< 29 October	31 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 speedy delete under G8. — ξ ^xplicit 19:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amung[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Amung

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

I created this, and realized there wasn't an article for among after I created it. Endofskull (talk) 17:21, 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 bad forum. AfD is not the forum for making redirection requests. Use the article talk page for this, please. Sandstein 07:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Jeopardy![edit]

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

I am nominating this not for deletion, but as a redirect to the Celeb section of the J! tournament page. Us441(talk)(contribs) 23:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I to nominate for non deletion, my guess is either find a seperate page entirely for this or add it to the Jeopardy! page as added information. It's kind of cool to see what charities were played for by whom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.24.99 (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events — WP:NOTINHERITED, and special weeks of game show episodes that happen to feature celebrities are not notable enough to warrant their own pages. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close - redirection does not require deletion, and can be done without an AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy KeepThe nominator has stated that he is misusing the AfD process to justify redirecting an article. Redirections should be discussed on talk page. Ng.j (talk) 04:18, 7 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alli L!ve[edit]

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

No evidence that this person actually exists. The supposed film credits in Sabrina and The Kid don't pan out in IMDB. No evidence of a character called "Lala Mozilla" existing in Sabrina. Tabercil (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:RS to show that the subject meets WP:GNG, let alone WP:BLP or WP:MUSIC. Happy Editing! — 70.21.16.94 (talk · contribs) _{17:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
There is definently no evidence that this person exists, and she also is using other celebrities photographs on her "facebook" page pretending they are her. I have found no credits with IMDB. HOAX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.186.194 (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC) — 75.154.186.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This is getting silly. How would it even be possible for someone to make up a career and then gain such a large following? Highly illogical. (SharkEmpress01 (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If she has such a "large" following, then show us some evidence beyond a lone Facebook page, and a news item which looks suspiciously like it came from "Alli L!ve" herself... Tabercil (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not seen her Twitter? 3,000+ people following a nobody would be highly suspicious. (SharkEmpress01 (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Twitter is not a reliable source … have you even read the General notability guideline? Self-published sources don't mean a thing when it comes to establishing Notability by Wikipedia standards. — 70.21.16.94 (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Musamies (talk) 15:37, 4 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 speedy delete. apparent nonsense DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Katol[edit]

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

This Wiki is loaded with nonsense it should be Uncyclopedia material. It is also damaging to the real "Dragon Katol" mosquito coil product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenshinflyer (talk • contribs) 12:19, 27 September 2010

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 deletion. (WP:CSD#G3) -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarpaulin (fish)[edit]

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

Obvious hoax; references and image are fake, biological data is nonsensical (a manta ray with a beak?!), no relevant search results in Google. -- Yzx (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. What else could you expect from User:Sock Q. Faunce? -- East of Borschov 23:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Go to jail, do not pass go... Utter nonsense. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:30, 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. Courcelles 00:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crinkles magazine[edit]

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

Non notable magazine. No sources. DimaG (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—notability has not been established through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Google finds nothing but self-referential sites. Google News archive finds only a 30-years-ago mention [1]. --MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 6 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 redirect to Red (band). Davewild (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Armstrong (musician)[edit]

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

Contested prod, Non-notable musician that fails WP:MUSICBIO and has been tagged as possibly not meeting notability guidelines for five months with no Google hits from the find sources. Aspects (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red (band). Founder of a notable band, but there's just not enough content to merit a separate article. I would support a merge if someone expands the article.--Hongkongresident (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Article tells you nothing worth saving. Peridon (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not enough content or notability to merit a separate article. --Elassint (talk) 13:39, 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 speedy delete as purely promotional. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blix Corporation[edit]

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

Software, so no speedy. WP:N Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:57, 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. Courcelles 00:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Martin (comedian)[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Appears to be largely autobiographical & poorly-sourced. Tagged for notability for almost a whole year. Rodhull andemu 20:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable, at least not yet. --MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 6 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 speedy delete per criterion A10. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JPL12[edit]

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

Content fork of Jackie Robinson, listed under the editor's username. Seems like this should be speedied, but I couldn't find a speedy criterion that would cover this. This has been sitting here for two years! —Chowbok ☠ 20:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, Criteria G6 (uncontroversial maintenance) should cover it. Tagged as such. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:19, 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. Courcelles 00:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FasBall[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Seems to be a non-notable newly invented team sport. E. Fokker (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero notability, lacks sources other than a incorrectly formatted YouTube link. Google results are mostly comprised of misspelling of the word Fastball. --Elassint (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yawn~~ Delete Another of those made-up-one-boring-evening games. No notability shown and I didn't bother looking too far amongst the mis-spellings and the possible name of a group (although they might be really Fastball and mis-spelt too). (Not my job to, anyway...) When there's a national league, someone will write another article. Don't bother till then, please. Peridon (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a COI, as Fasballone created this page. T3h 1337 b0y 23:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, come on - would anyone else? Peridon (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP … blatant WP:COI by a WP:SPA … totally bereft of WP:RS coverage to meet WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.16.94 (talk · contribs) _{18:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete I couldn't have put it better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as advertisement, in my opinion. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 4 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. Will redirect John B. Means to John Barkley Means so anyone can perform the merge as required. Davewild (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Barkley Means[edit]

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

Unable to find any non-trivial reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:PROFESSOR. J04n(talk page) 20:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the two articles are on the same subject:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge the two to John Barkley Means Well, I learn something new every day. Maybe the nom will, too. According to WP:PROFESSOR, John B Means meets criteria 5, which states
- "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research."
The article states that he retired from Temple University as Professor emeritus, a title that Wikipedia defines as "typically awarded for 'long and distinguished service'". Thus, Dr. Means meets criteria 5, making the subject notable. Article needs some cleanup, but I don't have the money to pay for articles from newsbank. I see some stuff from the 80s in the Philadelphia Inquirer, stuff from the late 60s, etc, etc. Article has WP:POTENTIAL, and since it's notable, I say keep it and expand. Vodello (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Professor emeritus" does not satisfy WP:PROF #C5. In typical US academic usage, it does not denote any special distinction; it basically just means "retired professor". Professors who retire may on occasion be denied emeritus status, but it's very rare. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry that I confused WP:PROFESSOR distinguished with retired distinguished. Makes perfect sense. Proceed to easily destroy article with one click. Vodello (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one is easy. Keep and merge per above. AfD is not needed for a simple merge. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the problem is that to date we have no sources that verify this information. It appears that they exist but they are behind a paywall. Without the sources this remains an unsourced BLP. If it is decided to keep this article before sources are found, I suggest it be userfied to someone that is willing to obtain sources or sent to the incubator. J04n(talk page) 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge per above. He seems to have met WP:ACADEMIC but verification is hard to come by. However, it is verified that he was a department chair at a major university [2], and that would normally be enough per WP:ACADEMIC. (I am adding that reference to the article, so it is no longer an unsourced BLP.) He gets a number of mentions at Google News archive, unusual for someone in his field, but they are mostly behind paywalls [3]. He founded and led a society but it's not clear how notable the society is under Wikipedia standards. --MelanieN (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found several articles that verify his status as director of Temple University's Center for Critical Languages, but I do not have access to the full articles.
  - "TEMPLE GETS A GRANT TO OVERHAUL INSTRUCTION IN SPANISH LANGUAGE". Philadelphia Inquirer. 19 April 1989.
  - Michael Shoup (14 February 1982). "Speaking local tongue can enrich traveling". The Sun (United Kingdom).
- That's all I can do for now. Vodello (talk) 05:34, 6 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Charles Katz[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish the notability of this subject. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. J04n(talk page) 19:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has been deleted at least once before (maybe twice), and I proposed it for deletion last year. Yet there are still no sources, and not much of a claims of notability. Will Beback talk 20:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks WP:RS to support WP:GNG, let alone WP:BLP or WP:PROF … how has this survived for four years? Happy Editing! — 70.21.16.94 (talk · contribs) _{17:37, 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 00:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Sharp[edit]

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

Unsourced, tried to find on Google, and notable for only one event. intelati^talk 19:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, lacks notability --Elassint (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 00:15, 6 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. Davewild (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Karres[edit]

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

Unable to find any non-trivial reliable sources independent of the subject to verify the article and establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. J04n(talk page) 19:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was contemplating putting this up for deletion myself. Subject fails the notability guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, but even if everything at the article is correct he still doesn't seem to meet WP's notability criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 05:13, 6 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 nomination withdrawn. There is no remaining !vote for deletion and merge discussion can take place on the articles talk page. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dybbuk box[edit]

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

~~This seems like absolute nonsense, no decent references and lots of speculative hocus pocus waffle.~~ E. Fokker (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable because no reliable or secondary sources are cited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgankevinj public (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Have you looked? There are plenty at Google news

Keep: Seems to have plenty of reliable sources, especially related to the associated film. This, oddly enough, is a legend I've actually heard of via a radio show. With decent references established, and notability established (via the fact it's having a film made about it and the refs available at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Dybbuk+box%22), your other two reasons for deletion - 'absolute nonsense' and 'hocus pocus waffle' don't stand on their own. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of the refs now listed I'd say only one is much good, the LA Times. If it's kept then it really needs to be move to Dibbuk box as that is what it seems to be generally called. E. Fokker (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is quite a bit around on a certain search engine, but for once I disagree with the nominator. (This nominator, that is. I do disagree with other nominators at times.) I don't think it's nonsense - as such. I am cynical and suspect an attempted viral promotion of a certain film that shall remain nameless..... I would be interested to find out reliably how long the story has been around. A move wouldn't be needed - just a new redirect with the alternative title. Both are well used spellings. Peridon (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel that my rewrite makes the box meet WP:GNG and hopefully isn't full of speculative hocus pocus waffle. Lots of WP:RS and although it currently relies heavily on one source for the legend, I think it that the pay-per-view sources found in Google go into it in-depth as well. I just can't see the whole article! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source addition. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now looks like a completely different article with some good sources. I'm happy to withdraw my nomination. E. Fokker (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreeing once again... Peridon (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the main Dybbuk article that is short on content. This article does provide enough sources though. IZAK (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per IZAK Morgankevinj(talk) 18:26, 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. Courcelles 00:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Valladares (freerunner)[edit]

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

This is an article about a non-notable individual with no independent sources. I can find no record at Sherdog about his being an MMA fighter, his high point in acting seems to have been one role as an unnamed solider in a straight to DVD movie, and I found nothing notable about his freerunning.Papaursa (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero notability, content would be difficult to salvage, and lack of good sources. --Elassint (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Additional search parameters do not show notability. This individual exists, yes... but he fails WP:ATH, WP:ENT, and WP:GNG. WP:BIO is not met and WP:BLP is failed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no sources supporting notability. Astudent0 (talk) 13:36, 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. Consensus is that he does not meet the notability guideline.. Davewild (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Jennings[edit]

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

I've just declined the speedy on this, as there's clearly enough for A7. However, it feels very BLP1E, is he notable enough for his own article, or should it be redirected to something 9/11 related, or just deleted? Ged UK 14:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to infringe a little on MEMORIAL and with the sources given there seems little to indicate he would meet the standard Notability guidelines. Someone can be part of an event of the highest notability (as the 9/11 attack must be classed) but that does not make everyone who was involved and made a statement suitable for their own encyclopaedic article. Sources would have to be found demonstrating that Jennings was notable beyond this one event, and that does not seem likely. Fæ (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is only a little over one day old. It is still under development, and it may be premature to be passing judgment on it at this time. Arguments exist against applying BLP1E to individuals who are not living.(ref) BLP1E states, "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Jennings was discussed by the BBC as recently as July 2008.(ref); in recent independent documentation such as Loose Change, and discussion remains very much alive among the public at large. There are BLP articles on Wikipedia for other individuals who have less notability outside of 9/11 than Barry Jennings, and less sourcing for their text; are these articles going to be deleted as well? Examples: Amber Amundson, Welles Crowther, Pavel Hlava, Dave Karnes, Steven O'Brien, Jason Thomas, and Delmart Vreeland. Wildbear (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...notability extremely marginal...now deceased subject has had his name smeared by conspiracy theory proponents by their allegation that his wording "explosion" meant some kind of controlled demolition when he never alluded to anything of the sort. NOT a BLP violation as he is deceased but the impact is the same.--MONGO 20:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the controlled demolition issue is frequently brought up at the same time as Jennings' "explosion" account. However, probably few, if any, would argue that the "explosion" to which he referred was a CD in itself. (Jennings likely wouldn't have lived to tell about it if that were the case). Jennings evidently meant exactly what he stated: an explosion, or what he perceived to be an explosion, occurred while he was in the building. Controversy arises because this is in contradiction to NIST's assertion that "blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event."(ref). This puts the account of a government agency (which was not in the building) in conflict with a witness who was there. Until unanswered questions are answered and the matter is satisfactorily resolved, articles and videos about Jennings will likely continue to appear in the media, keeping the issue notable. And notability is the criteria for Wikipedia, regardless of its accuracy; at least in a non-living-person issue. Wildbear (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, onevent applies here, at least thus far. Is there is some other reason why the subject can be considered to meet notability guidelines? (forgot to sign) --Nuujinn (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about oneevent yet. There is more to Jennings' story than just the events in WTC 7. His death (the cause of which was not released to the public) and subsequent attempts by individuals to investigate his death or to have it investigated, and to push for media investigation and coverage, is a story in itself. Most famous in this issue is Dylan Avery, who claims to have hired a private investigator, who subsequently backed out, stating that it was a job for the police. I'm digging for reliably sourced information on the death investigation topic at this time. Only finding bits and pieces so far... not quite adequate for encyclopedic referencing. The latest mainstream coverage I'm seeing on Jennings is MSNBC from March 9, 2010; more of the WTC 7 issue.(ref) Wildbear (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Avery "claims" a lot...states his passing as already reffed at the article but doesn't say what from...maybe his family didn't want to discuss it...who knows. 9/11 truthers have nothing but gile...in his BBC interview on their show Conspiracy Files: 9/11 The Third Tower which can be viewed here in this now several year old program (released before NIST published their final WTC 7 report) Jennings appears briefly at 00:48, again at 09:49 and off and on for several minutes after that then again he clearly states (at 47:06) he did not appreciate The Loose Change take on his comments, and that he does not believe that the government had anything to do with 9/11.--MONGO 05:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an instance where I agree (to some extent) with most of what you have written, MONGO. Issues like these are the sorts of things that I want to see written into the Barry Jennings article, to help establish, to the best of our ability based upon reliable sources, what the known facts are concerning Barry Jennings. It is my desire to see the controversy about Jennings reduced, rather than augmented. The article is already receiving a lot of traffic, so I think it is potentially useful and worthwhile in that regard. It just needs more time and more work. Wildbear (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I read that the cause of his death was known, despite the allegations of rhe so-called "9/11 truth movement." I just wish I could remember what it was(I keep thinking it was diabetes-related). ----DanTD (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my extensive reading on the topic, I don't recall ever seeing a documented statement as to the cause of Jennings' death. If you can find one, I would love to see it. It would be especially good if it comes from a "reliable source". If the family doesn't want it to be known, then that would be good to know. I think that most people would be content to respect the wishes of the family of someone deceased. However, I haven't seen anything from Jennings' family in this regard. Silence leaves it an unresolved (and arguably controversial) issue. Wildbear (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He stated in his interview with the BBC that he DID NOT think there was a government involvement with 9/11 (building implosions)...so if he did come to an end from some kind of maliciousness, its not very plausible that the feds (or the supposedly clandestine ops that supposedly imploded the buildings) had anything to do with it if he was a "believer" of the mainstream (and factual) truth. It never ceases to amaze me how CTers draw at straws and make a controversy where their aren't any. Maybe the CTers were upset that he rejected their rendition of his words and actions....they've been well known to harass people at their homes, at ground zero and elsewhere...they have even been harassing Jennings family for the "truth". Let the man rest in peace and do him a favor and lets delete this abomination of an article.--MONGO 23:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no one would be curious about the manner of his death were it not for his involvement in 9/11. That's what he's known for, and fringe claims of something amiss simply because cause of death has not been reported do not add to his nobability as WP understands it. Looks like one event to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here we diverge again, MONGO. You appear to be making speculations and drawing conclusions based on your own point of view. If you can provide reliable sourcing for these assertions, great. It should go into the article. Also, you seem quite passionate in your position. The more heated the debate over a topic, the more it illustrates the need for cool, dispassionate documentation to answer questions for those who are seeking answers. Wildbear (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, he is not notable anyway, and his one event is only a big deal to conspiracy theorists that misused his own comments, for which he showed his dismay in his BBC interview.--MONGO 11:27, 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.

Kresimir Chris Kunej[edit]

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

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

The result was delete. extransit (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mckie & Co[edit]

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

Have just declined the speedy A7 on this, as the awards noted is probably enough. It's fairly close to a speedy-spam, but I've seen much worse.

A very quick google check doesn't throw much back that could be considered to meet the GNG, just to demonstrate existence. Ged UK 14:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious advertisement, without any reliable sources. News Search brings up just three results, all of which have nothing to do with the subject of this article.--hkr Laozi speak 14:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article on "a group of entities" that unremarkably exist to keep rich people rich. Oh, and I wonder about the articles on Simon and Sharon. -- Hoary (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the person who proposed the CSD, I agree with the comments above and this company doesn't meet the GNG. The article talk page comments inviting comparison with Price Waterhouse do suggest that this is a bit of advertising. Regarding the articles on the principals, I did wonder about them but wonder if the books edited just push them over the threshold. The articles need a good prune to make them less advert than they are. NtheP (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to go on in the references that I can see. It's a company (or group of entities - to me that sounds like the crew of a flying saucer...) doing its job. (Presumably - you don't tend to stay in that sort of business if you don't.) As said above - keeping the rich rich. I also wonder about the articles on the principals - outside the day job they seem to write articles on taxation (probably how to avoid or lessen paying it, not the social benefits of paying it... I've not read them so that is a guess). How notable that makes them, I don't know. The article looks promotional to me, too. I wondered about it previously but couldn't find a speedy that fitted properly (and have only once managed to bring an article to AfD). Peridon (talk) 19:36, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPDR Gold Shares[edit]

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

Appears to be merely advertisement. There is little content on the page except for a "See also:" Veriss (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to original redirect. Not enough information to support separate article created by anon. Nirvana2013 (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have reverted the redirect. The AFD has not closed with a concensus to redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This WSJ article is the most substantial writeup I can find. It's mostly mentions in articles about the gold market or other metal markets. What is the case for making this a redirect? -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've expanded it alittle, but it is clearly notable and one of the larger of the ETFs. Racepacket (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep The 400+ results from Google Scholar alone[4] show that this is a very notable ETF. Not to mention 20 mentions in the Wall Street Journal just in the last three weeks.[5] First Light (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs some work, but does not warrant deleting. Nirvana2013 (talk) 18:07, 3 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. Courcelles 00:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letters Burning[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BAND, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Top Jim (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the page doesn't look half-bad so I was surprised to search and find no significant coverage in reliable sources. The existing citations are not RS so they themselves don't provide for notability, only for the band appearance at the Warped Tour. Sad, because we even have some free images of them. Hekerui (talk) 10:30, 30 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:09, 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 !votes that comply with policy are almsot entirely one-sided. Consensus is that this is not notable enough for an article. Courcelles 00:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atpic[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable photo sharing site. I am unable to find independent and verifiable, third party coverage of this site. Alexa rank is over 600k (admittedly a poor metric in determining notability though). VQuakr (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —hkr Laozi speak 05:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —hkr Laozi speak 05:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, If you came here because of an atpic community email or discussion, remember that this discussion is not a vote. I have been using atpic for years now, and I think it's a great site offering an excellent free service, but I'm not convinced that it's notable. If you would like to make a case for notability, please see the notability criteria for websites and demonstrate here that atpic satisfies them. Also please declare any conflicts of interest that you might have. --Slashme (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly promotional entry on an obscure photosharing site. There's nothing to back up any claims of notability. The only results are classified ads for an unrelated service dating back to the 1950s-1980s.--hkr Laozi speak 05:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not sure how you managed to get those 10 results from google. A plain URL request asking for the site's name not coming for the site itself http://www.google.com/search?q=atpic.com+-site%3Aatpic.com returns 15k+ results Alexmadon (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Atpic is a generic name. There are a lot of things called Atpic. "Atpic photosharing", which is the subject of the AfD, brings up 10 results on Google News, which is more relevant. Also, since you've admitted that you're the creator of Atpic, the conflict of interest issue remains. --hkr Laozi speak 12:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry but the creator of the page can participate to this talk. The +atpic.com will search the EXACT string (the five letters followed by the dot followed by the three letters). As on the Internet DNS names are unique, that search guarantees that (almost) all results will be about this site! Alexmadon (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I never said you couldn't. I said that editing the Atpic article is a clear conflict of interest, and it is. I apologise for the second part, I didn't notice you had "atpic.com" as your search term (you can't blame me, I was half asleep...). But the point remains. Google News shows 10 results, mostly trivial or unrelated. You would have known had you clicked my link, and I'll admit I should have read your comment carefully before replying (I guess we're both half asleep, eh?). You need a lot more than that to get this article kept. And so far you haven't demonstrated that!--hkr Laozi speak 21:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I would suggest you write I believe (or think) you haven't demonstrated that rather than you haven't demonstrated that, just for respect of the users who do not think like you. Alexmadon (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I've done nothing but refer to the WP:N criteria, which is established consensus. These are not my personal beliefs, as you've implied, they are guidelines that all articles on Wikipedia must follow. Your customers may want this article kept, and that's perfectly fine, but this is an enclopedia with rules and policies for inclusion. Please understand that I've got nothing personally against you or the customers at Atpic. The article just needs to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines to kept, and it hasn't.--hkr Laozi speak 11:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        there are no customers here, as the site is free and as there is no company either. Please use the word users or community members. Alexmadon (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also you wrote that search returns 10 results? OK, I know that I have to assume good faith, but here I think you are pushing a bit too far; Even a plain google search with atpic photosharing i.e. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=atpic+photosharing returns 1.5k results! Maybe your google is not the same as my google... I attach a screen shot at: http://pic.atpic.com/2026404 of the google results for that request Alexmadon (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let me clarify: Google News returns 10 results, and that's the search that matters. Normal GHITs aren't factored in since the results are mainly trivial, forum posts are not considered by policy to be reliable sources. After all, we are hunting for sources as required by WP:N, and not a random posting on Twitter, aren't we? ;)--hkr Laozi speak 21:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Also note that Alexa rank is 632,932... for comparison's sake, the similar site Flickr is ranked 36. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the alexa stats cannot cope with the site multi subdomains (username.atpic.com). Look at the quantcast stats instead: http://www.quantcast.com/atpic.com?country=FR Those are direct measurements with a javascript async call to quantserve servers. Rank France 869 on Quantcast, rank France 29,892 on Alexa (a factor 34!!!) The firefox plugin of Alexa just sucks. It just means that the population using Atpic does not like to to install the Alexa plugin... Alexmadon (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ok, I debated not mentioning the Alexa rank in my nomination and in retrospect probably should not have due to the distraction factor. Have nontrivial, independent works been published about this subject? VQuakr (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment mmm, I cannot find the previous Deletion request page but that has already been discussed. Atpic is not an idea, it is a web site. If you have doubts about the truth of what is written in the wikipedia page, just open a (free) atpic account and check by yourself what is written is true. Alexmadon (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. "just open a (free) atpic account and check by yourself" That's blatant advertising, and on the AfD too! For shame, sir. Also, the flood of single-purpose accounts is not helping your case.--hkr Laozi speak 12:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, no advertising here. Just checking facts. What flood are you talking about? Please do no bite newcomers. Or are you talking about your 10 days old account? Alexmadon (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm referring to all the keeps below me, that "mysteriously" popped out of the woodwork when initally, it was all deletes. Pointing out an observation not directed at any specific user is not biting, I mean, just look at their keep rationales: "I am a happy user of it since 2004" and "Great Service!". Be civil and assume good faith, you've linked to the article, now practice what you preach. I'm relatively new too (and it's 15 days now, about half a month!) so you don't try biting me either! That's not to say I haven't participated or edited as an IP address before. --hkr Laozi speak 21:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same as above, the site is notable and I am a happy user of it since 2004. I guess not PR article can be found on the internet because the site is free and the site owner never wanted to invest in a PR article. Photoact (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not relevant according to Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria. --Slashme (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It definitely is popular. Rather than ranking, check the number of users and site activity.(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.9.217 (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not relevant according to Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria --Slashme (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same as above : notable site. User since... 1994 and very happy of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bistouille (talk • contribs) 12:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Atpic. It's service right for me. I use it 2 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.113.222.250 (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Atpic! Great service! Easy to use and to create an account. You can upload pics with different resolutions. Very happy with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.31.144 (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been using Atpic for a few years now , free hosting , no banners , what else could one want ! Keep the atpic site at wikipedia !!!!! Queezel

Keep. Not only does atpic include features not available on most free photo-sharing websites, most notably ftp upload and direct linking, the notability objection is without merit. atpic has been mentioned both online and in print. A paperbook presently available at amazon.com includes a chapter about atpic: http://www.amazon.com/Photo-Sharing-Websites-Mobileme-Polanoid/dp/1155680111, also atpic is noted on the following websites: http://photo-sharing-websites.no1reviews.com/atpic.html, http://www.shortcourses.com/display/display1-11.html, http://www.xmarks.com/site/www.atpic.com/, http://digitalweddingguide.com/websites-to-show-your-photography-portfolio-business, http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews146809.html, http://www.ilikesharingvideos.com/video-sharing-sites/en/atpic/sort-alphabetically/. atpic.com is a useful, non-commercial, photo-sharing website. It's omission from Wikipedia would hurt the public good by limiting users' options for photo-sharing and direct linking to pictures. When a free and unique-featured service is available to Internet users, we should collectively make an effort to make descriptive information available to Wikipedia users. Otherwise we will all be forced to use only commercial services offered by the big guns at a price they determine. --Woodyrox (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not for promoting any organisation or individual. It is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. Peridon (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A note to newcomers: Whether or not you use the site is irrelevant. If you want to save the article, get some references that comply with WP:RS and WP:GNG and add them to the article (and tell us here. In the meantime, no references means no indication of notability given. As a matter of interest, the French Wikipedia article was deleted earlier this month, and I've removed the transwiki link to the German language Wikipedia, as the article there wasn't about Atpic and had been deleted in 2007 anyway. The Russian transwiki link goes to an article on photosharing with no mention of Atpic, so I've removed that too. Otherwise, per nom. Peridon (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that my delete is based on the article and not the product or service. I don't use photosharing (except for avatar hosting elsewhere) and have no opinion on the greatness or otherwise of Atpic. It is not shown to comply with Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. You can do something about that. Read the policies I've mentioned, and get the proof that it is notable. Your opinion doesn't count. Proof does. See WP:V. You can save the article (and have a moment of glory), but it won't be by posts like those so far made in support. It'll be by work. Peridon (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I made changes to the article's "References" and "External links" sections by adding some of the info from my discussion post. But being a newcomer, I am uncertain if I did this properly. Please let me know if more is needed. --Woodyrox (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At last... You could do to get some independent sources that we here can check. Books are valid sources, but are somewhat suspect to those of us who frequent AfD if nothing else is around.... You've usually got about a week on AfD. The refs to folksonomies (or whatever...) are OK to have, but you must show Atpic's notability. Atpic site is no good as a ref, and forums and blogs are not much good - but the existence of an Atpic specific forum might help. Non-PR stuff is needed - independent reviews are quite good. Peridon (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too modified the Atpic page with an extra book reference: Digital Photography for Next to Nothing: Free and Low Cost Hardware and Software to Help You Shoot Like a Pro, John Lewell (Author) Excerpt - page 281: " ... FREE, supported by other income. Atpic A very small site, developed and maintained in France mostly by Alex Madon, Atpic, shown in Figure 30.1, is FREE ... " Paperback: 384 pages Publisher: John Wiley & Sons (14 May 2010) Language English ISBN 978-0470687260 Product Dimensions: 23.1 x 18.5 x 2.5 cm Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 132,777 in Books. Atpic is mentioned as one of the best (should I say notable?) free photo sharing sites at Part VII: Sharing & Publishing your work, Chapter 30: FREE Online Photo-Sharing Sites, Selected FREE Online Photo-Sharing Sites. Getting the excerpt is easy: just search for Atpic on amazon. I attached a screen shot also at: http://pic.atpic.com/2019119 for those who have doubts. John Wiley & Sons is generally seen as a very serious publisher so I hope that this DOES count for notability. Alexmadon (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references are too few to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guideline. And they are trivial mentions, you need sources that focus on the subject, not just listing Atpic among a bunch of other photosharing sites.--hkr Laozi speak 13:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a popular site which provides a good service. I actually found out about it from wikipedia. Thomas d stewart (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, what is the joke? Which criteria Atpic brakes, what is the reason for deletion? Atpic.com is the most advanced photo hosting service, covering Google Picasa, Microsoft photo.live.com, Yahoo Flickr, among many others. Only Imageshack.us (Yellow Frog) is comparable with Atpic.com. I am a proud user of Atpic hosting, Opera browser, Mercury & Pegasus Mail, Textpattern CMS, and other best products — should we remove all them from Wikipedia for lack of popularity among simpleton users? -- Vienuolis (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please read my posts above? (This applies to the two posters above this.) 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Peridon (talk)

I guess that what Vienuolis means is that wikipedia ought to mention not only the most notable sites but also the alternatives. Like for the tag links on the wikipedia page, there is a power law here too: the most popular photo sharing site (or whatever subject specific site), will take 90% of the market share, then the next most important will take say 6% of the market share, etc... so the real question is where to cut the long tail? To me, the site is notable enough to have its wikipedia page.

To you, perhaps. But on Wikipedia, all articles have to follow the notability guideline. No exceptions. And this article does not meet any of the required criteria.--hkr Laozi speak 13:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no exceptions? Then you will need to remove most of the wikipedia. Other photo sharing sites listed in the wikipedia do not have more books or article links to prove notability than atpic, see: BlueMelon, Woophy, Piczo for instance. Most of them already went through AfD and were kept. THIS ARTICLE too went through AfD and was kept but somebody deleted the previous talk. Too bad. This page should be named AfD 2nd nomination and should include the first debate.Alexmadon (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the "other stuff exists" argument is a weak one, for a very simple reason: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article."--hkr Laozi speak 21:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is wikipedia meant to record popular things, or explain stuff? If it is, it really should be dropped as a reference site. Could the real issue here be how to present all of the photo recording sites? Photo sharing is the real topic, and the means should really be subtopics. 2049, October 24, 2010, UTC jsae —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.174.97.23 (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the site has decent google counts, it is almost always mentioned in photo sharing comparison reviews, some books cite the site, the quantcast rank is very good. (Also as the site allows hot linking, hotlinks won't trigger a count to the ranking sites, on the contrary to applets). All this to me is enough to qualify for a keep. Tutankabron (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I've never been involved in a topic deletion process. How does this process proceed and how is the final decision made? --Woodyrox (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woodyrox: the whole process is described at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. The relevance of the deletion of a page is generally discussed during one week, or more if no clear decision can be made after one week of debate. Thanks Alexmadon (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The final decision is made by a closing admin, someone who hasn't taked part in the discussion but who reads through the page here (and sometimes I feel very sorry for the unfortunate admin. I don't know if they choose or are chosen. Peridon (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When looking for a non-commercial hosting photo site, atpic was one of the sole alternatives. Is that not remarquable enought ? Remind that Flickr is own by yahoo and Picassa by Google ! These sites works by putting ads online and by selling your personal data. I found this site thanks to Wikipedia, actually. It would be really a sad from wikipedia to delete the article. Ah, and I think google search scores are a really poor way of evaluating the interest for a Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.17.11.20 (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nit pick: you can't have one of sole alternatives - sole means the only one and there are no others. We don't count the Google scores as such - it's what comes up that's searched through for sources meeting WP:RS. If you all really want to save this article, READ the policy and put the references in. Don't just waffle on about how good it is - PROVE IT. We aren't trying to get this deleted for fun. It's because there's no indication it meets OUR requirements for articles. I'd be happy enough to see it survive - with the necessary additions... Peridon (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peridon, with the help of google, I added to the references section three papers mentioning Atpic, what do you think? They are not paper about Atpic but they mention Atpic as an example in their paper. I'd say that this shows somehow the notability of Atpic.Alexmadon (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A French research paper about folksonomies gives Atpic and Flickr as photo sharing sites examples, IC2010 Ingenierie des connaissances, Nimes, France (2010) "Les motifs sequentiels au service de la structuration des folksonomies", Sandra Bringay, Maguelonne Teisseire, Julien Gomila, Damien Hoffschir and Thibault Vicaire. A copy can be retrieved from http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/48/77/32/PDF/IC_2010_VF.pdf

A UK paper cites (page 270) Flickr, Picassa and Atpic as social photo sharing networks Journal of Media Practice Volume 10 Number 2&3, p267-272, Intelect 2009 'The changing flux in the photograph at the precipice of change: the phototrix and the death of the photograph', Yon Marsh, North East Surrey College of Technology, UK. A copy can be retrieved from: http://www.yonmarsh.org.uk/phototrix/Phototrix.pdf

A Greek research paper writes about photo sharing sites "such as Atpic, Flickr, Imageshack, ipernity, Jalbum,. Photobucket, Piczo.com, Picasa, SmugMug, Webshots, and. Zooomr." in An Automatic Multi-Agent Web Image and Associated Keywords Retrieval System Papadakis, N. Ntalianis, K. Doulamis, A. Stamoulis, G. Comput. & Commun. Eng. Dept., Univ. of Thessaly, Volos, Greece Systems, Signals and Image Processing, 2009. IWSSIP 2009. 16th International Conference on Issue Date: 18-20 June 2009 On page(s): 1 - 4 Location: Chalkida Print ISBN: 978-1-4244-4530-1 INSPEC Accession Number: 11023559 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/IWSSIP.2009.5367695 Date of Current Version: 28 December 2009 A copy can be retrieved from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/5367684/5367685/05367695.pdf?arnumber=5367695

Note that these are just trivial sources and the WP:N guideline requires sources that focus on the subject of the article. A brief mention among a long list of photosharing sites does not satisfy WP:N.--hkr Laozi speak 12:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An encyclopaedia exists not only for the purpose of dealing with mainstream topics, but also makes a point of dealing with less common ones. If Atpic is little known, who cares? Someone is bound to go fishing for information about it anyway. Plus, if Wikipedia reduces exposure of little known sites/topics, it indirectly keeps promoting better known ones. Athomic69 (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We do! An online encyclopedia is still an encyclopedia. Simply existing does not merit an article, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Check out the guidelines and policies at WP:N and WP:NOT.--hkr Laozi speak 12:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Added another source which mentions atpic. It's an eBook from shortcourses.com, a website which specializes in photography ebooks. The eBook can be found at http://www.shortcourses.com/store/display2.html, the specific mention of atpic is in the "Taxonomy and Folksonomy" section in the "Publishing Your Photos -- Photo Sharing Sites" chapter which is linked here http://www.shortcourses.com/display/display1-11.html. --Woodyrox (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One of the goals of Wikipedia is to broaden the horizons, introduce new topic -- and new sites! Atpic is an example of photo-sharing web sites. As such, Wikipedia should cover it!...

Dr. LL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.237.180 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they need to be referenced. Instead of telling us regulars how Wikipedia works, why not read the policies WP:GNG and WP:RS and then discuss it - or even better, get into gear and FIND the references. It's not up to US - see WP:BURDEN. Sorry if this seems like biting - I do get tired of people not taking any notice when they're told. This doesn't apply to Woodyrox etc who are trying.Peridon (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Currently, despite there being a numerically high figure of keep votes, the logic for keeping is absent in most, leave two of them. Assuming good faith on the ips, I have no issues in relisting this AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether it is the best photo hosting site or not (is there some objective measure of this?) is immaterial. It does not satisfy the criteria listed in WP:N. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There really isn't much else to say here (Peridon definitely drove the point home), but...what part of WP:N do you keep !voters not understand? Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Admittedly, ATPIC references are scarce, which should make it hard to match WP:N. However, Google returns close to 30000 direct links to atpic user galleries, which suggests at least that many people know it, use it, presumably point their acquaintances to it. I suggest we appreciate WP:N against that proven 30000 audience. Athomic69 (talk) 09:20, 03 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:WEB miserably, Alexa and google hits are irrelevant. Multiple SPAs !voting seems to indicate some form of puppetry. SmartSE (talk) 11:22, 4 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Fringe[edit]

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

Declaration of interest: I am a director (i.e. board member) of another venue at the Edinburgh Fringe.--ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough coverage to establish notability ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Free Fringe has become a well-known part of the Edinburgh Fringe, and a quick GNews archive search for Edinburgh "Free Fringe" shows plenty of coverage. I would be quite happy for all the major venues at the Edinburgh Fringe to have articles, (and even long-running minor venues in a list article). Suggest WP:BFAQ#COMPANY if you think your own venue deserves an article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- That sounds rather like an argument supporting a merge into Edinburgh Fringe, rather than keeping this one as a separate article. Do you think we really need separate articles for 'the event itself' and 'the group promoting it'? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Free Fringe is not the group that promotes the Edinburgh Fringe (that's the Festival Fringe Society), it is one of several organisations that hosts a lot of events within the Fringe. The Edinburgh Fringe is a vast festival and I doubt very much you could put all the encyclopaedic information about every notable venue into one page. It's quite normal for highly notable subjects to have sub-pages covering different areas of the subject - no-one, for instance, suggests merging BBC One into BBC. There are some arguments for a merge (possibly merging all the different free fringes together), but that's something that should go into a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find any significant coverage other than the one item already referenced. I think hardly any of the 100+ venues deserve articles, and I don't think that the venues I run meet WP's notability criterion: I was simply declaring an interest in order to be open about it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 21 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, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A search on GNews finds a lot of articles referencing the Free Fringe (that's excluding all the non-Edinburgh things called free fringes), but the big ones I found are this article from BBC News about an award given to the founder, this article in the Scotsman covering all the free fringes, a fair amount of attention in this article in The Times, numerous mentions in other national newspapers and many Free Fringe-Specific articles in publications that cover the Edinburgh Fringe. There might be a case for putting all the different free fringes (PBH, Laughing Horse and Forest) into one article, or even merge all the major venue chains into once article, but that's for a merge discussion, not this one. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:47, 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 13:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the material discussed by Chris above seems sufficient to keep the article; the advisability of a merge should be discussed atthe talk p. of the main article, since, as he says, it will apply to more than this one group. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 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. Courcelles 05:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dyker Beach Golf Course[edit]

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

Non-notable local golf course Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There seem to be a few sources (such as here and here, and a hint of another here) which may just push it over the notability threshold. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 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) 00:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Jimmy Pitt's efforts notwithstanding, it doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Golf courses, like major parks, are significant geographic features and therefore always notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 13:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This golf course is more than 100 years old. It gets tons of mentions [6] and an occasional actual article [7] in the New York Times. Tiger Woods's father learned golf there. It's described as "one of the most played public golf courses in the nation." [8] I don't agree with DGG that all golf courses are notable, but this one certainly seems to be. I'll add some sourcing to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There, I cleaned up the writing, deleted the namedropping of non-notables, and added sources. --MelanieN (talk) 05:56, 6 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. Courcelles 00:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deyi Secondary School National Cadet Corps (Land)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG secondary school group with no sources on the article and none that I could find to establish some kind of notability Mo ainm~Talk 20:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 17 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, 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 13:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local branches of larger organizations are generally not notable. That clearly seems to be the case here. If someone wants to retain the information, it could be properly included in Deyi Secondary School. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:11, 5 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. Courcelles 00:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raëlian Church membership estimates[edit]

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

Not a notable topic. The information could be given in one or two sentences in the article on the group. (For instance: "There have been various published estimates of the number of members, ranging from 80,000 down to only 24. ~~This seems to be due to the Raelians' desire for publicity and the negligence of the news media in fact checking.~~") I struck out the second sentence due to OR concerns expressed, as well as possible BLP concerns. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You proposed the following as a replacement sentence, "There have been various published estimates of the number of members, ranging from 80,000 down to only 24 170." What value is gained by deleting all the references? Also 24 referred to the reported number of Raelians in South Florida. With an error in representation such as that, can you be regarded as qualified to judge the notability of the topic?Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 14:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. My mistake. The low estimate for world-wide membership was 170, not 24. -Steve Dufour (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 2004 or 1974? Do you even spend 10 seconds to carefully read the article?Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 14:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I see now what the article is saying. I am withdrawing the nomination since this is a bad AfD, although I still think the article is not needed. It's more about the sources than about the only important fact, which is the estimated number of members. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic and WP:OR Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it original research? It simply says it's what the media reported. No interpretation or reading in between the lines is necessary to generate this list.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 14:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) Do you want to see real original research? Try the above recommended statement by Steve Dufour: "There have been various published estimates of the number of members, ranging from 80,000 down to only 24. This seems to be due to the Raelians' desire for publicity and the negligence of the news media in fact checking." How do you go from "There have been various published estimates of the number of members, ranging from 80,000 down to only 24." to "This seems to be due to the Raelians' desire for publicity and the negligence of the news media in fact checking."? Compare that to what the article currently states: "Various news media have reported Raëlian Church membership estimates, and these statistics, often provided to the news outlets by the Church itself (see the sources below), claims a long-term term trend of past growth. However, despite the media's efforts to provide coverage on the Raëlians, the estimates taken within a given year can vary by tens of thousands. Outliers appear when charting the dates of membership estimates." "In addition to the media, Susan J. Palmer, a Canadian sociologist who has studied new religious movements has given several estimates of the size of the movement in different years, and a member of the University of Virginia has given estimates as well. Claude Vorilhon the founder of the Raëlian Church gave the earliest estimates of the movement's size in his 1970's Raëlian books. Most, if not all of the estimates below originate from numbers given to journalists by representatives of the Raëlian Movement during media interviews etc. Occasionally journalists will quote outdated information which would account for what appears to be a decline of thousands of members in a short period of time." None of that is original research.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn I actually did act too fast in nominating this article for deletion. I see that what it is saying is that sources put the number at around 40,000 to 80,000. That's not an unreasonable range. I still think that it would be better to just put that information in one sentence in the main article with 2 or 3 of the best sources cited. -Steve Dufour (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note- Well, if that's what you think, Steve, the best thing is not to withdraw the nomination but to do what I'm about to suggest which is to:
Delete and merge to Raëlism in the form of a sentence or two. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk · contribs) and Steven J. Anderson (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge relevant content to Raëlism. Most of the information in this page likely violates WP:TRIVIA. John Carter (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of you know if an article about "membership estimates" can be made to be encyclopedic? What are the criteria? Can it be something other than a large country or organization? Is it simply a matter of third parties or some academic writer giving a damn about what the sources estimate some membership to be? Also, how is it going to be incorporated? And does a third party have to actually measure the membership for it to be included in the article?Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 22:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Raëlism as applicable. For the most part this is pure trivia.Griswaldo (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, putting a one-sentence summary into Raëlism. Not even remotely notable. Do not merge since more than a sentence or two makes no sense, and don't leave a redirect, because this is an unlikely title. Hans Adler 16:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prety much as above.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very bad sourcing; many of the source articles no longer exist, of those that do, many are behind pay walls or cite the Raelist church's own membership estimates(no third party verification). If we remove unsourced or badly source material there isn't anything left to merge to Raëlism let alone justify keeping this article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is nothing remarkable about various estimates being a little different from each other, and each source giving their estimate as if it was somehow definite. You would find the same thing about any group that is the subject of media attention, for instance the Tea Party, the New Black Panther Party, and many more. Actually the fact that the range is only 100% (40,000 to 80,000) is fairly good. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It might be good if every article that uses daily news media reports as sources included a disclaimer that they are not very trustworthy on details since there is a deadline and readers want definite facts, not estimates. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:07, 4 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mojżesz David Kirszbraun[edit]

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

The subject does not pass WP:PROF, except possibly the first criterion

The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

The single paper written by the subject has been cited on the order of 100 times according to Google scholar. This is significant, even given the subjects low h-score of 1, but it is not enough to build an encyclopedia article around. Mr. Kirszbraun should be mentioned in the article on Kirszbraun's theorem, but there are no sources on the subject and there will never be enough content for a separate article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entry about Kirszbraun written by Edward Marczewski in the polish biographical dictionary. Once I get it I will add more information. Also I believe that he published more than one paper, but it is hard to find.--Tosha (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. From WP:PROF: If an academic/professor meets ANY one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable; so #1 is enough.

Oh, I don't disagree. But I said that he fails except possibly the first criterion, and then I proceeded to explain how he fails that as well, as well as the general provision on the existence of sources, per WP:V, although that seems no longer to be an issue. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Tosha could produce a citation for that biographical dictionary, then this is a keep under WP:GNG - people with print encyclopedia entries about them rather by definition have significant coverage in a secondary source independent of the subject. Ray^Talk 01:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The job is done :)--Tosha (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tosha and provision of a source. Ray^Talk 14:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he's notable enough for a print encyclopedia, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Per conversation with User:Piotrus, having an entry in the Polish Biographical Dictionary establishes notability under the general notability guideline. ‎ Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of other mathematicians have written on or expanded upon Kirszbraun's work – impact (notability) is obvious – I've added several references. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- PS. Circumstances of his death should be cited (perhaps the above encyc article?) or this statement should be removed. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 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 Nomination withdrawn Acather96 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Isai Sangam[edit]

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

Unremarkable music association, might be promotional. The only reference is in a different language on what I presume is the company website. Fails WP:GNG. Acather96 (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ~~Keep~~. A quick News search indicates it does meet WP:BAND criteria, but the article needs to be cleaned up. There's been non-trivial profiles of the organisation on various well-known Indian newspapers, like The Hindu and Indian Express. And this is without the non-English results, which there could be a lot of.--hkr Laozi speak 13:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've started from scratch and have entirely cleaned up the article. The article is now entirely sourced, and meets all of the criteria at WP:MUSIC.--hkr Laozi speak 13:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, really good re-write, you've definitley brought it up to scratch, and asserted notability. Withdraw nomination Acather96 (talk) 14:05, 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 keep. Courcelles 00:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russia national bandy team[edit]

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

Same rationale as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia national bandy team. Apologies for not including it in that AfD. The fault is probably my own. (If the WP:TWINKLE user manual includes guidelines for mass AfD discussions, I can't find it.) Shirt58 (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Lots of Ghits and the rest of my research seems to indicate Russia is an epicenter for bandy in the world, including the fact they hosted and participated in the 2010 Bandy World Championships. Redfarmer (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I can understand (sorta) the nominations for some of the other, lesser-known bandy teams, but this one nomination is odd to me. A search for "Russia" and "bandy" on Google pulls up millions of hits, many of which, like Redfarmer said, talk about Russia being a center for bandy and their various times hosting and winning the Bandy World Championship. As far as I can tell, the rationale for the AfD is that there is no evidence that the team exists, which is blatantly wrong. Bds69 (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^prattle 17:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as bandy is, after all, a Russian sport and they appear to be probably the best team in the world, and therefore probably the most well-known. However, I still think that merging all of these national bandy team articles to something like List of national bandy teams would be the best result. The Russian team is probably the only one that has enough verifiable information for anything close to a full article. Perhaps it could be split from the list article. SnottyWong ^prattle 17:34, 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—there is clear consensus rooted in relevant policies and guidelines. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Theory of Sensible Selfishness[edit]

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

This is a personal essay or original research. JohnCD (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article explicitly states that it is an original essay, saying, "My Senior English Honors Professor Theodore Zawada, introduced Ishmael to the class." Thus, delete per WP:OR and WP:NOT. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't help but agree. This is definitely a pure WP:OR essay, even written in first person. Redfarmer (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP, WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY, etc. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the title were at all notable, it could be redirected to Enlightened self-interest, but it isn't, so delete it. First Light (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it is original research, maddeningly WP:MADEUP, and decidedly non-encyclopedic. The content is an exact duplicate of that found in the Sensible selfishness article, already mercifully deleted. --Seduisant (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of sources makes this to a an essay full of original research. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:58, 4 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 merge to Paradise Hill, Oklahoma. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Park, Oklahoma[edit]

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

This place/township is not notable; very few permanent buildings, some vacation homes and commercial properties, no post office. I can't find significant coverage of it in secondary sources. The current article admits that the place mostly isn't even referred to by this name any more. Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My first instinct was that this is a place name so surely there has to be SOMETHING in third party sources on it. After about a half hour of searching, I can't find anything anywhere. There's no listings in any books or scholarly articles I can find. Ghits are just generic targeted advertisements for the area. Nothing with the Census Bureau or the US Geological Survey. I wouldn't oppose a merge of any usable material to Gore, Oklahoma, however, as this seems to be the city Aqua Park is now a part of. Redfarmer (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Google Maps shows that Aqua Park is eight miles north of Gore, and satellite visuals appear to show dense development within an isolated area. This book lists Tenkiller State Park as being in Aqua Park, and this book describes Aqua Park's playground. The US Army Corps of Engineers conflates Aqua Park with Tenkiller State Park in its analysis of water demands. — C M B J 20:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The GNIS lists Aqua Park as a neighborhood; based on its coordinates, it's part of Paradise Hill now. Neighborhoods of a town that small generally aren't independently notable, but if there's some coverage, it might be worth merging. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Paradise Hill, Oklahoma. It is accepted practice on Wikipedia to redirect names of geographic locations not notable enough for standalone article to others that are. Sebwite (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Paradise Hill, Oklahoma. Insufficiently notable for a stand alone article. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 7 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Leuer[edit]

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

Delete. Does not meet notability for college athletes. Has not won a national award or inducted into the Hall of Fame or established a national record. All coverage and media attention is related to team stats and rankings with the University of Wisconsin. Cindamuse (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like how there's a higher bar for college athletes on major teams, making them have to meet a higher standard that one year ago. However, some of the references are specifically about him. So he meets the general notability guidelines. If this does get deleted as non-notable, I will be willing to restore to someone's userspace after he becomes notable enough to meet the standards. Royal broil 14:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm commenting that my assessment concludes that he has meet criteria #3 on the college athletes' notability guidelines because national media have written articles specifically about him. And TipSweeny, please don't remove my name from my comments. Royal broil 22:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jon Leuer has accomplished a great deal. He is on the watch list to win college basketball's prestigous John Wooden Award and picked for first team Big Ten. The following players have never been first team All-Big Ten nor named to the Wooden Award watch list: Blake Hoffarber, Ralph Sampson III, Damian Johnson, Jason Bohannon, Chris Kramer, Mark Titus, Dallas Lauderdale, Jon Diebler, Delvon Roe, Jeffrey Jordan, D.J. Richardson. However, each and every one of them has a wikipedia page. I only got these names from checking 6 Big Ten rosters from last year. There are probably many more. I have been told that Leuer does not factor in from a notability perspective. What he has accomplished is more notable than every Big Ten player (including the ones listed) except perhaps the four who are on the All-Big Ten team with him (all of whom have a wikipedia page). It says he has not won a national reward on the deletion request: Being named to the Wooden List and the USA basketball select teams are national awards. I guess I do not comprehend how so many players are notable enough to receive a wikipedia page, but one who has more accolades then most of them is not. Tipsweeney (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Royalbroil, Sorry about the name deletion. It was an accident; an accidental edit I didn't realize went through.Tipsweeney (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. You can find more information about notability for college athletes here. You can also find more information here. Please make sure to sign your comments and posts on Wikipedia with four tildes ~~~~. Thanks.Cindamuse (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. —Royal broil 22:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes, "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics", [9][10] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Either the nominator didn't perform a Google search and see the hundreds of individual page hits that came up, or I don't understand how to differentiate between individual and team coverage. Unless someone can explain the second option in a way that explains all the Google hits, I vote keep. Bds69 (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please focus your comments on the article rather than other editors. That said, I performed a search and did not find significant coverage that was independent of the subject's individual/team stats and rankings. As far as the coverage, there are a lot of assertions, but nobody outside of User:Morbidthoughts is offering any links, and the links that are provided, in my opinion, does not equate to significant. Respectfully, Cindamuse (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The criteria I quoted that not mandate that the coverage be "significant", which I believe it is. It mandates the coverage be non-trivial beyond a mere repetition of stats. Those articles I linked that satisfies this criteria were easily found through Google news so I am wondering what you are looking at, and why you're arguing for something not in the guideline. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I apologize if that was worded as to mean I was focusing on the nominator and not the article - my comment was supposed to focus on what the meaning of individual and team coverage is, and I only meant for the nominator (or anyone else) to point out if my understand was wrong. To me, the way I understand it is a blurb on a team page or along with team stats is insufficient, whereas individual articles are enough to be notable. With my rationale, Leuer passes, but I meant to draw attention to the fact that I may be misunderstanding the policy. Apologies for sounding like I was trying to call out a fellow editor. Bds69 (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Big Ten sports receives a LOT of coverage (they have their own national TV network for God's sake), and Leuer is one of the top players in that league. This is a good example of where I think the published notability standards for college athletes don't match the coverage the top 6 leagues truly get. Leuer is generally considered one of the top 50-75 players in the country, as evidenced by his inclusion on the Wooden preseason list. In any case, there is a good deal of coverage on him as an individual vs. just as a member of his team. Rikster2 (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree that the notability standards are a bit incongruous pertaining to college athletes. That said, the Big Ten Network is notable and as such, has a separate article. The notability of the Big Ten is not inherited by the many athletes that play in the league. And inclusion on the Wooden preseason list does not establish notability. Now, if he were to be actually honored with the award, that would be another story. As far as the coverage, there are a lot of assertions, but nobody outside of User:Morbidthoughts is offering any links, and the links that are provided, in my opinion, does not equate to significant. Respectfully, Cindamuse (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Comment - but my point is that the BEST players from the Big Ten are notable in a way that the best players from leagues that get less coverage are not. I was merely illustrating that the Big Ten is a big enough media engine to have it's own network. Rikster2 (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Here are more links to add to the ones User:Morbidthoughts posted. In addition, since this deletion page started, Leuer was named Sports Illustrated's preseason Big Ten Player of the year. [11][12] [13][14] Tipsweeney (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP* Jon Leuer is one of the top college basketball players in the county. I vote to keep. Leuer playes for a top 25 team with the Wisconsin Badgers and he is on the Wooden preseason watch list. It would be a shame to NOT keep this page! carthage44 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The criteria for notability does not include being a top player, a member of a top 25 team or being on the Wooden preseason watch list. Respectfully, Cindamuse (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - the criteria is also a "guideline," but your point is well taken Rikster2 (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment #3 on the nobility clause states: "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." He was just named Sports Illustrated Preseason Big Ten Player of the Year, he is a finalist of the Wooden Award, he was named as the best college player in America by Jay Wright (Villanova Coach), he juust had a cover article on ESPN written about him (which was written by the very notable Andy Katz and the link was provided by MorbidThoughts), he was named to the USA select basketball team, and he was named to the preseason All-Big Ten team. When I see all of the other Big Ten players who have wiki articles (none of whom are the preseason player of the year), I cannot seem to understand what criteria is necessary to allow this very notable figure to have a Wikipedia page. Tipsweeney (talk) 14:41, 4 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. Consensus is that this is a valid topic but that the content needs editing, as has partially been done already during this AfD. Sandstein 07:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistory of Transylvania[edit]

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

Please refer to the multiple issue tags. It looks like an essay compiled from several technically unverifiable sources. The article has been unpatrolled for 30 days and no one knows what to do with it. Perhaps an expert on the subject could merge it somewhere. Would the community please decide. Kudpung (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Do we have anythign else similar? I would certainly prefer to see this broken up into articles on the various successive periods, but that is difficult when we only have a bibliography. I would suggest that this is a weak keep, but it certainly needs the attenion of an expert, if we can find one. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's some evidence that an expert's already paid it attention. The author, User:Roteadan, seems to be Mihai Rotea of the Transylvanian History Museum. I'd strongly urge not deleting this material out of hand, and in conducting this debate we should be mindful of expert retention. I think our best way forward would be to introduce the author to the relevant editing guidelines for subject experts, and our guidelines about autobiographies as well. Let's be particularly careful to use clear, plain English with a minimum of alphabet soup.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but be nice as others have said. My take on it is that there was no Transyvania in prehistoric times. The material should be covered in more general articles on European prehistory. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article as it stands is clearly not ready for mainspace, and this is not a case where the editing process will help much — we need a complete revamp including citations with page numbers, language understandable by laymen, etc., and the only ones capable of providing that are the Rotea brothers, who have the sources at hand. I suggest userfying and having someone explain a little about Wikipedia policy to the authors. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite There certainly can be an article on the subject, as for other regions in Europe. Europe even in that period was not one homogeneous mass. But I agree with Biruitorul that it will need to be written from scratch, unless the author can be persuaded to rewrite, as S Marshall suggests; if he has published it previously & owns the copyright & he can donate it to us, or if it is wholly original here, it nonetheless is not encyclopedic in our sense and will need a total rewrite,with more helpful sourcing-- there are good references in English available,. If he does not own the copyright, it would need to be rewritten all the more. I might offer to do so, except that I would not be able to incorporate the sources used, as I would not be able to read most of them. A good deal could be done for clarity with simple copyediting, but it will still not deal with the sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit. Transylvania is not really a political entity; it's a geographic feature defined by the Carpathians, and as such has always been there. Its prehistory can be discussed as a meaningful unit, and in fact was inhabited by a succession of interesting and identifiable cultures. It would be nice to have endnotes, but until someone comes forth with facts suggesting otherwise I'm going to assume that the list of sources in what appear to be Romanian scholarly sources do in fact verify the article's contents. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you all for your input. There has now been a message today from the author at Talk:Prehistory of Transylvania. I think we should userfy and help him to bring the article's presentation up to Wikipedia standard. --Kudpung (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The readability of the text is sharply improved by adding paragraphs, which were in the original text, only not the Wikipedia way. I took the liberty of adding them. I also started wikifying the text, which leaves much to do. I also took the liberty of trying to supply a brief introduction, and added a map. I would add that references from reliable sources in Romanian are perfectly adequate sources. English sources are not required or even preferred, although accessible English language sources do increase the ability of other editors to help add inline references. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Clearly a valid topic and an excellent article start that just needs editing. It certainly does not look anything like an "essay" but is a more or less straightforward, chronologically ordered, descriptive account of the subject, exactly as one would expect in an encyclopaedia article. I don't understand what the nominator means by "technically unverifiable sources"; many of the sources require a knowledge of Romanian, but that is to be expected with a subject such as this one, and several other sources are in German or French, which make them verifiable to a large number of users around here. --Hegvald (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to read and verify the French and German sources, but unfortunately I'm not getting much on google books. The first German source is available in snippet view, but that's totally unhelpful for this kind of task.—S Marshall T/C 23:45, 6 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 Speedy Keep per WP:SK #1: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion" Colonel Warden (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of ski jumping hills[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

At least needs a complete rewriting. As for now it's just a mess. KzKrann (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not for requesting cleanup. Please read the very first section of WP:BEFORE.
(Additionally, the list has clear inclusion criteria, and has a fairly consistent structure, so I'm not even sure what you're claiming is "a mess". I recommend you place your suggestions at the talkpage.) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close AFD is not cleanup. Vodello (talk) 00:45, 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 Speedy Keep per WP:SK #1: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion" Colonel Warden (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of ski jumping hills[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

At least needs a complete rewriting. As for now it's just a mess. KzKrann (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not for requesting cleanup. Please read the very first section of WP:BEFORE.
(Additionally, the list has clear inclusion criteria, and has a fairly consistent structure, so I'm not even sure what you're claiming is "a mess". I recommend you place your suggestions at the talkpage.) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close AFD is not cleanup. Vodello (talk) 00:45, 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. Davewild (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White Stones[edit]

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

Dawn of a New Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Once in a Red Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Earthsongs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Inside I'm Singing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unlike the other albums by the same band (Songs from a Secret Garden, Dreamcatcher (album)), these releases make neither claim to nor proof of their notability, and as such seem to fall short of WP:MUSIC; note that whatever notability the band may have, it is WP:NOTINHERITED by any of these albums. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 08:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:OSE. NOTINHERITED notes quite clearly that notability can be, and often is, "inherited" among creators and creative works, as well as underscoring the point that sometimes separate articles are appropriately created "in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." Absent an overall discography article to merge this content to, the articles should be retained to preserve the content, which is encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 17 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, 22 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, Sandstein 08:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick search found coverage for Earthsongs (Jazz Times, The Vindicator), Once in a Red Moon (PopMatters) and White Stones ("White Stones has been on the Billboard chart since its release last year" - Lexington Herald-Leader). WP:BEFORE doesn't appear to have been followed here. Keep, improve, and merge with the group article where this isn't possible.--Michig (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you bother to search Google news for the album name and band name, which should be the common sense thing to do, you'll find ample coverage. [15] Just click on the first link there and read through, the album selling well, and getting great reviews. Dream Focus 06:02, 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. Courcelles 00:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

경을 일정하게[edit]

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

Has gone untranslated at WP:PNT for more than two weeks, prod removed with no explanation Jac16888 ^Talk 08:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per ((db-a7)): just an NN point of of interest on a highway in Korea.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the point was that the nominator could not determine what the article was about because they do not read Korean. So could not apply any of the Speedy criteria with certainty. Hasteur (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have an idea of the subject of the article and would have speedy deleted it had I though it met a criteria, however it has gone untranslated for two weeks after being listed at WP:PNT, where the procedure is that after those two weeks the article is nominated for deletion--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell from a Google translation the article would be of no value even if it were translated. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falconer's Lure[edit]

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

Subject of article is a non-notable work of fiction as per WP:BK. I did find the author's obituary in The Times [16] but it does not discuss this book, merely including it in "the other five". No other significant coverage at all that I can find. Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up the article. The lack of news stories online on Google News is unsurprising, this book was was written by Antonia Forest over 50 years ago, after all. But Google Books sheds a different light, there's been a considerable amount of literature written about the author's books. As the International Encyclopedia of Children Fiction states: In the 1960s and 1970s, the "three outstanding writers for girls in this period were Mary K. Harris, Antonia Forest and Elfrida Vipont."--hkr Laozi speak 13:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Forest is certainly notable, yes. But I'm still not seeing anything to suggest that this particular book is notable. The book does not inherit notability just because the author is notable, unless the author is so significant that any work by them merits a separate article, which is not the case here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then that demands a merge, rather than a delete, no?--hkr Laozi speak 14:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any information in the article that meets Wikipedia's standards, then yes. However the article is completely without references (though the plot summary doesn't need them) so that's dubious. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a redirect? Throw me a bone here, I'm just not comfortable with it as a redlink, when there's a main article to link it to with established notability. ;)--hkr Laozi speak 14:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Laozi. Edward321 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was apparently republished in 2002, and I've added a ref to a review of Forest's work mentioning this. Otherwise, per Laozi, and hoping someone else will continue to add stuff. Peridon (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are a lot of book-specific sources out there too, for anyone who has the time. I'll attempt to clean up the article too, in a few hours.--hkr Laozi speak 22:46, 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. Courcelles 00:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Koko Boodakian & Sons[edit]

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

Can't find anything that indicates this is any different from thousands of other run-of-the-mill rug cleaning companies. Likely WP:COI and has been prodded since Sept. 2009. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but reviews online, and in-line quotations in a few news articles. Nothing notable. Bytemeh (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few random mentions here, but nothing to pass WP:GNG. Bigger digger (talk) 12:07, 5 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vesyolye Rebyata[edit]

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

No references, no indication of importance, tagged since 2009 Talktome^(Intelati) 00:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search does not come up with any matches to a musical group named Vesyolye Rebyata (at least none that are discerable and/or in English). Does not appear to be either notable or verifiable. - Idunno271828 (Talk | contribs) 01:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Russian Wikipedia article has six book and newspaper sources, including this encyclopedia, and an extensive discography showing that the band has released many albums over 40 years, mostly on the Melodiya label. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of English-language sources showing that this band was part of the Soviet response to the growing popularity of Western pop music in the 1960s: [17][18]. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Phil Bridger. Bondegezou (talk) 14:37, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let the Russian editors build it up before tossing it, especially if the only potentially valid sources are in Russian. Bytemeh (talk) 06:08, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 Rascals[edit]

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

The article doesn't meet the notability guideline for Future Films of WikiProject Film. The merge option was thought of, but the article, which is related to 3 Idiots, already includes a mention about the plans to produce this film. When it was proposed for deletion, anon IP just removed the template without any discussion or assertion of the article's notability. IMHO, the article fails the notability guideline until the film's production actually begins. Mspraveen (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 3 Idiots, as the nom has mentioned, the entry has already been merged. The next step is to redirect it.--hkr Laozi speak 06:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy till filming begins.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can also be salted to prevent premature creation of the article again. EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Rabbabodrool (talk) 16:14, 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. Basically this is a "criticism of X" article where X is a BLP. Courcelles 00:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies relating to Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh[edit]

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

This article violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP by giving undue weight to negative media treatment of this rabbi. Additionally, the excessive quotation which forms the basis for most of its content is inconsistent with the brevity requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content. There seems to be a general consensus that content forking of BLPs must be done neutrally: we now have Public image of Barack Obama and Public image of George W. Bush, not controversy articles. If it is believed that this article may form some basis for the neutral treatment of Ginsburgh's public image, then I suggest removal of all non-free text, and incubation; if this is unlikely, outright deletion is the most prudent course of action. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge material back into Yitzchak Ginsburgh. There was insufficient reason to move the controversial material to a separate article. The simplest approach would be to revert Yitzchak Ginsburgh back to its state before the forking, and work on any problems starting at that point. Btw, I don't think "removal of all non-free text" is in conformity with Wikipedia policy. Zero^talk 10:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge Neither this rabbi nor the controversies themselves are/were influential and publicized enough to have a separate article about them. Which is to sy that basically I agree with the claims of undue weight and the considerations that pertain to negative information about a living person, who, if I may add, is highly respected in religious circles. For these same reasons I think it unadvisable to merge the information here into the main article where, if memory serves me, it was perviously removed as being too extensive. Debresser (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ginsburgh is a leading personality in the Israeli religious right wing and is mentioned by most good sources on that subject. The controversy over his extreme views has been covered by many reliable sources and should be covered by Wikipedia. Obviously that has to be done in conformity with WP:BLP, but suppressing it is not ok. Zero^talk 02:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record. I off course agree that it should not be surpressed. But from there to having an whole article about it, or even a more than short section, is a big step. He can't compare with Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who, as you see, also doesn't have a separate article about his many controversial actions and rulings... Debresser (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge these separate articles are rarely a good idea. It should not have split in the first place. As for extent and balance, probably what he has said should be quoted, not just what other people have said are his views. And the somewhat hagiographic tone of the main article does not help achieve NPOV . DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge 'Controversy' is in the eyes of the beholder, and certainly all this is UNDUE even on the main article, and exagerated. --Shuki (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the main Yitzchak Ginsburgh article. This is just a duplicate article that violates WP:CONTENTFORKING. IZAK (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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abramis Academic Press[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation per WP:ORG. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very obscure publisher. Nothing relevant on Google Books, no sources to satisfy WP:BOOK.--hkr Laozi speak 06:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a publisher, publishing important books is notability. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established. It is obviously not Random house, but size does not necessarily equal notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenOneHundred (talk • contribs) 09:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Size isn't everything. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources = no article. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:19, 6 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) 00:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Med Coy, 31 Res LSB[edit]

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

There's nothing particularly notable about this Irish army company. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:MILMOS/N where it has been established that company level units are usually not notable by themselves. The place for this information would be in an article about the company's parent formation: 31 Reserve Logistics Support Battalion, but only if reliable sources can be found. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no notability established (as AR pointed out), and no references. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per AR. Anotherclown (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AustralianRupert Nick-D (talk) 01:32, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shamahoon Rasul[edit]

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

I can't find any RS which confirms his existence. I'm only finding Wikipedia mirrors, news aggregation services, and one press release I can't read. Hobit (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find any reliable sources to verify the contents of the article and establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. J04n(talk page) 01:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No news sources, nothing to verify any of the claims made in the article, does not meet the guidelines at WP:ATHLETE.--hkr Laozi speak 06:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of the coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:42, 4 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. Courcelles 00:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince François, Count of Clermont[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the contents of this long-standing unreferenced BLP in order to establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. J04n(talk page) 00:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources appear to exist.[19] Whether enough are available to establish notability is another question. Edward321 (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are reliable sources out there: The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and the Miami Herald. He's a verified member of the French Royal Family. The article should be cleaned up, not deleted.--hkr Laozi speak 06:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question This individual's chief fame to notability is that he is one of the leading claimants of an extinct title -- King of France. While it is interesting to know who these people are, is there any tangible or identifiable value to his claim -- or that of his father & other relatives? Even something along the lines of social status which can be verified? If not, maybe this article -- & those on other Orelanist pretenders -- can be consolidated into a simple list, which would more succinctly appease the curiosity of people who are fascinated with such trivia. (Like me, I'll admit.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about a redirect to House of Orléans#Contemporary family? The articles listed above really just show that he exists but confer no notability, remember notability is not inherited. J04n(talk page) 00:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as person is notable for the claim of Crown of France.--Yopie (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources exist per Edward321, is also notable per lineage/royal heritage in this case. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if consensus is to keep this article, and I'm not convinced that being in a member of a lineage that has not held the crown in 150 year is notable, I would like to point out that it remains an unsourced WP:BLP, with the links mentioned above behind pay walls. So if not deleted or redirected, it should be userfied or sent to the incubator until it is properly sourced. J04n(talk page) 00:33, 5 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 merge to Aftermath of World War II. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of World War II[edit]

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

This article is almost entirely unsourced, and it is disjointed, disorganised, incomplete, and has been dormant/stagnant for a long time. The subject matter is largely duplicated in existing Aftermath of World War II article. A few bits of sourced text that can be salvaged from this article have already been moved to the Aftermath of World War II article. Some of the graphics/photos may also be salvaged prior to deletion if any. A suggestion has been made to merge it with Aftermath of World War II article, but I believe that's unworkable and not worth the time and effort involved in trying to fix, source and cleanup. Communicat (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consensus seems to be to retain some aspects and redirect other, useable and pertinent sourced text to Aftermath. I agree. Some of the present original research in this Effects article, if sourced properly, could form the basis for an interesting multi-disciplinary article relative to some of the existing sociological, psychological demographical effects that are contained in this Effects article, but IMO those effects are ancillary and peripheral to military history as such. Whereas Aftermath article places emphasis on military or military-political history, e.g. post-war strategy and tactics, operations, border tensions etc. Communicat (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article needing improvement is never a valid reason for deletion. Organization might be different than Nominator would chose, but that should be decided by community consensus. Nominator action is premature; proper discussion for a Merge should take place on the article talk pages. Edward321 (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aftermath of World War II. The two articles don't distinguish the difference between what qualifies as an "effect" and an "aftermath", so the topic looks largely to be redundant. However, the edit history of Effects of World War II should be retained, in case any of it is salvagable, or if an editor wants to take an unsourced section out, source it, then merge it into the "Aftermath of World War II" article.--hkr Laozi speak 06:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so that we can responsibly merge and redirect. The Aftermath of World War II article lacks necessary information that Effects of World War II covers in detail, so someone is going to have to carefully merge the two articles together before redirecting. In any event, there is no rationale for deletion. — C M B J 20:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aftermath of World War II. Seems that there are lots of overlaps and redundancy; but without a clear distinction between teh scope of the two, I see no reason to keep two seperate articles. The merge will have to be done with some care, but shouldn't be too difficult. I don't really care which one is sent where. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The list of effects is unsourced and thus a synthesis. What should be included in this, apart from material that should equally be covered in the aftermath article? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment based on that definition, Aftermath of World War II is also a synthesis, as are most articles in Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Redirect anything that isn't Original Research into Aftermath of World War II. It's essentially same topic. First Light (talk) 23:17, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Fournelle[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to verify the contents of the article and establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. J04n(talk page) 00:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. No Gnews hits. Of the 3 GBooks hits, one is a false positive, the other two are from Books LLC, which publishes mirrors of Wikipedia articles. Edward321 (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP, no real coverage in external sources, and the radio station he founded doesn't seem to be major enough to warrant an article on him. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:18, 5 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—there is clear consensus rooted in relevant policies and procedures. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dalton[edit]

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

Apparent conflict of interest - created by a user named after his company and subsequent edits from the company - one claim to WP:notability but nothing other than a regional business award. Few google hits. Not notable. Most references are not WP:reliable sources noq (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are seach results, but they're mainly PR releases or trivial mentions. The article does not meet the criteria at WP:BIO.--hkr Laozi speak 06:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No evidence of notability. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:24, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Foster (UK)[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the contents of this long-standing unreferenced BLP. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. J04n(talk page) 00:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete while this individual's participation in projects might be verified through the projects themselves, it appears no one has thought to write about him or his work... a lack which makes this BLP all but impossible to source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP, could not find significant coverage in external sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:17, 5 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 redirect to Dwarf Fortress—although there is consensus that this game does not warrant an article, editors are more than welcome to mention this game in the relevant "history" section. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Crime Squad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm revisiting this AfD as suggested in the previous one. This game still seems to be non-notable, and I can't find enough reliable sources to establish any sort of notability. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be mostly OR, as the majority of the article contains no inline citations. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 00:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any reliable sources from news or books. Vodello (talk) 03:11, 30 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) • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dwarf Fortress. Liberal Crime Squad seems to be an earlier, obscure game by the same creator of the much more popular Dwarf Fortress, so a redirect seems appropriate.--hkr Laozi speak 13:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, for now. I have a feeling that Tarn Adams has racked up enough interviews in magazines now to qualify for a seperate biographical article. If this occurs then we can redirect there. Marasmusine (talk) 19:28, 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) 15:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davison Carvalho[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable sources independent of this artist in order to establish notability this very long standing unreferenced BLP. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:Notability (people). J04n(talk page) 20:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be non-notable. I looked at one of the gnews results however the article concerned someone else of the same name. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the interviews (e.g.[20]) seem to have been valid when the article was written, though one is now 404, and much source material would I suspect be Portuguese or Japanese. Rich Farmbrough, 16:06, 27 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) 00:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable designer per lack of independent reliable secondary sources. Algébrico (talk) 22:30, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas TV Companion: a Guide to Cult Classics, Strange Specials & Outrageous Odditites[edit]

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

This article is such blatant self promotion that notable or not we would be better off deleting it. All the sources cited are book reviews, many of which are from websites that do not appear to be reliable sources. The two major contributors appear to be the author: User:CFOWriter and the publisher Dominic Caruso: User:Dominic in ohio. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 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) 00:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is a borderline case. There are few sources, the majority of which are regional press. I think it very nearly reaches the criteria at WP:BOOK, but falls short.--hkr Laozi speak 06:57, 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.