - that's a pretty thin basis for notability. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where are the sources? [21]. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the basic existance of this guy this is a hoax. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:05, 29 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted phenethylamines[edit]

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

notability: no unambiguous definition provided in literature; definition requires extrapolation from various sources which may conflict depend on intent of source; term is used in scientific literature for convenience and not as a topic of discussion in itself

Wikipedia:Listcruft

The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable, The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category, The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia, Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view and reliable sources for avoiding it are not available. Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.

I'm relatively new to actually editing wikipedia, so I added the above after writing my reasons, which I'll keep, below:

I don't believe the subject warrants its own article largely because there is no "official" definition of a "substituted phenethylamine." You can find the terminology used in scientific literature, but the definition of a "substituted phenethylamine" is going to be in the eye of the beholder. For example, in Alex Shulgin's Phenethylamines I Have Known and Loved, his criteria for inclusion is based on the synthetic process used to make a drug, his intent to explore derivations of the phenethylamine moiety and the limitations in the number of substances he synthesized (if he'd produce 10000 for the book, dextrorphan could have been included in PIHKAL). I can find scientific research articles pointing out that, for example, opioids (including heroin) contain the phenethylamine moiety and thus could be considered "substituted phenethylamines." Similarly, LSD even contains the phenethylamine moiety embedded in it. PIHKAL doesn't offer a good definition of what phenethylamines are, except for compounds with "appropriate" substitutions to the backbone.

In patents referring to a "substituted phenethylamine" the definition depends on the intentions of the invention. US patent 20070148622, titled "Substituted phenethylamines with serotoninergic and/or norepinephrinergic activity" includes a definition of "substituted phenethylamines" that is very different than the image on wikipedia's substituted phenethylamines page.

Underneath the image on the wikipedia page the caption states that the formula is the "basis of all substituted phenethylamines" but this contradicts other sources, such as the patent I mentioned which considers venlafaxine (Effexor) to be a "substituted phenethylamine". While the wiki article on venlafaxine calls it a "phenethylamine," venlafaxine is not mentioned on the list of substituted phenethylamines.

Now, maybe one could make an argument that "substituted phenethylamines" are notable due to Shulgin's book, but I also see that there are entries for "substituted amphetamines" and "substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines." This is just ridiculous because there is a lot of overlap between these groups: the difference between phenethylamine and amphetamine is only ONE methyl group. We could easily come up with an arbitrarily large number of "substituted (whatevers)" and end up listing most of the same chemicals over and over in these groups. The list of substituted amphetamines, for example, should have very large overlap with "substituted phenethylamines."

That's part of my question then, is why is there a list, for "substituted phenethylamines" and not for "substituted (any other arbitrary moiety)?" Why no substituted methanes?

I'd like to reiterate that even though you can find the term "phenethylamine" (and "substituted phenethylamine") being used in scientific literature to discuss various structurally related compounds, how the term is used or defined also depends on the subject matter of the article and who the article is written for (biologists may define a "phenethylamine" in a paper one way while a medicinal chemist may define the term another way). The term is used in science literature for convenience because the phenethylamine moiety is quite ubiquitous, but I challenge anyone to find a source providing an unambiguous definition (you won't). There's no, one, unambiguous definition for "substituted phenethylamines." It's a convenient term to use when the subject matter at hand is a bunch of related compounds. I tentative plan to make the same proposal that "substituted amphetamines," "substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines" be deleted.

I assert that the "substituted phenethylamine" article does not meet the notability guideline: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." AlkaloidMan (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)AlkaloidMan[reply]

Wow. I'm not commenting on the merits of the article just yet, but the deletion rationale is longer than the majority of the articles on Wikipedia. I must commend the nominator. Also, there's no need for <br /> , reformatting to make the above look cleaner. If there's any opposition, feel free to revert (not changing the content, just the formatting).--hkr Laozi speak 11:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The existence or otherwise of one article has no bearing on the existence or otherwise of another. If Wikipedia was 'complete', it might. As it is, one could equally argue for the creation of the 'missing' articles because this one does as the other way. There are links to two other 'substituted' families. Having said that, the article is totally unreferenced and probably liable to deletion on that ground. Peridon (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an entire family of chemicals (~50) all of which are notable enough for their own articles. Stickee (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the nominator is contesting the appropriateness of it being labeled a family along with the vague requirements for the inclusion of each entry into the list, not the individual notability of each chemical mentioned in it.--hkr Laozi speak 14:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentRe: "break instruction" Laozi, I'm not sure how to get formatting nice without it. New to wiki and find it autoformatics into a big jumble sometimes. Peridon, with respect to venlafaxine being called a "phenethylamine" my point is to illustrate that "substituted phenethylamine" has no singular definition and is used as a term of convenience in scientific literature. (I think this is what you're referring to by "existence or otherwise of one article - maybe not?) Stickee "Phenethylamine" is a 'family' in that derivatives of it can be referred to as such for convenience and the term only has significance because its moiety is ubiquitous in nature. However, the definition of "substituted phenethylamine" is wide open. You assert it comprises 50 substances. Where is there an authoritative list? There is none. In theory, I could say that any number of substitutions on the phenethylamine moiety produces a chemical in this class, hence the class is infinite. If you want, I can find you papers pointing out that the opioids (which would include heroin, DXM, codeine - far over 50 substances) and LSD (and by extension all related compounds, again, well over 50) belong to the class of "substituted phenethylamines." The term, in scientific literature, is not used consistently because it is used as a convenient term to refer to aa set of substances in each article or book, while the "family" itself is potentially infinite. AlkaloidMan (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)AlkaloidMan[reply]
- Just leave an empty line between the paragraphs, and they won't autoformat. Hope that helps,--Hongkongresident (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a pharmaceutical chemist, we need more innovative ways to navigate chemical articles like this page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Stickee (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment

When it comes to innovative ways of navigative chemicals, shouldn't those ways at least be sensible? Instead of using vaguely defined groups, shouldn't we at least make sure that the lists are sensible and try to eliminate lists that have a ridiculous amount of potential overlap?

Why not reorganize the categories into something verifiable? For example, instead of vague classes like "substituted phenethylamines (PEAs)" "substituted amphetamines" and "substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines," why not reorganize into categories like "phenethylamine derivatives with adrenergic activity" (and eliminate the largely overlapping subgroups like "substituted amphetamines" and "substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines"?) As a pharmaceutical chemist, wouldn't you find it far more sensible to use the moiety that encompasses the largest number of these compounds (i.e. keep substituted phenethylamines and eliminate substituted amphetamines and substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines) and then reorganize the substituted phenethylamine group into categories like "PEA derivatives with adrenergic activity", "PEA derivatives with serotonergic activity."

The way the category is defined now is wholly arbitrary. I don't see any reason why we couldn't include benzomorphans, morphinans, morphine and related compounds, 1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline and its derivatives, ergot alkaloids, and ANYTHING else with a PEA moiety in it. The category needs to be defined better than just "substituted PEAs" because that encompasses a potentially infinite number of compounds.

I can find a bunch of articles discussing the phenethylamine moiety in these structurally more complex molecules. For example, Bird et al. (1976) discuss the orientation of phenethylamine in dexclamol and apomorphine. The article/list either needs to be re-written and re-categorized so that it makes sense, because an article JUST about substituted PEAs doesn't tell us anything. Substituted PEAs by pharmacological activity on the other hand does make sense. However, even if the categories are reorganized that way, then we should eliminate the redundancy by getting rid of "substituted amphetamines" and "substituted 3,4-methylenedioxyphenethylamines" pages and including enough information to allow someone to infer which compounds would also be substituted amphetamines or substituted 3,4-methylenedioxyphenethylamines. We could do this by reorganizing as I suggested above, then indicating on the list which compounds would also be considered substituted amphetamines or substituted 3,4-methylenedioxyphenethylamines.

I just don't understand the categorization at all. Why not have a listing for substituted methanes? Right, because that would be senseless. How about substituted benzenes? (Hoffer's book The Hallucinogens mentions that isoquinolines are PEA derivatives) so why not substituted 1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinolines? Substituted morphinans? The number of lists we could come up with is potentially infinite - just as large as the number of compounds known.

"A large group of alkaloids are derived from phenethylamines. They include isoquinolines, benzylisoquinolines, protoberberines, aporphins, protopines, narcotine, aconitum the highly toxic delphinium poisons." (Hoffer, p.74) (the protopines would also be substituted amphetamines as well as substituted 3,4-methylenedioxyphenethylamines, narcotine, aka noscapine, would also be a substituted PEA, substituted amphetamine and substituted 3,4-methylenedioxyphenethylamine)

We should try reorganizing based on: (1) the smallest moiety of significance (in the case of PEAs, amphetamines and 3,4-methylenedioxyPEAs, it will be PEAs as it includes the latter 2 and it is ubiquitous in nature) (2) something other than the mere ability to add substituent groups onto the moiety (I mean really, you can add substituents onto any chemical) (3) an unambiguous classification (i.e. something that can be verified through a primary source, such as binding affinity for certain neuroreceptors or pharmacological activity). As I've pointed out, there is no unambiguous definition of "substituted PEA."

Bird et al. (1976) is just an example, I also know of papers discussing how opioids contain the PEA moiety, how LSD contains the PEA moiety, how N-phenethyl-2-phenylacetamide, N-phenethylbutyramide and N-phenethylisovaleramide are substituted PEAs. Why aren't those in the wiki list? My guess is because the list was mostly inspired by Shulgin's book and is arbitrarily being maintained as a list of psychoactive PEA derivatives (as evidence of this, take a look at the articles first paragraph where it's mentioned that many of them are psychoactive drugs - the same goes for the pages on substituted amphetamines and substituted methylenedioxyPEAs).

Bird PH, Bruderlein FT, Humber LG. (1976) Crystallographic studies on neuroleptics of the benzocycloheptapyridoisoquinoline series. The crystal structure of butaclamol hydrobromide and the absolute configuration and crystal structure of dexclainol hydrobromide. Can J Chem. 54: 2715 - 2722.

Hoffer A. The Hallucinogens. New York: Academic Press, 1967.

The article is clearly listcruft. Primarily relates to PEA derivatives as hallucinogens or other drugs but without any verifiable definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary but articles should begin with a good definition - no good definition given of "substituted PEA" (relevant to: WP:OC#TRIVIA). As "substituted PEA" stands now it is WP:OC#ARBITRARY. "substituted phenethylamines", "substituted amphetamines" and "substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines" are examples of WP:OC#OVERLAPPING. The "substituted PEA" article does not meet WP:NRVE.AlkaloidMan (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)AlkaloidMan[reply]

Keep – this substructure from a chemical standpoint is not particularly notable, but from a pharmacological standpoint, it is very notable. Parenthetically the noms comments are absurdly long (please keep in mind WP:TLDR). Boghog (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Boghog. Nergaal (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too long, didn't read. Is it that hard? I suggest eliminating substituted amphetamines and substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines, due to absurd amount of overlap with this group. Reorganize "substituted phenethyalmines" into categories that are VERIFIABLE, such as "substituted phenethylamines with serotonergic activity" and "substituted phenethylamines with adrenergic activity." From a pharmacologic point of view, substituted phenethylamines includes an enormous range of compounds and the arbitrary nature of the list does not reflect that. As of now, I still see no rationale for keeping the list limited to the compounds that are listed on it (this is the who point of my argument, why not include isoquinolines, benzylisoquinolines, beznomorphans, protoberberines, aporphins, protopines and morphinans? Sure the substructure is notable from a pharmacological standpoint, but the article is only about "substituted PEAs" which can easily explode into an infinitely huge list that will overlape w/ "susbtituted amphetamines" and "substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines." I'm agreeing with keep, but I think it really needs to be organized into sensible, VERIFIABLE categories and the subcategory lists ("substituted amphetamines" and "substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines" need to be eliminated).

BTW, I think it's pretty lame not to read my argument. I propose we mere "substituted amphetamines" and "substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines" with the current group and reorganize into pharmacologically verifiable groups, as opposed to this wholly arbitrary category that by all means could include the far more complex compounds I just listed.AlkaloidMan (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)AlkaloidMan[reply]

"Is it that hard?" – No, but I when I read it I was tired and a bit grouchy ;-) But more seriously, your arguments would be much more persuasive if made concisely. Boghog (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I zoned out too, and I am a pharma chemist. Reminds me of someone in college taking a phenethylamine stimulant, and talking on and on all night while I am trying to study or read. I even avoid the methylxanthine stimulants, a cup of coffee keeps me awake all night. I understand the chemical argument that there are potentially a huge number of these compounds, but only a few dozen have articles. Yes there is overlap with substituted amphetamines and substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines, but this is just a navigation device. I think he is arguing for a name change, but that can be handled on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Listcruft really doesn't apply in this case. This is actually a great use of a WP:LIST. I think the nominator has actually made a fairly good case to merge Substituted amphetamine & Substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines with this article. It would be a great list, I think...I love me some SAR. — Scientizzle 17:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this list is neither unlimited or unverifiable, however I agree there is a great deal of redundency with substituted amphetamines and substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines (not to mention substituted cathinone). With the substituted amphetamines and substituted cathinones I can't see that there is much dispute they are notable, as these groups have broadly similar pharmacology and are specifically defined in law as controlled drugs in various countries. With the substituted phenethylamines it is a bit more vague seeing as this group includes many adrenergic receptor ligands like isoprenaline as well as what might be thought more "classic" substituted phenethylamines like 2C-B.

It does seem a bit superfluous to argue that things like dextrorphan or LSD could be considered substituted phenethylamines when this is just a partial element of a much larger structure, bound into multiple additional ring systems. I'd argue the same really applies to drugs like verapamil where the phenethylamine portion is really more of a side chain than the base structure being substituted on to. Whether things like sibutramine and venlafaxine would count, where they do have a substituted phenethylamine base structure but some substituents constitute additional rings, would be a bit more borderline.

Overall I would argue clean up and keep, but restrict the list to compounds that fit an agreed consensus definition of "substituted phenethylamines" - as the nominator notes there are actually many different definitions for "substituted phenethylamine" given in the scientific and patent literature, and Wikipedia guidelines call only for mentions in authoritative reliable sources, not an "official" definition. So this debate should really be about which literature definition(s) of "substituted phenethylamine" can be considered the more reliable and authoritative sources from which to derive a definition we can agree on by consensus, and the list should then be pruned to encompass only compounds that fit this definition. Meodipt (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator now suggests that article be merged with substituted amphetamines and substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines.

Thanks for the feedback everyone. Sorry about the rambling. I do tend to go on. This post is not much different in that sense.

Yes, I've changed my mind and think that renaming / moving the article would be far more appropriate.

It does seem a bit superfluous to argue that things like dextrorphan or LSD could be considered substituted phenethylamines":

I can refer you to a few research articles that mention that dextrorphan (not specifically, but opiates in general) and LSD could be considered phenethylamines. One reason that phenethylamine is a notable moiety is because it is ubiquitous in nature, though LSD and dextrorphan are poor examples of this. There was no mention whatsoever of the fact that phenethylamine is found in 2 of the 20 common amino acids and that it (and derivatives of it) serve as a biosynthetic starting point for a very diverse group of compounds.

Originally, the article obviously had an emphasis on how substituted phenethylamines related to hallucinogens, which overlooks the significance of this relatively simple structure. I think it gave the wrong impression that phenethylamine's significance was because of hallucinogens or other psychoactive drugs.

As a starting point for a synthetic chemist, what might be considered a "substituted phenethylamine" is more limited than phenethylamine as a starting in biosynthesis. Substituted phenethylamines (and here I'm using a definition that I think we'd all agree on: tyrosine and phenylalanine) are starting points in the biosynthesis of the following substances that contain an intact phenethylamine moiety: reticuline, puromycin, capsaicin, emetine, betacyanins (e.g. betalain), anhalamine, novobiocin, coumermycin A1, clorobiocin, sinalbin,galantamine, kreysigine, morphine, codeine, turbocurarine, caranine, papaverine and marcarpine. Remember, all those are synthesized from a substituted phenethylamine and still have the phenethylamine moiety intact in the final product.

You'll see that phenethylamine is a starting point for the biosynthesis of isoquinolines and alkaloids related to or derived from it. However, even lab syntheses of isoquinolines has been performed by cyclization of (acylated derivatives of) phenethylamine. Phenethylamine has been used as the synthetic starting point for a number of morphinans (see Hellerbach et al., 1966 and references therein).

In terms of whether or not the moiety is a "significant" part of a given molecule, I have seen at least a few books and articles point out that LSD contains the phenethylamine moiety or that phenethylamine is clearly embedded in the structure of opiates, as I mentioned. Tools such as Pubmed Compound list drugs such as verapamil, fendiline, nylidrine, gallopamil and [[hexoprenaline] as being within the phenethylamine classification.

"I'd argue the same really applies to drugs like verapamil where the phenethylamine portion is really more of a side chain than the base structure being substituted on to."

That's also what formed the basis of my objection to the list. Whether or not you consider something a "substituted phenethylamine" seems to be quite subjective and in the eye of the beholder. Meodipt asserts that the list is neither unlimited nor unverifiable, so I must ask that he back up these claims. Both can be addressed by answering the following question:

(1) What is the definition of a "substituted phenethylamine?" (The answer should be verifiable. I have never seen a formal definition. IMO, since basically anything containing the phenethylamine moiety could be considered a "substituted phenethylamine," the list is potentially unlimited.)

"as the nominator notes there are actually many different definitions for "substituted phenethylamine" given in the scientific and patent literature"

I don't think these are really even definitions, with the exception of the patent literature where it is necessary for the purpose of discussion within the patent. When it comes to scientific literature, however, I have only ever seen the term used loosely, to indicate a number of possibilities. Generally, I have seen "substituted phenethylamine" (or "phenethylamine") used in research articles or scientific textbooks to refer to something that (a) a chemist could synthesize using phenethylamine (or even a substituted phenethylamine - which brings us to the world of circular logic) as a sensible starting point - the best examples of this are Shulgin's PIHKAL; (b) has phenethylamine (or a substituted phenethylamine) as a starting point in a biosynthetic pathway (not including peptides, obviously); (c) any drug where the phenethylamine moiety may have some significance in its pharmacological action (and I have seen research articles including LSD in this category, because it can be seen as a rigid phenethylamine analogue).

"So this debate should really be about which literature definition(s) of "substituted phenethylamine" can be considered the more reliable and authoritative sources"

Agreed, but I seriously doubt that you will actually find a definition other than in patents. In patents, the definition applies to what's being discussed in the patent. In other works, the only definition of "phenethylamines" I recall seeing is in PIHKAL which, if I recall correctly, simply says something about "appropriate substituents." I think that coming up with a definition will require inferring a definition from various sources based on how the term is used (perhaps this will even be considered original research). Based on how widely I've seen the term used, largely depending on the context of the discussion, I suspect we will only be able to agree on general principles of what should or should not be included on the list. We should try to derive these principles from examples in the literature (e.g. I've never seen a peptide with phenylalanine or tyrosine called a "phenethylamine" - that is clearly ridiculous, IMO, but I have seen many alkaloids referred to as either "phenethylamines" or "phenethylamine derivatives"). Given the ubiquity of the moiety, I think we should strive for an inclusive list, but simply break the list down into sub-lists with other notable substructures (for example, have links to lists of other categories that fall under "substituted phenethylamines").

I realize that was long and rambling, but I think I covered what I wanted to say. BTW, I am taking modafinil, so maybe that's why I write so much about one topic. I find that it can keep me glued to one task.

Hellerbach J, Schnider O, Besendorf H, Pellmont B. Morphinans. In Synthetic Analgesics. Pergamon Press: New York, 1966.AlkaloidMan (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)AlkaloidMan[reply]

Comment I'd argue that substituted phenethylamines should fit the structure shown in the article, i.e. phenethylamine substituted with any number of substituents but not including compounds where these positions are bound together into multiple additional rings.

Obviously this would include the substituted amphetamines and methylenedioxyphenethylamines and looking at the comments above I think there may be a weak consensus forming for a merge with these. However already I'm seeing potential problems, seeing as 2C-G-5 and bromodragonfly (and I suppose even MDMA for that matter) have adjacent substitution points bridged by ring structures...but just because a substituted phenethylamine is used as a starting point for biosynthesis should not be deemed to make the final product a substituted phenethylamine, otherwise the class is as you say implausibly vast, so a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

I think common sense needs to prevail somewhat, and if the patent literature has more tightly defined and unambiguous definitions then why not go with those. Besides this, the empathogens and hallucinogens covered in PIHKAL are almost certainly what the general public would think of as "substituted phenethylamines" so it is not entirely inappropriate for the page to emphasise these particularly, though of course it must be made clear that the class includes many other assorted compounds with diverse pharmacology. Indeed it would be quite appropriate to have in the introduction to the page something about how the class is not easily defined in strict terms and that compounds like morphine and LSD contain the phenethylamine skeleton within them - but I would argue that this does not in itself make them "substituted phenethylamines". Meodipt (talk) 14:01, 31 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. Courcelles 00:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronni Bødker[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Has apparently played once for Greenland, but I don't believe this meets WP:ATHLETE because Greenland isn't a member of FIFA and its matches aren't considered full internationals. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Greenland is not an official, affiliated national team and they only play in what are basicaly exhibition matches. Making an appearance for them does not imply notability, and nothing else about this person does either. Giant Snowman 14:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Half Price 15:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Greenland isn't a member of FIFA, UEFA, or CONCACAF. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 28 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 Travian Games. Anyone wishing to merge anything from the page will find the content under the redirect. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travians[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no non-trivial references from reliable, third party sources. There is a single source (The Hindu) that is reliable but doesn't cover the game in any depth as required by WP:WEB. None of the remaining sources are reliable according to the WikiProject Video games guide to sources. I used the WPVG custom Google search and found only more trivial and forum posts. The "Browser Game of the Year" mention is from site that has been judged by WPVG as specifically unreliable. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:33, 9 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) Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about this extensive analysis of the game by Kieron Gillan, found on the first page of the custom google search? Marasmusine (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That review is actually about Travian, a notable game by the same production company. I almost didn't nominate this article because of that article until I realized it was about the different game. It shows up in the Google search because a user mentions Travians in the comments. Cheers! Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that complicates things! I'll take another look. Marasmusine (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it has two sources (Casualty Gamer, Ajaxian) giving it significant coverage and one (The Hindu) mentioning it among others. I believe this is sufficient for GNG. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ajaxian source is a trivial mention on a blog by an unknown author. The Casualty Gamer source is a lengthy review, yes, but it's written poorly and unprofessionally by a quasi-anonymous source, and it's on an otherwise unremarkable gaming website which gives no indication of its editorial oversight. The Hindu source name drops the game, nothing more. None of these meet the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that WP:GNG requires. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travians is the main topic of the Ajaxian post, so I believe it is not trivial. The author of the post is the founder of Ajaxian. I think Ajaxian is a reliable source as it is cited by papers and books.[22] --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences of setup and a quote is not "significant coverage" as required by both WP:GNG and WP:WEB. You're right about the author of the blog being listed, however, I must have missed that when I checked the source earlier. But even if that author is accepted to be an expert (which I think has yet to be proven), it's still a self-published blog (see WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:NEWSBLOG) with a trivial mention of a product that is outside the scope of the expert's domain. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author has a BSc in Computer Science and works for Mozilla. He is an expert on programming and Ajax[23] (and also other browser-related stuff, I'm guessing, because he works for Mozilla) and Travians is a browser-based game which uses Ajax a lot, so he would be familiar with the technical side of it. I cannot find any evidence of him doing any game development, though. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Travian Games per WP:PRODUCT. Since a simple typo can confuse the two games, it's not clear which game The Hindu may be refering to (it does not go into details). The Ajaxian article is both trivial and self-published. The Galaxy News award (better link here) is worth mentioning but trivial enough to included at my proposed target article. The poor grammar of the Casualty Gamer review shows exactly why we don't normally accept self-published sources. I could not find any further usable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ajaxian article is published by a reliable source (as the site is sited by other sources a lot). The article's main topic is the subject, and the author is an expert in Ajax and browsers which is probably as relevant as you can get to the field (see WP:SPS). --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the source is reliable, which I don't feel it is, it's definitely extremely trivial. We can't build an encyclopedia around sources like this. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:07, 29 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 20:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on company, Travian Games, due to the notability concerns outlined above.--Pink Bull 00:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Either way, the sources do not justify the page. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:14, 25 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, -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Travian Games per WP:PRODUCT. --Teancum (talk) 15:09, 27 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 List of Emmerdale characters#Recurring characters. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annelise Manojlovic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

as per my previous nomination. fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. no significant multiple roles. gnews: [24] and alternate spelling. LibStar (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a role in Emmerdale is a big deal.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO states "1.Has had significant roles in television shows", basically all Emmerdale actors has articles and her role in the series has becomed one of the more major characters.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. Very few ghits and most only ITV press releases narrating episode storylines. Clearly fails to satisfy WP:BIO and other stuff exits is not a valid argument. Jimmy Pitt talk 15:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having a single role does not pass the entertainer guidelines Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't !vote last time (I just commented), but Eastmain noted last time that "Eight years playing the same role ought to be enough to pass notability. WP:ENT needs to be refined to recognize that some people are notable for playing a single notable part. " The article was viewed 517 times in September, so someone must be looking for information on her. Apparently Emmerdale is one of the most popular British TV shows, so this actress is perhaps like Angus T. Jones of Two and a Half Men--notable for one prominent role.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as reasonable search term to List of Emmerdale characters#Recurring characters, where she already is listed. While agreeing in principle that one notable role in multiple episodes of a notable series could arguably be enough to qualify as an common sense exception to WP:ENT, the simple and inarguable fact per WP:TOOSOON#Actors is that we simply do not have enough reliable sources speaking about her in any degree that might support a decent BLP... and what articles we do find, speak of her only in context to her role as Gabrielle Thomas. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:05, 12 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) 00:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Emmerdale characters#Recurring characters. Agreed. She's an actress only known for one role, so not redirect to that role?--Hongkongresident (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Emmerdale characters#Recurring characters. Plausible search term, but not enough for a stand-alone bio. Location (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet the notability criteria. I don't like the idea of redirecting people to shows they were in, it appears like Wikipedia is saying the person is all about the show she starrs in. Even if deleted, her name will pop up in the search results so for all practical purposes, the information can be found without a redirect.--Pink Bull 00:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia is saying the person is all about the show she starrs in." Wikipedia isn't saying anything about her, personally. Only about her notability, which is the only thing that should matter. And her notability is primarily due to one show.--hkr Laozi speak 11:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Emmerdale characters#Recurring characters. Article right now is delete-worthy, and clearly so, but the mention in List of Emmerdale characters is enough to justify a redirect. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:18, 25 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, -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 25 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. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia State Route 638 (Lee, Russell, Scott, Washington, and Wise Counties)[edit]

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

VARoute638NotOneRoad --Tim Sabin (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one has shown that this is a single route. According to the Virginia Department of Transportation, all secondary routes are numbered uniquely by county. Thus, this route is unrelated to the SR 638 in Fairfax County, and I believe that the roads mentioned in this article are unrelated small, non-notable routes. This belief is upheld by examining the VDOT AADT documents referenced in the article.

This article has many redirects associated with it. If this article is deleted, those redirects should be deleted as well.

I was one of the editors for this article and its redirects; that was a big mistake. Sorry. --Tim Sabin (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it clear how many routes are being described by this article? It's clearly more than one route, but since these routes often keep their numbers when they cross county lines, it's probably not 7 different routes either. Secondary state routes are usually somewhat of a gray area when it comes to highway notability, so figuring out which routes are which here is important to figuring out which ones are notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Based on some research (online mapping and looking at the VDOT primary source documents), this does indeed look to be seven separate secondary roads, each individually numbered by the counties with no correlation to any of the other Route 638s (as tends to be the case with Virginia Secondary Routes). Indeed, as User:Timsabin says, this isn't even an exhaustive list of VSR 638s; it just happens to be an indiscriminate choice of those in the western part of the state. While primary routes tend to have de facto notability, I fail to see evidence of notability for this particular secondary route. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, looking at List of secondary state highways in Virginia, most articles on secondary routes that do exist tend to show some sort of possible notability (actually crosses into another county, formerly a primary route, a relatively major thoroughfare, etc.), but nothing of that sort seems to be demonstrated in the article as written. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am changing my recommendation to ~~merge/rename~~ to Virginia State Route 638, to preserve this content until such time a consensus on Virginia SSRs can be reached elsewhere. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've decided to strike my recommendation altogether, due to my indecisiveness in this matter. On one hand, being a signed route does give some sort of legitimacy... but on the other hand, Tim Sabin makes an excellent point in that routes granted secondary status can also be patently non-notable, such as routes of several hundred feet that end in cul-de-sacs. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Could we move it to Virginia State Route 638 and rework as a list not unlike Louisiana Highway 1035? –Fredddie ™ 04:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of secondary state highways in Virginia - From what it appears like, this article is a blend of five separate nonnotable secondary roads. The roads can easily be covered in the aforementioned list. Dough 48 72 04:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of secondary state highways in Virginia. The information contained here can be provided just as easily in chart form in such a list. Sebwite (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the detective work of Kinu. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:07, 25 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, -- Cirt (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move. I like what Fredddie suggested: move it to Virginia State Route 638 and rework as a list like Louisiana Highway 1035. Herostratus (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: despite my deletion recommendation, I would not be averse to a move-and-merge as has been suggested above. Perhaps another discussion should occur outside of this AfD involving WP:ROADS to determine a harder consensus about secondary routes. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. It takes times to make something of this sort of thing, and deletions are not helpful in cases like this. The road should be covered somewhere, somehow, so the information should not be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to Virginia State Route 638. In Britain we have articles on most A-class roads and the possibility exists of articles on B-class roads. I would have thought that State Routes were equivalent. The problem here seems to be that some one has created five articles, one for each county; these have then been merged to give the present mouthful of a title. The fact that the road has different street names in different counties does not matter, as long as it is one continuous road (as i assume it is). Merging back to a list article is merely destructive. There appear to be a lot of articles on State Routes and no reason to delete this one just becuase it has issues over its structure. However, if Kimu is right and this is not one continous road (or a networks of linked roads), the right option is probably to delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While you are right that primary state routes are notable, some states such as Virginia have both primary and secondary state routes. The routes being discussed here are all secondary routes, which are less notable than primary routes, and based on Kimu's research, they aren't all interconnected. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's Kinu, by the way. :) --Kinu ^t/_c 23:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Kinu, the trouble is that these are separate roads, not one continuous one, in Southwest Virginia. They are unrelated to other SR 638s in the state, such as SR 638 (Rolling Road) in Fairfax County (Northern Virginia). The "namespace" for secondary routes in Virginia is the county; thus, each county can have its own SR 638, and they may can be completely unrelated. I can show you other examples of this. Fairfax County, Virginia has approximately 10,000 secondary roads - some as minor as a cul-de-sac (there are no local roads in almost all counties in Virginia). --Tim Sabin (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I acknowledge that these are separate roads... I'm the one who indicates as much above. However, after further consideration, I feel that preserving the content is prudent, until such time when consensus at WP:ROADS gives us a guideline for whether secondary routes are notable. After all, they are state maintained (per the Byrd Road Act, except for Arlington County, if I'm not mistaken, and in the independent cities). While the numbers do repeat in different counties, they are effectively not county roads. If sourcing does exist to indicate such roads exist, at worst a list-type structure per route number is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE, given that the number of SSR 638s is limited, ostensibly, by the number of counties. Again, this is simply my perspective on content that could be useful, with sourcing and expansion to include the rest of the SSR 638s. I'm not advocating disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but it could serve as a good test case for Virginia SSRs... this content could be useful, and ultimately there is no guideline telling us otherwise (after all, they are a collection of signed numbered routes, not just regular streets), with no prejudice to renomination for deletion later. Also, 10,000 secondary roads in Fairfax Country? Aside from the parkways in the 7000 series, aren't most signed SSRs in the 600-700 range? I will grant that most of the secondary routes are non-notable, like the 9000-series school routes, F-series frontage roads, etc., and probably anything in the triple digits... but the 600-700 range routes are generally well-signed, from my experience, and have at least some claim of encyclopedic legitimacy. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, Kinu, Fairfax County has about 10,000 secondary roads. And, you're right, a great many in the 600 & 700 series are well signed. I only bring up the 10,000 number to show that, by itself, being a Secondary State Route in Virginia is meaningless. Some other claim to notability must exist to be included in Wikipedia. --Tim Sabin (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow... I just looked at the AADT data for Fairfax County... no joke, there are way too many secondary routes. Looking at this and other AADT documents also, some counties don't appear to be very choosy about which secondary routes get the lower numbers... there are some (likely signed) 600 series routes that are only a few hundred feet long and end in cul-de-sacs, whereas some that are numbered higher (and likely unsigned) that appear to at least connect to two other numbered routes at either end. Perhaps the case could be made that information about these routes is indiscriminate, since most appear patently non-notable... they're just streets that have numbers assigned to them for maintenance purposes, unlike the primary routes. I've struck my !vote in this matter and ultimately recuse myself of making a recommendation; due to my swaying back and forth on this matter it's probably for the best. However, I do concede that perhaps that the subject(s) of this article, and secondary routes in general, lack any sort of notability and lie outside the scope of Wikipedia, which could possibly be interpreted as a deletion recommendation. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move/rework per Fredddie's suggestion. The content should exist somewhere, but these routes don't all merit separate articles, and the current article is somewhat misleading since the routes don't appear to be connected. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:00, 29 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. v/r - T P 14:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Madeley[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability criteria + this person is spamvertising his wikipedia page sciencewatcher (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He won an award that was given at the same time to a "raft" of other people in his home town. He's a local businessman, a home town booster, and probably a fine fellow. However, not notable by Wikipedia standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I arrived at this page after receiving a spam email from Honey Pot Mail which Mr Madeley appears to run. Since this appears to be the only reason for this page I have added a speedy deletion request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjpg (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same as commenter above - received a spam message and looked him and honeypotmail up here. Should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.17.101 (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with this company and know that their databases are all opt-in and consequently they have several brand name clients. I am sure they would confirm this if approached by anyone who is unhappy with their emails. Their website states that they have a database of 360,000 'members' so I would expect more than 3 complaints out of 360,000 people, if it was actual spam.

On the contrary, such a low complaint rate is evidence that it is actually an opt-in database. Based on this complaint rate, if they emailed everyone in the UK simultaneously they would only receive 519 complaints nationally.

I see the subject's emails connected with this company and confirm that the subject's Wikipedia page has been included, on occasion, in the email signature as a source of further information. I can see no problem with this in Wikipedia's guidelines.

With regard to notability criteria:

The subject is the main topic of the following references, thus exceeding the notability criterion for 'significant coverage': http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/business/business_opinion/business_opinion_chris/8785385.Well_deserved_honour_for_character_Keith/ and http://www.aroundtownpublications.co.uk/online/celebrities/wakefield-mr-yorkshire.html

Both sources are clearly secondary, with obvious reliability (i.e. editorial integrity). Both sources are also self-evidently independent of the subject. For example, the Telegraph and Argus Newspaper is owned by Newsquest Media Group, which has no connection to the subject.

The above establishes the presumption that the subject is suitable. This presumption is accurate because the evidence is verifiable from a wide variety of sources which have built up over several years and not as a consequence any short-term promotional or publicity efforts. --109.153.45.0 (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you seem to be the person who created this page, and you are involved with the company, so your opinion doesn't really count. Are you Keith? Secondly, the lists are definitely not opt in - you purchased my email address from an illegally harvested mailing list without my permission. Third, when I look at spamcop alone I see 10 reports for your email, which is pretty typical of spam. If it wasn't spam you wouldn't see any spamcop reports at all (spamcop users aren't your typical hotmail idiots who click the spam button willy-nilly). --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say this seems like either a personal, or completely emotional attack with no evidence whatsoever given (or even attempted) for either the claim about the veracity of the email list or the notability of Keith Madeley. It is impossible for anyone to know whether their details are legitimately held by a particular company or not because of 'third party opt-in'. I advise readers to Google a definition of this legal term, and if they find it unacceptable, for them to never share their details with any company without first reading that company's privacy policy line by line and checking whether they may 'share your details with selected third parties'. As for Keith Madeley's notability, the post on 4th August has put this beyond doubt, as have the original page's citations. I wonder what is really behind anonymous Vendettas like this...--83.244.233.130 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vendetta. We just don't like spammers. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. He does appear to have received an MBE as noted in the argus article, so he's done some good community work along the line. But that doesn't make him notable. Szzuk (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ANYBIO. My understanding is that there are way, way too many Members of the Order of the British Empire for "MBE" to be notable for Wikipedia purposes. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ANYBIO. Also, we don't like spammers. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The post by IP address 109.153.45.0 on 4th August made completely clear that the MBE award, although could be seen as justification for the entry, is coincidental - The subject's clearly had a very high profile for several years and the entry was online long before the MBE was awarded (and no one disputed it then). Also, 10 people out of a database of 360,000 considering an email spam does seem like a very low number (possibly below average for an opt-in list?) So I have to echo the commenter's question on 5th August: "I wonder what is really behind anonymous Vendettas like this...?" --135.196.50.125 (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, per WP:SNOW, WP:BLP and common sense. John (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Colegrove[edit]

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

This photographer does not meet WP:BIO. I can find no reliable sources for him either on his website or via google. Some of the sources cited in his article are his own webpage (not independent of the subject) or are just not reliable sources.

The only clear reliable source cited in his article is "Ventura (CA) Star-Free Press (now the Ventura County Star) 18 May 1986 "The Art of War" pg C-9, column 8". But even there, it is not clear how much of that article covers Mr. Colegrove. Several paragraphs? A few lines? One of a list of people? That newspaper article supports text indicating that the year before his graduation, he worked as a photojournalist. People's summer jobs during college usually do not get much press, so I suspect this is nothing.

The other significant sources is from the "Organization for Ethical Photojournalism". Their info page indicates they are mostly supported by volunteer labor. Only one person on that list seems like a fact-checker (someone that does "research"). It is unclear from that whether this site would qualify as a reliable source. Without clearer indication that this person meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I think we should delete this article.--Chaser (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I really like to keep pages. So I'm sad to say it looks like this page is not a keeper. I agree with Chaser. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good nomination, Chaser. I just seached the Gayle/Proquest database (thousands of offline publications, all major newspapers and some minor ones indexed, magazines, trade pubs, alt press, etc.) No hits for "Daniel Colegrove", one hit for "Dan Colegrove", viz. a column named "Images", in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, 29 September 1996. Full cite in hidden text here. Ventura newspaper is apparently not included in the Proquest database, and no full text for the 500-word Plain Dealer article, either, so don't know whether it's our subject or not. Even if it were, subject still wouldn't meet WP:BIO. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as notability isn't apparent. -- Hoary (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I originally nominated this for deletion but I was not familiar with the process. Now that it has been done properly, I support the deletion of this page for lack of notability. That alone is enough reason for removing this page. I will also point out that the user Myraedison was created for the sole purpose of creating and editing this page and continues to do so. That user also serves as reference for another "contributor" to this page who is supposedly dead now. There is no online references to Myra Edison or Moe Richart, both of whom claim to be journalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grablife (talk • contribs) 10:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like a failure at WP:BIO, non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No historical importance, no reliable sources Silver163 (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability, possible COI problems. Racepacket (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because I'm asking nicely?NoWayToExplain (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty obvious non-notable spam. Incidentally, Chaser, when I click on those two links you posted, I get a GoDaddy page. They're also the only linked refs in the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Steven J. The site you refer to Organization for Ethical Photojournalism has been conveniently removed. It was used as the only other source of reference for this page. It was nothing more than a 1 level deep site with two to three glowing articles about Daniel Colegrove. It cited numerous quotes by the mysterious Myra Edison who also created much of the content for this page. --Grablife (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no idea. The links worked last night.--Chaser (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<WP:BLP vio redacted -- see talk> Silver163 (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm everything Silver163 stated. I was aware of that from the beginning but was not sure if it was appropriate or relevant to bring that into the discussion as the mere existence of his page is enough reason for deletion since he is not notable. I decided not to mention it since that drama is secondary to the removal of this page.--Grablife (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not relevant. You had the right instinct.--Chaser (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<BLP vio redacted>.NoWayToExplain (talk) 01:09, 28 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) 00:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video Yesteryear[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. PROD reasoning was the usual, lack of reliable sources. A ref from Billboard magazine was added after the prod was removed. While that is a reliable source, the coverage is a trivial directory-type entry and does little to nothing to establish notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough. They seem to be no longer with us but they did restore tons of silents over the years (their IMDB profile says they distributed nearly 200 films. They were also one of the biggest players in the old-time radio cassette market in the 80s. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is there anything besides IMDB, (which we cannot use as WP:RS) that can be found to establish notability and verify the article content? In the vast scheme of things, distributing 200 old films that are in the public domain does not actually strike me as a notable accomplishment. Anyone who wants to can distribute these old movies, of which there are thousands. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This New York Times article confirms the basics, I'm sure there's more as the bulk of their activity predates the web. Keep in mind they were actually restoring these movies using a patented process and adding their own original music, in a pre-digital era when it was very time-consuming and expensive to do so. It's not comparable to downloading some AVIs off archive.org and selling CDRs of them at the flea market or whatever. Chaplin movies may have been pretty niche during the video boom of the 80s but Video Yesteryear made the most of that niche for all it was worth. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a better Billboard reference is this one which is more substantial coverage. Newspapers have also reviewed their offerings: [25], [26], [27]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 28 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 per a minor WP:HEY job and the nominator being cool with the new version. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Binahian[edit]

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

Originally proposed for deletion and deleted, but the author contested the prod and thus it was undeleted. Really, this article is horrible, beyond salvage. It is hardly even an article, more like someone's personal blog post. It is full of personal notes by the author, written in first-person voice, and it blatantly admits it. Very few, if any, parts have any sources. The author even made a talk page comment asking other people not to edit the article. The author must think Wikipedia is his/her personal blog. DELETE. JIP | Talk 05:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate as a stub (or delete and recreate as a stub). Villages (or barangays) are notable, but this one is an extremely poorly written advertisement and possibly ~~filled with tons of copyright violations~~. I support keeping the topic, but scrapping the content. The entry isn't primarily about the town, but about an author living in that town.--hkr Laozi speak 06:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Tagging it for speedy deletion. There might be some copyright violations involved if kept, it's better to delete it, recreate it and start from scratch.~~ --hkr Laozi speak 07:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~(See below) I have declined speedies for advertising (not really) and copyvio (no source cited, I think the poetry is likely original composition, i.e. OR) While a stub on the village might be possible, this is so far from being an encyclopedia article - WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOTGUIDE, inappropriate tone - that I think it would be better to delete and let someone else start from scratch. JohnCD (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it sounded like a tourist brochure-ish like ad, but I agree, that's not considered traditional or obvious advertising as required by policy, so I understand the decline. I'll volunteer to create the article if no one else decides to after (if) it gets deleted. As of now, in this state, there's nothing rescuable.--hkr Laozi speak 09:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The first part appears to be a copyvio of http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Binahian and the long poem-type bit of http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Binahian::sub::Historya_Kan_Barangay and the rest appears to be in there too. Apart from this, it is blatantly promotional and non-encyclopaedic. Peridon (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep following reconstruction. My congratulations to those involved. Peridon (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not so sure about that. Given how the servinghistory site duplicates the article's layout down to the details, and the author of the article created it bit by bit, not in large chunks, I think it's more likely that the servinghistory site copied the material from Wikipedia instead of the other way around. That happens quite a lot. I remember one instance where an external site translated the article World Bodypainting Festival, that I wrote, into Spanish, following the original English text exactly. That wouldn't have been much of a problem had they cited Wikipedia as a source, but guess what? They didn't mention Wikipedia at all. I sent them a couple of e-mails but never got a reply. JIP | Talk 12:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, looking at dates. They don't cite Wikipedia, so far as I can see. (Aren't they in violation of something if they don't?) The whole ghastly thing screams 'BROCHURE!!' at me, though. Peridon (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do cite Wikipedia. There's a tiny little wee bit of text at the bottom, in next-to-microscopic font, saying "Some data may have been copied from the Wikipedia article about Binahian". JIP | Talk 13:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Some"? The whole thing... And divided up nicely into accessible pages with an index. Peridon (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It looks like this servinghistory site is actively copying content from Wikipedia. I edited the article Binahian less than an hour ago, changing "the language spoken here" to "the language spoken in Binahian", and the change already shows up on the servinghistory page linked above. JIP | Talk 16:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please don't bite the newbies. This author has been editing since 2007, but almost entirely on this article; clearly she has the wrong idea of what Wikipedia is about, but however inappropriate the article we should not be using words like "horrible" and "ghastly" about a good-faith contribution, particularly as she has been developing it for over two years with no comment or guidance, apart from file source problem notices, until now. JohnCD (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being naturally cynical, I'm afraid that despite WP:AGF I still regard this as promotional - especially with the amount of places this text and gallery can be found. Peridon (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel sorry for the author but I do not see that there is anything about this that could be salvaged. Mangoe (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stub it, but keep it. Per se notable topic, full of content that no longer meets Wikipedia standards, but as far as I can see the copyvio concerns haven't been substantiated and the photo links (for those photos which have now been properly licensed), at least, may be useful in creating a more appropriate article. And I agree with JohnCD about not "biting"--the article seems to have been written in good faith. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yuck! That's not a Wikipedia article, that's a travel brochure. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It appears that substantial cleanup work has begun on this article... but a lot of work is still needed. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 18:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article being abominably written is not a reason for deletion. As a real place, the subject is inherently notable. The article does need to be heavily edited. I did a bit of that earlier, but the article still needs a lot of work. Edward321 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a named settlement. As for the quality of the article, that's an editting issue.-- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our long-standing consensus to allow articles on verifiable settlements. Any promotional content can easily be removed by editing, whether or not the original author of the article likes it, but the lead section as things stand is perfectly acceptable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both User:Edward321 and I have tried to substantially trim down User:Nyleve02's excessively misguided contributions, leaving just the bare facts and removing all the personal commentary. The article has shrunk down to about one-sixth of its size. The editing is not yet complete, but it's pretty close. If the current version is acceptable, and User:Nyleve02 has learned his/her lesson and will not add personal commentary again, the article should probably be kept. The only question that remains is what to do with the heaps of images that User:Nyleve02 uploaded. Not anywhere near all of them are usable on any article on Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 18:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The original author's behaviour has no bearing on whether this article should be kept or deleted, as we have other mechanisms, such as blocking and protection, to handle such issues. Images need to be dealt with separately at WP:FFD (or at Commons if they are uploaded there) as this discussion is only about the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case, based on the work that User:Edward321 and I did, the entire nomination should perhaps be withdrawn. The only problem I've ever had with the article was that it was full of personal commentary. JIP | Talk 19:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rescued version. I thought originally that this was a case of WP:TNT, but based on the excellent rescue work I am happy to keep it. Main problem now is lack of sources. I am pleased to see that the original author's work is not lost - she has posted it at a more suitable place: http://nyleve02.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/binahian/. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wp:v: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- Jeandré, 2010-10-29t09:02z
- Comment - Do you doubt its actual existence? Because tagging it for references would be the appropriate thing to do if there are none currently to satisfy verifiability. Note that this census from 1916 would support the fact that this is a populated named settlement. -- Whpq (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but I don't think it's an encyclopedically notable subject. I think the burden of proof lies with the inclusionists to add refs to the article, and if even they don't think the subject is notable enough to put in a ref, then to have the article deleted. I don't think having 451 people in 1916 makes it encyclopedically notable, so I won't put that reference in the article, tho if someone else does, a keep by the closing admin will be following WP's rules (and making it harder to patrol for libel). -- Jeandré, 2010-10-29t15:26z
    - The 1916 census information happens to the be an item that I was able to find online. References do not have to be online. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 29 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 The Space Trilogy. A consensus is to merge. I'll create a redirect, all the content can be accessed. Tone 17:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Field of Arbol[edit]

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

This article goes too far into a fictional world. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Cosmology section of The Space Trilogy. Subject is notable, specific part of said subject is not, so merge it.--hkr Laozi speak 06:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hnau. JJB 11:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JJB's and Hongkongresident's comments. Shsilver (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. Why is this even at AfD? It's a textbook candidate for such an upmerge. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as appears to have been done with Oyarsa, Hnau, and Eldila at least. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 11:49, 28 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. Courcelles 00:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel cell sports car[edit]

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

Purely speculative article. There are numerous kinds of vehicles that could be built if fuel cell cars even come to fruition but until then the concept of a fuel cell sports car specifically is not notable. Sable232 (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like crystal balling to me. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fuel cell vehicle. Content is speculative, but the name is a perfectly valid one. Whatever information the reader is looking for can be found at the Fuel cell vehicle article.--hkr Laozi speak 03:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is potential with the one project the page references, but nothing notable yet. If the LIFEcar, or any other fuel cell sports car, actually comes into being, write an article about it, not about the genre as a whole. Ebikeguy (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, speculation. WP:CRYSTAL. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 28 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) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Khan[edit]

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

Not notable enough. Ibrahim92 (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 31 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. Courcelles 00:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Core Mathematics 1[edit]

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

Article about a very specific section of a very specific version of a qualification. Not remarkable enough for its own article. No other modules covered in the Edexcel AS-Level Mathematics award have their own articles, although they would be equally as worthy. Tomayres (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, no redirect. Way too specific. The syllabus doesn't even have an article, and we have an article for one of its modules?--hkr Laozi speak 07:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not inherently an unworthy topic (there's plenty of independent third-party coverage, after all, with websites set up to help people pass exams, so it would be possible to get something verifiable here and to meet WP:GNG), but delete anyway, because the obvious thing to do with something so incredibly specific is to merge it into a more general article, and there's no verified information here to merge (it's all WP:OR and first-party stuff), nor really an existing article to merge it to. So deleting the current article is no great loss; doing so is unlikely to hurt the future development of an article about, say, the A-level mathematics syllabuses in the UK in general, which would be a much more appropriate place for the text which would be in this article, if it were written correctly. --ais523 11:36, 28 October 2010 (U T C)

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. Courcelles 00:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Circle and Three Lines[edit]

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

Direct-to-video film with no notable coverage. Doesn't meet WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 10:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 18 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) 00:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of any awards or critical reception. The only coverage I could find was in a college newspaper. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but allow recreation on discovery of further sources. The college newspaper is a start, but more than that, imdb and the official website is needed. More, though not much more. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 29 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 Hawthorne Heights. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Never Sleep Again tour[edit]

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

Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 18 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) 00:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hawthorne Heights. The band, Hawthorne Heights, is notable, the concert tour is not, thus a merge would be most approriate.--hkr Laozi speak 00:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hawthorne Heights. All of the referenced information in this article is already mentioned in the last sub-section of the History section on the Hawthorne Heights page. The only information that exists at 2009 Never Sleep Again tour and does not exist at Hawthorne Heights is information that cannot be proven and has no references. --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 16:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search shows results [28]. The New York Times reviewed the tour itself. [29] Dream Focus 10:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Look at the publication date for that article in The New York Times; it was published in 2005! It was refering to the first Never Sleep Again tour, held in 2005, not the 2009 Never Sleep Again tour. The New York Times can't tell the future... that article clearly has nothing to do with the 2009 tour. And those news results from google likewise refer to the 2005 Never Sleep Again tour with fellow Victory Records bands: Bayside, Aiden and Silverstein. I suggest you create the page Never Sleep Again (2005 tour) if enough information can be found at those news sources, but THIS TOUR simply isn't notable. --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 17:20, 1 November 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) 04:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Whiteside[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines - two of the sources are self-published, the other doesn't mention him at all. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Created for IP by ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've taken out the sources that were there before and added one which did have in-depth coverage of the subject. However, one source does not a notable person make. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the news accounts cited in the article are significant enough. Advocate.com is not self published, and is a good RS. The Vanity Fair though not extensive is also acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 23 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) 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Create an article for New Left Media and merge this article into it. New Left Media is certainly notable, they've been profiled by the Washington Post and Film Threat, along with various trivial mentions in other mainstream media outlets. The notability of the nominated article, which features one of the creators of the organisation, is dubious, but the organisation is notable.--hkr Laozi speak 00:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is for an investment firm of the same name but not much else. [30]. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 27 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) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashin Mettacara[edit]

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

The "blog" linked to by the article is simply a news aggregation page. The first "award" cited as a source is a self-entered, paid-for site that doesn't itself seem notable. The second award is from a site with so many categories as to be worthless. The Guardian article is by Mettacara himself, so shouldn't be used as a source. In short, I can find lots of *claims* that Mettacara is a political blogger, but can't find any actual original writing by him. As such, he's non-notable. Jonobennett (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 12 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) 00:03, 18 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) 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable BLP per nom and epic fail of WP:RS. Did you check out the external links? Which two are identical? :D JJB 11:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andra Petru[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO. Has played one very minor role in a currently redlinked movie (The Whole Truth (2009 film)), with the two other roles mentioned at the article not even included in IMDb. Her beauty pageant titles are also not notable, with e.g. not a single mention of her win of Miss Washington Earth[31], and not a single reliable source and very few unreliable ones mentioning her related to Miss Earth[32]. No Google News hits either for her name. Fram (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 12 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) 00:02, 18 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) 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Her beauty pageant career has not garnered her a major title, nor any coverage in reliable sources that I was able to find. Her movie career is undistiguished with the claim to a featured role in World's Greatest Dad being unverifiable with no listing at imdb. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 27 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. One delete !vote is a very weak consensus but it's not likely that this film is notable and I don't want anybody's computer getting hozed when they try to check /search for sources. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian y Cristal[edit]

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

Article was created with clear conflict of interest to promote the film directly from the producers. There is no notable third-party coverage that I can find and no one notable is attached to the film. No wide or even limited theatrical release is apparent, only small screenings. Fails WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 08:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I just removed two links from the article, and folks are welcome to check the article history to see what they were... but when I clicked on one, the site immediately tried to infect my other system with the "Anitvirus 2010" hoax malware. If it infects your system, there are means by which to remove the infection,[33] but better to not get infected in the first place. Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:37, 19 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) 00:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If a film isn't even listed in the Internet Movie Database yet, it is unlikely to be notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:20, 25 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) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yasir Afifi[edit]

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

I've read the story this morning, and yes it does check out, but I'd go for "one event"... the guy hasn't done anything else in his life that could make him notable. The case can be described elsewhere once more becomes known. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This news is the first in the fight for privacy protections. UC Hastings Law Professor Rory Little of the opinion that Afifi's case is headed for the Supreme Court show that this is not the last you hear about it. (Not my personal opinion, mind you.) Also the case is being taken by Civil liberties-focused Council on American Islamic Relations who will ensure the fight goes on. Yosri (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstood. I'm not asking how a potential case could become notable, I don't see how the person could be notable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not saying he got potential, but he already the first case that highlight FBI monitoring based on racial profiling - male muslim, travel a lot. He is not the first, one among many, but first to get highlighted. Anyway, I'm not asking you to reply, it just my argument to keep the article for other's voters. Keep cool. Yosri (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know what is the speed US legislation process, but while wating for the verdict, I create Yasir Afifi touching on Big Brother tactic. The article can be redirect to ie. "Afifi vs. the United States of America 2020" at later stage. Yosri (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 18 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) 00:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

very weak delete The problem in this case is that the incident happened quite recently and may or may not have larger ramifications; the larger story simply hasn't had time to develop. It could possibly be merged into some article on US warrant requirements for surveillance. Mangoe (talk) 15:46, 25 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) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sciphone[edit]

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

Unpatrolled since 19 September 2010. This appears to be a spam posting for Chinese copies of genuine products. Doubtful encyclopedic value. Kudpung (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some articles on these products are spam, however the article is not written as an advert in this case. This is actually a very common phone in the UK (London at least). Therefore, just like other manufacturers, it has a place on Wikipedia. (see the PearC nomination for deletion) --AnonyLog (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google News archive search linked in the nomination finds plenty of coverage, such as [34], [35], [36] and [37], and the article is not written in a promotional way. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:37, 20 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) 00:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The gut reaction is that a counterfeit shouldn't be notable, but this one is, since it's so commonplace. Both Engadget and Gizmodo have featured it, along with minor mentions in tons of other media outlets.--hkr Laozi speak 07:52, 25 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) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Escape the Fate Tour[edit]

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

Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 18 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) 00:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hardly any coverage. [38]. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Escape the Fate. The band is notable, the tour is not, thus a merge would be best.--hkr Laozi speak 06:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't really contribute anything. I don't even think it should be Merged.--Raktoner (talk) 15:03, 31 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. Sockpuppetry notwithstanding, there is insufficient evidence of notability per WP:EVENT and WP:BIO. --RL0919 (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Bowie[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Additionally, although a courageous story, it appears this is notability per a single local event article. ttonyb (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 19 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) 00:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Shiasp101 (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Sticking to just the technical elements, the story meets as much of the notability criteria as does one on say a name like "Justin Barker" who is part of the Jena Six story line. Unlike a leaked or unsourced story, this one has court cases and dates and actual verbiage written and signed by a seated Judge and Clerk. Easily verified. Also, the Biography itself is verifiable through Univ registra & SOS. Further, this story seems to meet all the general criteria fitting that of a biography of a living person; And is the same as that of other people of little known fact and historic or precedence setting. Therefore it meets the standards and should not be deleted.— Shiasp101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Removed sockpuppet vote! ttonyb (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The existence of another article has no bearing on this article. Each article must stand on its own merits - see WP:WAX. This is an article authored by the subject of the event. It is a story of a local event that lacks any far-reaching consequences. Granted it is about a vile event, but the article lacks secondary support to validate the story. Specifically, the article fails to meet the criteria in WP:BIO using reliable secondary sources. ttonyb (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Ari4eva (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)I think this story is more than courageous because it is what the American spirit is all about. Whereas it transcends color by being a voice for the voiceless, it validates the perseverance of people of color. Importantly, it also highlights the social struggles that still exist between blacks and whites; that invisible, un-crossable line. Moreover, there is the opportunity for unique case study in precedence. It’s extraordinary that the case section is written in a way that presents impact of racism, due process, and outcomes for both parties. I think that both are fairly represented. The links show sequentially the events actually happened! I was blown away to see the actual court documented writings! And the “N” word should be linked to this story as a category of ref because the story offers much insight into behavior and actions of people. [reply]

In any case, Wikipedia seems to have many “Michele Bowie” noteworthy biographies. I don't know what obstacles she's had to endure, but it takes a strong person to handle such a situation the way she did. So maybe aspects of her life and education touch on many areas that should be linked to stories like Nat Love. Although, his is an autobiography, which from what I gathered is frowned heavily upon by Wikipedia guidelines. Comparatively, the Nat Love's story (though courageous & commendable) is less verifiable. So no, the Michele Bowie story should not be deleted. In fact, this is the kind of story someone should pass on to CNN. — Ari4eva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Removed sockpuppet vote! ttonyb (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The existence of another article has no bearing on this article. Each article must stand on its own merits - see WP:WAX. This is an article authored by the subject of the event. It is a story of a local event that lacks any far-reaching consequences. Granted it is about a vile event, but the article lacks secondary support to validate the story. Specifically, the article fails to meet the criteria in WP:BIO using reliable secondary sources. ttonyb (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--LTD1959 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)This biography shows how intellect and the system was used to deal with racism. Sheds more insight on the black/white relationship, closed minds, and the way the "N" word is used in anger. So, it should not be deleted.— LTD195 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Removed sockpuppet vote! ttonyb (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The existence of another article has no bearing on this article. Each article must stand on its own merits - see WP:WAX. This is an article authored by the subject of the event. It is a story of a local event that lacks any far-reaching consequences. Granted it is about a vile event, but the article lacks secondary support to validate the story. Specifically, the article fails to meet the criteria in WP:BIO using reliable secondary sources. ttonyb (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InformationWare (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I respectfully request that you do not remove Michele Bowie's Article. The Article is factually based upon her personal experiences. The experiences referenced in the article will be inspirational and therapeutic to others who have had similar encounters. More importantly, Michelle Bowie touched upon a topic that needs open and honest discussion. We have made tremendous progress in America regarding race relations through an open display of racial displeasures or racial encouragements. In order to gain our country’s ultimate goal of racial utopia, we can never suppress conversations geared towards reaching that goal. Unfortunately, the N-Word and its impact need to be at or near the forefront when having the aforementioned discussion.[reply]

Comment – Not to be harsh, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not intended to be an inspirational or therapeutic website. Perhaps a personal website is a better place for this article.

Articles must meet criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia using reliable sources. Specifically, this article fails to meet the criteria in WP:BIO. None of your comments provide support for the inclusion of the article in Wikipedia. Unless criteria is provided it is likely it will be removed. ttonyb (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overlooking that the article is bloated with unreferenced resume material and is written as what appears to be a personal account; I can see nothing that justifies its inclusion (and components may be considered libellous if there is material stated that has not been tested in court). In a global context it is about someone being charged under state legislation in the US (which occurs all the time). The case was brought by the state, not Michelle, and she appears to have little role apart from being the original complainant. I see no evidence of notability. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This does not pass WP:BIO and firmly falls under WP:ONEVENT. freshacconci talktalk 03:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Latchat (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Do Not Delete I live in GA. I saw this on the Internet and thought no way! I found a Michele Bowie in the Online Secretary of State Business Records that owns a company called PCI since 1998. Called the superior court to find out about the case. Guess what? It happened. The guy got three years for what she said! I didn't believe it. But it happened. The Grand Jury really handed down an indictment for this. That's amazing! And completely notable & noteworthy all on its own! To me this whole thing is simple, you have the names and case numbers. Do what I did: google the state and superior courts. But beware, they're probably swamped with calls on this one.[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 Jeopardy! tournaments and events. Courcelles 00:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Million Dollar Masters[edit]

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

Non-notable game show tournament. Other game shows often have special tournaments, and while someone won $1 million in this tournament it's not notable enough to warrant a separate article.

AfDs related to this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Million Dollar Celebrity Invitational

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Tenth Anniversary Tournament

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Seniors Tournament

Sottolacqua (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jeopardy!. No need for a separate article. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 19 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) 00:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. I've been bold, creating an article to merge all these special tournaments and events into.--hkr Laozi speak 00:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems just as notable as the other Jeopardy! special tournaments. However, it does appear that the article could use some work. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't think every single Jeopardy! Special tournament warrants their own article, merge into Nintendude64's link. --Addi hockey 10^e-mail 21:30, 25 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 speedy deleted as creation by a banned user with no major edits from others. Anemone Projectors 22:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Hutchinson[edit]

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

Singer whose "hits" are unknown outside of this article, and actor whose television career spans 23 years of bit parts. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a WP:HOAX: no evidence given that the person from Dublin is also the person with the same name listed on IMDB, which is not a reliable source per WP:RS. Original article contained several dubious unreferenced claims, removed in this edit. Top Jim (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree about the records. His part in Lloyd & Hill seems more than a bit part, as he played (spoiler coming...) the eventually unmasked killer. (As I don't watch TV, someone else will have to rule on the status of his part there.) The singer could be someone quite different, but a lot of actors do sing. Anyway, with no references outside IMDb, the article fails WP:BLP, to my mind. Peridon (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Hutchinson has also acted with the RSC, but the part I've found isn't a major one - Costard. http://www.rscshakespeare.co.uk/lovesLaboursLost.html Peridon (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 19 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) 00:02, 25 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. Courcelles 00:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hutch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Info zik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable American hip hop producer. Article has no sources, and couldn't find any to satisfy N or MUSICBIO. A previous AfD had no participants so was closed as NC. The same person created this article in the French wiki, and I suspect they just haven't got round to deleting it--like us. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 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) 00:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no reliable sources providing significant coverage to establish notability. All I can find are production credits like this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 27 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. Few comments but the two are correct. JodyB_talk 16:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recloose[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Simon crab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Record label. Some infiliation with notable acts, but not notable on its own. Previous closed NC with no comments. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard quote is very true- he was leader of the band supercreme- which as featured in Billboard and was quoted one of the best in NY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.70.245 (talk) 23:21, 24 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) 00:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any reliable coverage for this label. What little notability is does have is derived from notable acts rather than its own. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:54, 2 November 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) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libre ©[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. don't see any evidence of meeting this criteria. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 18 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) 00:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Addi hockey 10^e-mail 21:34, 25 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.