< 20 September	22 September >

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. Nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamboa (Rio de Janeiro)[edit]

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

~~Apparently non-notable neighbourhood, can find no WP:RS Jezhotwells (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Apparently a historic port district of central Rio de Janeiro and even apparently the birthplace of the samba.[1] The nom should've began at Portuguese Wikipedia if he/she was unfamiliar.--Oakshade (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, my mistake, could find nothing about this district in Rio in google. Withdraw. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:19, 22 September 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. Nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes standing. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santo Cristo (Rio de Janeiro)[edit]

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

~~Apparently non-notable neighbourhood, can find no WP:RS Jezhotwells (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This looks about as central as you can get in Rio de Janeiro. [2] Central enough for Rio's main bus station to be located.[3]. Portuguese Wikipedia has a lot more content that can be used to expand this article. --Oakshade (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As previously, my mistake. Withdraw nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish article creators would do a little more work when creating one line stubs. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:23, 22 September 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of University of British Columbia alumni[edit]

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

Fails to cite any sources (except two), no real additons added in over three years. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the list is clearly verifiable even though not verified at present. All but two of those listed are bluelinked, so it's simply a matter of eventually adding references supporting that those notable people were alumni of this notable institution. Absent a compelling reason, we do not simply delete an article because it does not have sources if it is obvious that it can be sourced. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These lists are standard. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As I understand it, lists like this are standard. UBC seems to fit the mold of other universities that have such lists. Deleting it would suggest such notable alumni lists are not sanctioned. Lambanog (talk) 14:11, 22 September 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. I can't find any evidence that this exists. (CSD G3) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Hook[edit]

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

Looks like WP:Original research, but no references, can find no reliable sources describing this. May be a hoax. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can find no suitable DelSort categories. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy - Appears to be a hoax. Zero relevant google hits. If this were truly the place where Atlantis is presumed to have existed, it would get more than zero ghits. SnottyWong ^chatter 23:48, 21 September 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) 02:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohashiatsu[edit]

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

Apart from the fact this reads like an advert and at a minimum needs a re-write, I'm not convinced it satisfies WP:N. Of the three references listed, one is an ad, one is trivial and the last is more substantial but also reads like PR material. Couldn't find anything else on google or elsewhere that qualifies as a reliable source. 2 says you, says two 22:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete both - fails to make any case for notability; just another minor variant. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Looks like self-promotion for a non-notable entity. --DAJF (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: checked the refs, not notable. Dewritech (talk) 10:07, 27 September 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 17:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Zenon Jacome-Moreira[edit]

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

Autobiography of a graduate student. I declined a speedy for "autobiography", as that is not a speedy criterion; but it does make us look closely at the evidence for notability. As an MS/MBA student hoping to go on to a PhD, he is evidently nowhere near the standard of WP:Notability (academics), and his activity in organizations like the Society of Physics Students does not seem to me to be enough for general notability. The organization "Physics Connection" of which he is founder and CEO has a snazzy login page, but I have not found any other trace of it beyond mention on a Facebook page. JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:PROMOTION. The article was created for himself with the alias Djacome. --Taichi (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reference 1 is a WP:SPS regarding SPS. Reference 2 makes no mention of the article subject. Reference 3 includes only a mention in a list of committee members. References 4 and 5 are research papers by the subject, not secondary sources. Agree that it's WP:Promotion that also fails WP:BASIC. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF, and the list of minor accomplishments in the article looks more like a cv than like anything a Wikipedia reader would be likely to find interesting or helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 26 September 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 17:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz[edit]

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

Deleted three years ago at AFD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stump. An admin has told me that this isn't similar enough to the first revision to qualify for G4. Only sources are a fansite and a personal blog; absolutely nothing found in Gnews or Gbooks, and <400 unique Ghits, none of which are RSes. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, If the image gets deleted during this AfD it can be found on this page, as part of a collection of spoof classical music pieces, which also includes the two redlinks near the bottom of this page. —Soap— 21:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting, but that's not an inclusion criterion. I see no coverage of this in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles which mention nothing of your "inclusion criterion". This piece is relevant. Mark my (uncoolcentral) words. Delete now and you'll regret it later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.71.40 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC) — 75.219.71.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Idle threat much? What're you gonna do, cast an anti deletion spell on the article? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. threats in Wikipedia don't further your case. 1 hit in gnews [4]. LibStar (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. There are some performances of this piece on YouTube, and I've seen the poster of the score hung up in 3 different music rooms in different states. There should be a Wikipedia page somewhere listing musical scores that have been created as conceptual/visual artworks rather than for playing, and this should be listed on it. I had nothing to do with creating the score or the page, I just think it's notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, as it's pretty much THE classic example in the world of a ridiculous and unplayable score... see some others here http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/02/we-dare-you-to-play-these-scores.html .... thanks, Ben Goertzel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.137.45 (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC) — 72.83.137.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please read WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is absolutely nothing to suggest this classical music spoof is notable enough for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 28 September 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 17:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaosweld[edit]

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

This article appears to be an attempt by the owner of the ChaosWeld website and the publisher of the article's main reference to publicize his research. Google Scholar does not find the referenced article (perhaps it was never published or published in a foreign language) so it is impossible to tell if it has ever been cited. It IS possible to tell that the other referenced article does NOT cite Suban's paper. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD G11 JeremyMcClean (Talk) 21:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (CSD G11). Of the 3 references, 2 are self-published, and the third does not mention either Suban or "the theory of chaos control." -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 September 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 17:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest single day Jeopardy! winnings[edit]

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

Note: Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the largest single day Jeopardy! prizes and closed as no consensus on 19 August 2009.

List is of little or no academic value. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE argument applies, as this article is a clear example of listcruft. List is a duplication of the Official website listing of highest totals, and even uses the same $30,000 threshold. Only other source listed is a non-official, non-published fansite. Other list articles of "Highest X" or "Largest Y" are appropriately sourced, well-organized and do not contain nearly the amount of information thrown into this article. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely trivial. WikiLubber (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:IINFO unlikely to be reliably sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only its trivial, this list is unsourced. It is just an indiscriminate list of information. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or possibly Delete Since this CAN be used in the Jeopardy! article, but if not, delete per nom on the account that it is trivial. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 21:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes. It's a copyright violation. ApprenticeFan ^work 03:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Errr, not really. NW (Talk) 03:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a copyvio, perhaps, but still an unimaginative cut-and-paste of this, and no better than it was last time around. Someone must have had carpal after typing "Ken Jennings" that many times. Ideally, what one would do is simply add that link to the Jeopardy! article with a sentence or two about anything on here that's particularly interesting (which will work out to about two or three sentences altogether). Mandsford 14:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason this can't be its own list article. WP:IINFO most assuredly doers not apply, since it's a very specific list: really, please go read it. Objections listed above are causes for cleanup, rather than deletion. Merging or trimming are editorial decisions, but this clearly doesn't meet any reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE: "3. Excessive listing of statistics." This entire article can easily be summed up with two sentences. "Roger Craig achieved the highest single-game winnings on September 14, 2010 with a final score of $77,000. Prior to 2001, when the clue values of the current syndicated version were doubled, the highest score was achieved by Jerome Vered who finished with a total of $34,000 on May 21, 1992." There is absolutely no reason to list 227 values above an arbitrary $xx,000 threshold, and the entire article omits information from any version of the show prior to 1984. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#STATS. Nothing will be lost as this page is just a copy of this.—Chris!_c/t 21:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with many reasons already cast as delete. Us441(talk)(contribs) 12:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge into Jeopardy!. The top winners help establish the notability of the show, and are commonly cited in major publications when big winners appear (example). I suggest something like a Top-10 list an addition to a few of the top overall money winners. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 21:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes, it's really a copyright violation of a website shown above. ApprenticeFan ^work 00:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, it is not a copyright violation. Lists that lack creativity are not copyrighted. See Feist v. Rural --108.16.83.118 (talk) 13:47, 28 September 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) Derild 49 21 ☼ 00:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Adult Film Database[edit]

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

Non-notable website. Only a few passing mentions on adult news web sites. The rest of the article is all self published content from eithr the website itself or news groups. Ridernyc (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't normally bother posting my opinions to Wikipedia, but here's mine for what it's worth: I agree that the IAFD is pretty much ignored by the adult film industry, but I do know that its large if not often complete information has been useful to academics studying the porn industry whether for feminist analysis or for the themes and trends in which society takes fashionable interests. The page may not contain any original content, but then that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. I would vote for keeping it in case academic research finds the IAFD through Wikipedia (though I might add it comes first in any related Google searches, so obviously Google thinks it good). Niall Douglas (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty sure this is the most comprehensive and well known adult film database and the references seem to establish notability--the one AVN link says "...the Internet's most complete database of adult movie and video titles, star filmographies and other information nearly unobtainable from any other source." 68.45.109.14 (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is mentioned on no-adult news web sites as well, e.g. Folha Online (Brazil) --Matthiasb (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of other articles on the Wiki link to the person's IAFD page. 108.96.159.241 (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the article gets deleted because this DB is not "notable" then there would be also no point to use it in the adult bio template. Removing it from there would definitly be no improvement in "quality". Testales (talk) 16:46, 28 September 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 17:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syd Vinnedge[edit]

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

Unreferenced article for non-notable producer. Article contains little information. First page of Google search contains links to Wiki and IMDb and no links of substance. Article has been notability-tagged since July 2009. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced biography of a living person. Also, this article needs a reliable source. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no non-trivial sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if sourced, article contains no assertion of notability sufficient to meet CREATIVE. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His role on the show was minimal, even ceremonial to a point. No notability. --Mr. Brown (talk) 03:31, 26 September 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 keep !votes here are alarmingly weak, and the one that said an obsession with secondary sources is harmful to the encyclopaedia has been disregarded entirely. We're left with a consensus to delete, that we can revisit if and when some reliable, secondary sources are found. Courcelles 17:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Ryuki Special: 13 Riders[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamen Rider Verde. No sources on page other than to confirm it was actually broadcast once on television and released onto a DVD. -- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*delete (or merge, but there being no third party sourced content to merge, there is no practical difference) Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a page on a eight year old 45 minute television special. It is going to be near impossible to find news sources from that far back to support that this thing is notable. Right now, I know that the only references are to support that it existed and was done as such. That should be enough for now. The fact that I created this page as a location to put information on the article recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamen Rider Verde should be irrelevant. I have only just made this article today and I am in the process of finding more sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Closing Admin: Just merely saying "stuff existed", with the acknowledgement that there will be no secondary source coverage of it, merely serves to point out the article's failure of WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the primary author of the page, I have restored it to the status quo of what it once was, a redirect. I have moved all of the relevant information on the plot of this to the primary Kamen Rider Ryuki page. You can close this instead of it being entirely retaliatory to the perceived rudeness on your user talk page, Cirt.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The comment is incorrect, after I closed an AFD on a related topic, I began to investigate the related purported "merge" topics, and found that the parent "merge" targets, also notably fail WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete (or merge to a higher level topic, but there being no third party sourced content in this article to merge, effectively merge=delete) Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is not notable as this special doe's not have significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Powergate92Talk 22:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This obsession with secondary sources is harmful to the encyclopedia. jgp T C 01:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Not being able to myself read Japanese, I'll wait until a Japanese-reading Wikipedia interested in digging through and translating sources speaks up... or better, a Japanese Wikipedian who has access to hardcopy sources in Japan libraries and archive... as reliable sources might well be found among the results above, or among sources not available online. And what is a bit more worrisome is this growing fixation that a brand new article created in good faith by an author who is aware or requirements and wishes to bring it into line, must be immediately perfect... as such immediatism seems to run contrary to WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP, and WP:DEADLINE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now but renominate at a later time (like the end of this month) if it's become clear that the subject is not notable enough. NotARealWord (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are two magazine references now. Those might be helpful. NotARealWord (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Produced by a major studio (Toei Company) and part of a major franchise (Kamen Rider Series). Multiple third-party references are listed on the page. 75.16.189.30 (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The above is me. Didn't realize Wikipedia logged me out. jgp T C 21:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

jpg, you can't vote 2 times. Powergate92Talk 05:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I forgot I voted before. Complete brain fart. Sorry about that..second vote is struck. But, next time, at least give me the courtesy of spelling my fucking name right. jgp T C 14:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cirt is correct; there is not a sufficient amount of reliable secondary sources on this topic. The issue is not the fact that the article does not cite the appropriate secondary sources but that they do not appear to exist. The sources that are cited on the article consist primarily of basic stats. Neelix (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this gets deleted, then maybe someone should put up an AfD for Kamen Rider G. NotARealWord (talk) 06:58, 24 September 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 17:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism in Arab Palestine[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)

Major POV; article was created by an account (Trendsies) whose edit history seems to suggest a tendency toward POV-pushing on his/her part. Relies on unreliable sources (Walid Shoebat, NewsMax, etc.) Also potentially defamatory in the way it discusses Mahmoud Abbas. Given that Abbas (along with Israeli and American leaders) are currently taking part in peace talks, this is a very sensitive topic and it almost seems like this article could be interpreted as an attempt to sabotage the peace talks by pushing a "Palestinians are Nazis" smear. Anyone who supports the ultimate goal of peace in the Middle East should be very concerned about this article and the mindset/POV it promotes. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to push propaganda. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing POV about stating Haj Amin al-Husayni's links and pacts with the Nazis, nor about other dominant Palestinians such as the head of the Al-Ahram in action and request from Herr Wolf to create an Arab Nazi Party, or the arms agreement with the Nazis, or holocaust denial and Hitler-worshipping today in the territories.Historianism (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very little about the purported topic, "Nazism in Arab Palestine", but basically a WP:COATRACK of every connection to fascism in the Arab world that someone could dredge up, in addition to more COATRACK sections and BLP violations pertaining to alleged Holocaust revisionism/denial and so on. The small amount of legitimate information here is either already in more appropriate articles (such as the al-Husseini article) or is presented completely without context. Also concur with the nominator's comments. Gatoclass (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "context" do you want it if not the most related term 'Nazism' It's not just about Haj Amin, I see there many more personalities. And what about adopting Nazi ideas in Palestinian propaganda?Historianism (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is passing reference made to a handful of obscure groups and/or individuals, practically no detail on any of them at all or in what way they were "Nazi" or associated with such, or how influential they were. It basically looks like an article concocted from odd mentions in a google search. The I-P conflict as I'm sure you realize remains an important issue that affects the lives of millions, it's important we get articles on this topic right, this article is far from meeting an appropriate standard. Gatoclass (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this article relies on many unreliable sources (some books listed in the reference section could be considered reliable, but I am not sure) and seems to push a particular POV against our policy.—Chris!_c/t 19:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually tried to improve this article by deleting some of the wildest unsourced claims and POV material, and tagging some of the other claims, but I gave up when I realised there were large parts of it that were simply unsalvageable - some I couldn't even make sense out of, much less making sense of the supposed sources or establishing their reliability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is also uncannily similar in intent and tone to the now-deleted article Nazism in the Middle East (I'm not sure if it would qualify as a "recreation" or not, but it's pretty close). That article's creator, Cimicifugia, hasn't edited since June; Trendsies' account was created in July. I'm wondering if Cimicifugia and Trendsies are the same person. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious coatrack for seriously POV claims.--TM 21:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COATRACK, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NOR. The page creator apparently has a POV to push. Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the sources are not RS (either obviously biased, or self-published) and what little real content there is isn't enough to base an article on. Blatant WP:WEASEL on a lot of the assertions, and a distinct lack of notability for some of the others. Roscelese (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coatrack article, absolutely shameful that someone would post this crap to Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 03:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trendsies (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments, Trendsies. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yoninah. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yoninah and Malik. This is OR and COATRACKING. Avi (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the above reasons and the lack of any redeeming features. The article in its current form is just a selective dump of allegations mostly made by political activists for Israel. Some are true and some are not, but the bringing together of this material to create an overall case is such an obvious and blatant violation of WP:SYNTH that the article should have been speedy-deleted rather than brought here. Zero^talk 06:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH COATRACK. Concur with almos all of the above arguments for deletion. Tiamut^talk 06:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is not a bad article, but is a mess of a coatrack, an exemplar of the genre. It has a nice image, is well-cited, and looks fine, but synthesizes and cherry picks the worse of Anti-Zionism and conflates it with being Neo-Nazi. The article has been created at a particularly inauspicious time, when the Peace Process has started up again, and several sources have accused Wikipedia of being too pro-Isreal or too pro-Palestinian. I would be agreeable to incubation of this article by someone else, but I would not touch it with a ten-foot stick. I am still considered suspect by some for tcreatign the wholly NPOV Palestinian law, and as a sysop I need to remain neutral on such substantive issues. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's not really a reason why it should not be kept on, such a historic and current important issue. It is not mainly based on W. Shoebat, what POV is there in Arab-Nazi cooperation? as to Mahmoud Abbas, it is not stated as afact but that it's "claimed" so. if yopu have a counter view with a RS , just post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trendsies (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC) — Trendsies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - synthesized coatrack. nableezy - 18:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems that the problem is the name of the article rather than its content. After all, WP does have an article called "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" which brings false or at least highly controversial claims about Israel, based on the fact that people so claim. Why not have an article about the well-documented relations of the Arab Palestinian leadership with the Nazi leadership? The article should be called "Palestinian nationalism and Nazism" or something similar, in order to avoid taking side. 79.183.54.151 (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Here are some proofs that the issue of Palestinian nationalism and Nazism is a well-known subject in historian literature: Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine; The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini; A review of "The Crescent and the Swastika: The Third Reich, the Arabs, and Palestine" (trying to prove that ALL Palestinians were not supporters of the Nazis, i.e. at least some of them were); British National Archives unveil presence of Nazi S.S. agents in Mandatory Palestine, working closely with Palestinian leaders; there are plenty more, all it takes is a Google search. 79.183.54.151 (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first link, Nazi Palestine, appears to be a book about Nazi plans for Palestine, not about "Nazism in Arab Palestine". The second is worthless, a book written by a radio show host, but even that appears to be about al-Husseini, whose links to the Nazis are already well documented. The third link actually states that Palestinians did not generally share Nazi sentiments. The fourth is just reporting on recently released primary documents whose significance has yet to be determined by secondary sources, although it should already be clear it's of little significance since Nazi weapons never made it into the hands of Palestinians. Gatoclass (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When people complained about articles like "Israel and apartheid analogy" they were confronted with the claim that false accusations and analogies are still existing theories that are worth writing about. I assume your reading list includes all the aforementioned sources and others, otherwise you wouldn't judge them with such certitude. But even if you are right, the claim exists and is worth writing about. Otherwise, we will all have to admit that anti-Israeli defamation are worth writing about while anti-Palestinian stuff is forbidden. Is that the conclusion you want us to draw? 79.183.54.151 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the "Israel and the apartheid analogy" page, take your concerns to the talk page in question. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND for opposing political views, it's a project for making available accurate, reliably sourced, neutrally presented information. If you think your task here is to "balance" articles you deem "anti-Israel" with "anti-Palestinian" articles, you are in the wrong place. Gatoclass (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Israel and the apartheid analogy" is notable because notable people espouse it and because notable people oppose it, and have done so in notable venues/publications. This is completely unlike the theory in question here, which is sourced to self-published works and Islamophobes. Roscelese (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Despite some of the comments here, most of the information is quite accurate. Do not let wikipedia become another mouthpiece for "anti-Zionist" propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.0.59 (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC) — 172.190.0.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete more pushing of the "arabs/palestinians" are Nazi's meme. Propoganda is what this is. Furthermore, while the Third Reich was very active in the region at the time, many Arabs did support germany in World War II (for complex reasons) and some were/are antisemitic that isn't "nazism."Bali ultimate (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has someone been canvassing offwiki? Two of the three "keep" comments above are from IP addresses with no other contributions. Looks very suspicious to me. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Geolocation data shows that one is from Bat Yam, Israel, while the other one is from Reston, Virginia. At least that shows they aren't the same person... Stonemason89 (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it legitimate to spy on people who express their view on a Wikipedia page? Could I ask other people here to say where they are from and what their background is?

If you don't want people "spying" on you, you should create an account. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The suspicious activity is about 10 or so "delete" users that have posted their view in such a short time... Is it organized?Historianism (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article conflates the topics of Nazi Germany's policy towards Palestine, collaboration of some Palestinian arabs with the Nazis, anti-Zionism in Palestine and antisemitism in Palestine. They are all topics that should be covered by Wikipedia, but to conflate them in this way is original research by synthesis. The ideology of Nazism classifies Arabs as non-Aryan untermenschen, so to call the views of any Arabs "Nazism" is simply ridiculous. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Phil Bridger that this article conflates the topics of Nazi Germany's policy towards Palestine, collaboration of some Palestinian Arabs with the Nazis, anti-Zionism in Palestine and antisemitism in Palestine. They are all topics that should be covered by Wikipedia, but to conflate them in this way is original research by synthesis. On the other hand some Neo-nazi non-white groups really exists [5] so his last sentences are his OR/POV. --Dezidor (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Nazi is not the same as Nazi. In such a sensitive area we need to be very careful about terminology. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philbridger is correct. Neo-Nazi groups often have very different ideologies from the original Nazis; for another extreme example, read about the Gay Nazi Party. Dezidor is also correct in pointing out that non-"Aryan" neo-Nazi groups exist; in fact, the one he linked to (Tsagaan Khass) has an article on Wikipedia, which I received a DYK credit for writing. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense! The fact of Arabs being a non-Aryan nation didn't stop the Arab leadership to worship Hitler's ideology.Historianism (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is an article about a notable topic. The article is well-referenced with a wide range of WP:RS. I fear that WP:COATRACK is being used as a mere pretext for deletion when the true motivation for this article's nomination (and many of the subsequent votes for deletion) is primarily political. Regardless, given that Germany had a heavy political and military influence in North Africa and the Middle East during the Second World War, it should come as no surprise to anyone that some Arab leaders enjoyed close political ties to Nazi Germany. It would be absurd to suggestion otherwise. Personally, I find such information rather notable. If anyone thinks this controversial subject is misleading or misrepresents the truth of the political relationships between Nazi Germany and Arab communities, then they should edit the article accordingly (with WP:RS). The process of RfD does not exist so that politically motivated editors can censor content that makes them uncomfortable. BlueRobe (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strong keep, the claim that Neo Nazis are a of a different creed has nothing to do with real Muft's Nazi alliance, (real) Nazi propaganda then and now and Hitler's (sam'o same-old) Mein Kampf best-selling in Gaza.Rue du stand (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC) — Rue du stand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reading Mein Kampf does not imply that one is a Nazi. If it did, then Glenn Beck would be a Nazi. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just random reading... The best-seller fact of Mein-kampf, tells volume. So is: "Hitler is a youth idol" (in the Palestinian areas) as reported in the article.Rue du stand (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - guys, are you really going to censor Wikipedia because it contains something you don't like? There is lots of stuff on this, you need to keep this article and make it better. Read the sources, don't pretend that they don't exist. I've got a stack of books on my living room floor that talk about the Palestinian/Nazi connection. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I have no axe to grind, I've just not blinded myself to the truth to avoid offending Palestinians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.182 (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I can't see one legitimate reason here besides spinning around the isssues, Yes! Nazism in Arab Palestine is a historic fact and its effect (and even some continuation by some in Artab-Palestine today) is still very much on. Here's more about what an author [6] calls "Palestinian Nazism" [7]Historianism (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How on earth is that guy a reliable source, or even notable? Stonemason89 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the arguments stated above for deletion --NSH001 (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sigh, Keep and rewrite but I do wish that editors would slow down and use good sources and write carefully. However the fact that this article is carelessly written and erratically courced does not alter the fact that there is a real topic here. Although fascism is discredited today, it was a highly influential and wildly popular political movement in the 1930's. There was a Syrian Social Nationalist Party, modeled on you-know-which-National-Socialist-model , there were many British officers and government officials who cheered Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco on (some silently, some in print) the large and influential community of Palestinian Templers (religious believers) were enthusiastic Nazia almost to the last man and woman (which is why when the war started Britain deported them to darkest Australia,) and of course there were Arab Palestinians who worked hand-in-glove with the Nazis. Why should the Palestinian Arabs have been immune to the allure of Nazism when so many Brits and Frenchmen and Danes, and Dutch and Swedes and Norwegians thought Hitler and his Nazi ideas were wonderful? Nazism in Arab Palestine is not someting out of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Real-life Palestinian Arabs were enthusiastic Nazis, the leading example is Mohammad Amin al-Husayni but he was not alone. Certainly this topic merits an article. Equally certainly this article needs better editing and sourcing. But inadequacy is not an argument for deletion. It is an argument for improvement.AMuseo (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix up. There is some serious POV coatracking towards the end of the article, but Nazism in Arab Palestine is an actual and important topic. Anyone who wasn't aware of this should read the ample high-quality sources provided in the article. The nom's statement is entirely based on ad hominem and appeal to motive. Gatoclass' idea of moving the good material in this article to Haj Amin al-Husseini is surprising, since the topic and the good material are clearly broader than that one individual. The rest of the delete votes are either WP:VAGUEWAVEs or not policy based at all. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No one has provided one good reason for its removal, the only disputed to be maybe of an unreliable source might be walid shoebat.Ip101 (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC) — Ip101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- User: Ip101 is obviously extremely biased in regards to I-P conflict issues, as evidenced by the ranting, alarmist content of his user page (which I have nominated for speedy deletion). Stonemason89 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant pov-pushing articles such as these made by blow-horn driven editors need to be dealt with summarily.--vvarkey (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously Stonemason89 (whose contributeions includes bias-against-Jews [8]) is trying push his POV here.Lawsmass (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC) — Lawsmass (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
that is not a reason. you need to comment on the article, not the editors. --vvarkey (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vvarkey. You are wrong, since the creator of this deletion/suggestion has a blatant POV agenda and bases his entire suggestions to delete arguing that it is a POV. pot calling kettle...

Keep Stating facts are not a pov issue. In fact it needs to expand. There's some serious stuff like the cooperation between Nazis and Palestinians incorporating Hitleristic propaganda and sharing activities. In a total "unrelated" news... Pro-Palestinian supporters shout: "Hamas, Hamas Jews to the Gas..."RolesRoice (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

- I find this recent delete vote from you amusing Roles. [9].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - How's this related to this discussion? Spying on me? Please avoid personal attacks or blogging/spamming off-topic.RolesRoice (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's related to an us/them worldview. It demonstrates the you just vote your "side" and is therefore, salient to the weight one should give your opinions and statements. (for what it's worth, i would have voted to delete that crap article as well)Bali ultimate (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And voting to keep a different crap article that was almost the mirror image of the one you voted to delete minutes later is likewise amusing and very enlightening. nableezy - 17:03, 28 September 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) 02:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pharos Systems International[edit]

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

Non-notable, authored by "freelance writer" who makes a living providing "social media content for a variety of businesses". See Talk:Pharos Systems International#Summary of issues with this article. DanielPenfield (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the COI issue had been resolved. Another editor removed the tag last week and wrote the following (in part): "I have looked at this article per your request. It seems properly tagged regarding issues which should be improved. First the conflict of interest seems least relevant. In fact I am removing that one because there is no evidence that your association with the subject has manifest in the article prose. Actually you did a good job in that regard, In my opinion. Cheers. My76Strat 03:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)"

Also, I have made every change requested by this editor and others to make the article more notable.

Given these two facts, I do not understand why this article is marked for deletion.

Kristigaylord (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a half-hearted vote for deletion. The article isn't too bad but there isn't much in the references to prove notability. The sources tend to be either local ones, directories, or affiliated parties. Regarding COI, I was puzzled by it's removal and replacement with the advert template. The point of the COI template is to indicate possible bias, and something that reads like an advertisement is pretty clearly biased, and the editor has at least historic ties to Pharos. Restoring the COI template gets to the heart of the matter. Kristi has toned down the article but it still fails to prove notability. Kristi, I would suggest that you read the Wikipedia article on Notability (organizations and companies) and see how the Pharos International article fits the criteria. --Beirne (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes I removed the COI tag. As I stated in the summary I felt Kristigaylord had done well to avoid issues of wikipuffery. The talkpage highlighted the association and the potential for bias. I also advised Kristigaylord that I was concerned about issues of notability regarding the subject. I stated this was a "paramount concern'. Anyway, I have been criticized regarding my decision to remove the tag, and I accept the criticism. Nevertheless, I maintain that this article will pass or fail this AfD primarily related to notability and sourcing. Kind regards. My76 Strat 23:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Kristigaylord, for the record, and very pertinent to issues of conflict, will you receive and/or have you received any pay or compensation for any of your efforts on Wikipedia? My76 Strat 23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Delete. This is a company that provides print management software and services,, one of many, and yet another tech business advertising on Wikipedia. Their claims to notability are minor trade awards: Best of Show and Best Software Solution at the Print & Imaging Summit, an event attended by Information Technology executives and Software Company of the Year Award by the New Zealand Hi-Tech Trust. These awards don't establish that this business or its products have historical, technical, or cultural significance. Neither do routine announcements of profit lines, acquisitions, or mergers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reread the article about notability, and I agree that my article could raise some concerns in some minds. What’s disconcerting is that I have read many articles on Wikipedia that get a much lower grade on the notability test than my article about Pharos Systems. In any event, I’ve done all I can to respond to recommendations from a variety of editors. Writing a Wikipedia article about Pharos was something that I thought would be fun to do in my spare time. It’s time for me to pull the plug on the article. Kristigaylord (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per "Smerdis of Tlön"- SimonLyall (talk) 20:24, 22 September 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) Derild 49 21 ☼ 00:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mannequin[edit]

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

Album that asserts no notability at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep released by a notable act on a blue link label. Infobox has three reviews which can be used to expand the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not actual reviews, they are promotional content, the album is not notable in any way. The band is barely notable, we have multiple promotional linked articles like this one about a very unnotable album, all of the articles would easily merge into one single article that may be worth keeping. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how Allmusic is "not actual reviews." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per TenPound. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most albums from notable musicians merit an article, per WP:NALBUMS. That being said, the article does need a bit more substance and sourcing outside the infobox beyond a couple of unsourced sentences and a track listing, again per WP:NALBUMS. If someone really wants that article to stay, I think it should be fairly easy to get it up to standards. Cresix (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple of citations. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs expansion, not deletion. Expansion is entirely possible, and other editors have done it without too much effort. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The album is distributed by the EMI Christian Music Group, meaning it's as major label as it gets. The band goes back 16 years and is fairly successful nationwide. The user who wants this deleted has messed up most Joy Electric-related pages with unnecessary templates. You should check out the band's entry on pages like Discogs [10] first instead of wasting our time. My apologies, Off2riorob. Gregorik (talk) 20:33, 23 September 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, under G11 of the speedy deletion criteria (blatant advertising). Mkativerata (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Choice Auto Parts[edit]

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

No notability. Blatant advertising. John Nagle (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Nagle. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Simply advertising page with no real notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 18:47, 21 September 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 17:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laza Morgan[edit]

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

As a standalone indepedent article this is not notable. A quick search of google news finds extremely little mention of his other than his feature on Alexandra Burke's 2010 single Start Without You. The middle five paragraphs of this article are a copyright violation - the text has been directly copied and no attempt has been made to source any of the claims. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable (at least for now). I have removed the copyvios. Anemone Projectors 11:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may be notable someday, but he isn't now. --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 28 September 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. For political candidates, the interaction between WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG is always a matter of debate. The delete !voters have strong and well-reasoned arguments here that coverage related to the candidacy alone is insufficient. But those arguments do not have consensus support. A number of the keep rationales are quite thin, which makes this "no consensus" rather than "keep", but sufficient arguments are made on the keep side - with sufficient support - that the coverage is sufficient for the purposes of WP:GNG. Mkativerata (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephene Moore[edit]

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

Political candidate who will only become notable if they are elected. Article presently includes three Primary citations. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Major party nominees for the United States House of Representatives are always notable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - Since when? We delete 'em all the time, just as we do candidates for other offices. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage evidences notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has been the primary subject of articles in Congressional Quarterly [11] [12], Politico [13], the Lawrence Journal World [14], the Associated Press [15] [16], and the Kansas City Star [17] [18]. Arbor832466 (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to satisfy the general notability guideline, and WP:BIO, by virtue of coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources (such as those listed immediately above, and cited in the current revision of the article). MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MastCell.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Arbor832466 and MastCell. Frankly this nomination is bit perplexing. AniMate 01:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject of article has never held elected office--mere candidates are not qualified. And, being the wife of a candidate is not a reason for an article.--InaMaka (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I might support her, but as a mere candidate she still fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - It seems to me that she does. Per WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." She has been the primary subject of coverage in CQ-Roll Call, Politico, NPR, the AP, the Kansas City Star, and the Lawrence Journal World (see my comment above). That most certainly satisfies the primary notability criterion, no? Arbor832466 (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles that you cite do mention Ms. Moore, but she is not the subject of the articles. There are over 400 candidates for federal office every two years that lose their respective races. She has not every held an elective office. Now, if she had even held state office then she would be notable, but right now there isn't anything there to distinguish her.--InaMaka (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She absolutely is the subject of all of the articles cited above. She is in all of the headlines, and the stories are about her from start to finish.

Stephene Moore Faces Difficult Path to History - Congressional Quarterly
Stephene Moore runs in Kansas - Politico
Stephene Moore confirms she is running for Congress - Kansas City Star
Stephene Moore Denounces New Attack Ad - Associated Press
Stephene Moore announces bid for Congress - Lawrence Journal World
Stephene Moore looks to make history - Roll Call

I don't understand the confusion over this. Arbor832466 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @InaMaka: Are you contending that an article entitled "Kansas: Rep. Moore's Wife Running For His Seat" is not about Stephene Moore? Maybe you meant Stephene Moore is not the subject of "Stephene Moore runs in Kansas"? Is she the subject of "Stephene Moore Faces Difficult Path to History"? I'd really like a response, so I understand why you consider that she's "not the subject" of these articles, and why you think they don't establish notability per WP:BIO and the general notability guideline. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point that I was making (and Location below makes the point better than I) is that those articles are about the campaign. They are not about her. All candidates are mentioned in campaign articles, but that does not make them notable--if it did then all candidates would be qualified and the bio rules specifically disallow that.--InaMaka (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One other quick point: In the Kansas 3rd Congressional district race there is Moore (D) and Yoder (R), but there is also Jasmin Talbert, who is the Libertarian nominee. Do we have an article about Talbert? No. Why? Because Talbert does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just because Talbert obtained the Libertarian nomination and ALL of the cited articles mention Talbert. Under the theory set forward by MastCell and Arbor we should just ignore the long standing Wikipedia rule that mere candidates do not qualify for articles and we need to write up an article about Talbert also. Under that theory there should be articles on all obscure Libertarian and Green Party candidates even though they might not have held state or local office--as long as news articles mention them in the articles about the campaign. This is an expansion of the Wikipedia articles rules that needs to be discussed in a Wikipedia forum much larger than this one. By the way, the way that Wikipedia has handled Talbert is a model for how Wikipedia should handle Ms. Moore. You can review that here: Kansas's 3rd congressional district.--InaMaka (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria should be applied evenly, particularly in the case of living persons. Based on InaMaka's criteria, the following articles should be deleted in addition to Moore's: Ashley Woolard , BJ Lawson, William O'Neill, Lois Herr, Paul Gosar, David Schweikert, Jesse Kelly, Rick Crawford, Ryan Frazier, Glen Urquhart, Steve Southerland, David Ratowitz, Matt Reichel, Joe Walsh, Bob Dold, Adam Kinzinger, Teri Newman, Scott Harper, Bobby Schilling, David Sanders, Larry Bucshon, Mike Pompeo, Andy Barr, Dan Benishek, Jim Meffert, Scott Eckersley, Ed Potosnak, Douglas Herbert, Scott Sipprelle, Randy Altschuler, Fran Becker, Nan Hayworth, Chris Gibson, Matthew Zeller, ~~Tim Scott~~, Scott DesJarlais, Stephen Fincher, Bill Flores, Kesha Rogers, Roy Morales, Krystal Ball, Scott Rigell, Floyd C. Bayne, Patrick Murray, Keith Fimian, Doug Cloud, Reid Ribble. Agreed? Arbor832466 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that the rules should be applied the same in every article. Now, having said that let's point out that a misapplication of the rules in one article does not make the misapplication of the rules in another article proper. Also, let's point out that I don't know the situation in all of the abovementioned articles (and I would doubt that you do either), but I can comment on a few of them because I was the person who originally created them or I have made edits to them. For example, you list Tim Scott as an example where the article should be deleted under my clear explanation of the rules for politician bios. I can state without question that you are dead wrong about the Scott article. First of all, I created it. Tim Scott qualifies under several different rules, but let's start with the rule that is in question in Ms. Moore's situation. Tim Scott is a current member of the South Carolina legislature. Ms. Moore has never held ANY elected office. Mr. Scott used to serve on the Charleston County Council. Once again, Ms. Moore had never held ANY elected office. Mr. Scott is an African American who is the FIRST Republican African American state representative in 100 years of South Carolina history. Ms. Moore has not ever held elected office on either the state or federal level therefore she has not made history with a historic electoral win. Mr. Scott won a Republican primary against Strom Thurmond's son Paul Thurmond and Carol Campbell's son--progeny of two South Carolina political dynasties. Once again, Mr. Moore has never held political office and has never beaten a member of a political dynasty. Mr. Scott ran in the SC Republican primary runoff election one on one with Mr. Thurmond--creating a campaign of an African American versus the son of the one of the most famous segregationists in American history, a campaign which generated tons of nationwide news reports of the Old South versus the New South. Once again, Ms. Moore has not held political office and she has not engaged in a historic, highly publicized election race such as the two in which Mr. Scott participated. I could go on and on about the many, many reasons Mr. Scott is qualified and how Ms. Moore does not meet Mr. Scott's legacy, but suffice it to point out that Mr. Scott meets the criteria for inclusion in several different ways and Ms. Moore does not even meet it once. To summarize: (1) Scott, city council member, Moore, no office held; (2) Scott, current state rep, Moore, no office held; (3) Scott, 1st African American Republican in SC state house in 100 yrs, Moore, no office held; and (4) Scott, historic election races against Thurmond and Campbell political dynasties, Moore, no historic races. Once again, Ms. Scott has not produced any of the notable achievements that Scott has done and you have not provided reasons for her inclusion. All you have provided is a list of articles that may or may not be flawed. But clearly based upon a close examination of one of the articles you are comparing apples (a highly qualified politician bio (Scott)) to oranges (a non-notable politican who has never held political office (Moore)). Are you trying to suggest that Ms. Moore's mere candidacy is equally historic and as widely covered as Mr. Scott's successful electoral campaigns? If so then we need to review the historic electoral achivements that she has produced, but we are unaware of at this time--from the reading the article as currently written. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I'll remove Scott from the list. Thanks. Arbor832466 (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. I could go through the list above and point out why those articles are legit, just like I so completely did with Tim Scott, but I don't have to. All that list is a list of potentially flawed articles. You providing a list of flawed articles does NOT, in any way, make the Stephene Moore article more legitimate. This list of articles does not suddenly make Moore notable. It does not change that one bit. All that list represents is a pile of other articles that need to be reviewed for deletion. But many of them are just like the Tim Scott article--an article that is completely meets Wikipedia notability rules, but you were unaware of it.--InaMaka (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InaMaka, I wasn't meaning to suggest that the existence of one article justifies another. Simply pointing out that if prior legislative experience makes a subject notable but significant national media coverage does not, there is a large swath of articles that should be re-examined. Particularly this close to the election, we should try to be especially vigilant to ensure we approach candidate articles in the most even-handed way possible. I'm sure you agree that it would be unwise to single Stephene Moore out for extensive discussion and deletion without at least attempting to approach similar articles for candidates representing all points on the political spectrum with the same level of rigor. Arbor832466 (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor832466: Whether there is an election one day from now or two years from now really has no bearing on whether Stephene Moore's life experiece qualifies for an article on Wikipedia. The rule does not state "that mere candidates are not qualified unless there is an election coming." If you believe that there is a time that is appropriate for deletion for notability or not please tell me when timeframe is and please tell on what Wikipedia rule you base your timeframe. Is the rule based upon when you, Arbor, want notability to apply (a fairly whimsical standard)? or it is 10 days before an election? 20 days? 30 days? 40 days? 100 days? 250 days? one year? What is the timeframe you, one mere Wikipedian draw this mythical line? Should we re-write the Wikipedia policy on political biographies of notability to include a proviso that requires other editors to come to you and ask you, "Is it time now, Arbor?" Each and every argument that you bring up in not based in actual Wikipedia rules. This suggestion that there is some kind of "time out" for the election is your personal brainstorm--novel as it may seem--should be discussed in the proper forum and this discussion area is not it. You might want to pursue this as a future policy proposal change and I think you should if you feel strongly enough about it. But this novel idea does not make Stephene Moore any more notable than when you brought it up. It is not relevant to this discussion. The basic truth is that you believe that any of the names you listed above (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, RINO, DINO, Republicrat or Dempublican) you should work to have those articles deleted right now (but keep in mind just because you think an article should be deleted does not mean that your opinion is correct, please note the Tim Scott case that I noted above). There is no special timeframe where we all go "Time Out" and wait for the election to be over. Where in the Wikipedia rules does it say that? Once again, the only logical alternative--since you have not provided evidence of her notability--is to merge the article into her husband's article since he is clearly notable.--InaMaka (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InaMaka, I am making a sincere effort to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia by discussing the relative notability of Stephene Moore and other articles. Your aggressive, sarcastic commentary is making that exceptionally difficult. Please try to confine yourself to the issue at hand. If you have something you would like to bring up with me personally, please use User talk:Arbor832466, or better yet, keep it to yourself. Have a great day! Arbor832466 (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you are offended, but I did state anything that should upset you. I made the valid point that there is no timeframe where this issues should not be discussed. Just because an election is coming does not mean that Ms. Moore's life experience is suddenly notable.--InaMaka (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Wikipedia sees lots of these types of articles come election time. I've read the sources and find them to be essentially routine election coverage (i.e. fails WP:NOTNEWS). Thus, given the varying interpretations of what constitutes "significant coverage" within WP:GNG, I think a strong argument could be made that the coverage of the subject is not significant. Location (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Location, I see your point, although I think the news coverage of Stephene Moore either meets or comes very close to meeting Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. However, I'm also concerned about deleting Moore's page a month out from the election while leaving Kevin Yoder's page intact. Can we agree to leave it up for now and then delete it in November if she is not elected to Congress? Arbor832466 (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there an exception by which "routine election coverage" does not establish notability the way other news articles do? It's a bit puzzling to me that the dedicated coverage of this particular individual cited here and in the article should be disregarded. MastCell ^Talk 00:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This coverage is not being disregarded. It is important information that needs to be incorporated into Wikipedia article about the actual Congressional race. The place where this information should be placed is here: United States House of Representatives elections in Kansas, 2010, not in her article because the coverage is about the campaign. Otherwise, why do we have the campaign article? Otherwise, every single candidate would qualify for their own article. For example, in the Kansas 2nd Congressional district the Democratic Party nominated Cheryl Hudspeth, but there is no article about Hudspeth because she does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. Why? Because Hudspeth has never held state or federal office and she does not qualify under a different criteria. There just can't be articles on each and every candidate otherwise Wikipedia would have chucked full of articles about failed candidates or candidates that have never run for office or never held office before.--InaMaka (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I'm not convinced either. I would be more sympathetic to the routine election coverage if this were only local coverage, but it's national coverage. I would also like to point out that the sourcing on this article is much, much better than the one for Kevin Yoder. AniMate 00:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Delete both this and the Moore article, and wait for the election to be over. The winner in the fall election merits an article here under our rules about the notability of elected officials in WP:POLITICIAN. EnabledDanger (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. We're talking about the Moore article. Do you mean the Yoder article? Arbor832466 (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoder qualifies independently of this particular campaign because she has served in the Kansas legislature for many years. However, there is an alternative. Just merge the article into the Dennis Moore article. Stephene Moore husband clearly qualifies and if she wins in November then we bring back this article, but if she loses then the small amount of information that is present on her today will be mentioned in the Dennis Moore article. But as it stands now she does not qualify because she has never held public office on either the state or federal level and she does not qualify under a differnet criteria.--InaMaka (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That position strikes me as wikilawyering in the extreme. You're arguing that Yoder is notable because of his membership in a state legislature, while Moore is non-notable despite substantial, non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. That's sort of turning the notability guidelines on their ear. MastCell ^Talk 15:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not really discussing Yoder because he is clearly qualified under the Wikipedia rules. I noticed that Arbor wants to discuss Tim Scott and other articles and you want to discuss Yoder. This discussion is about Ms. Moore. What I am saying--and its not wikilawyering, that is just a red herring--is that Ms. Moore has never held elected office and she is not qualified in any other way. Simple as that. What I do notice from your comment is that you are making an attack on me and you did not, in any way, provide more evidence from Ms. Moore's life to make the case that she meets the political notability rules. You did not point out some accomplishment that we might have overlooked or some other part of her life that would make her qualified. You're comment is simply off the mark. Please provide a reason for her to considered notable. So far I have not heard one.--InaMaka (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean aside from the 8 or 9 dedicated pieces of coverage in independent, reliable sources and the supporting items from local news outlets? You seem to view notability as some sort of qualification that must be earned, but it's not like that. It's a simple matter of whether independent, reliable sources covering a subject exist. In this case, they do. It's not really a matter of opinion.

You're correct in that I have some concerns about your editing. Your strongly expressed negative viewpoint of the subject, combined with your editing of her biography and your dedication to having this article deleted, do raise a bit of a red flag for me. But you're also correct that this is not the venue for me to pursue that concern. MastCell ^Talk 16:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just being a candidate is not automatically notable, so if it were just on that grounds, this'd be easy. But this person seems to have received a bit of press for running for her husband's seat; coverage that has extended beyond local...AP, Boston Herald, and politico.com. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Gobonobo ^T ^C 20:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:POLITICIAN, running for office is not enough to establish notability. However, WP:GNG supersedes that, and Moore's independent coverage is enough to meet that criteria. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted, creation by banned user. Anemone Projectors 19:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Wyles[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Filmography cannot be verified. Possible hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:37, 21 September 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) 01:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone Secrets[edit]

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

Unreleased song of no particular notability in itself; a variant ("Song No. 4 (Satellite)") later appeared as a bonus track on Yes's album Drama. Does not meet WP:NSONG. No citations provided, and none come to mind or are apparent on a web search. PROD was removed by another editor. Personally, I think it's a good song, but it does not warrant its own article. Bondegezou (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable bootleg song. The article XYZ (band) should also be reviewed. The previous AFD for it was corrupted by two known sock accounts (possibly a third) which affected the outcome (see below). XYZ lasted only two rehearsals before splitting, with no official output. PaulHammond2 (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In a cluster of four keep votes together (3 socks and 1 sockmaster):
- User:MegX (known sock of JamesBurns)
- User:Anger 22 (known sock of WikiLibs, who also voted keep)
- User:TanIrishmanSaga (contribution history indicates the account was solely set-up to vote keep)
- Without the sock votes, the margin would have been 3 (to delete) to 2 (to keep, one of which was a weak keep). PaulHammond2 (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Saebvn (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Lörrach hospital shooting[edit]

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

Nominated after a discussion at ITN/C. The reason is WP:WIDESPREAD. Tone 15:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Extensively covered in virtually every German newspaper, with lots of follow-up articles and analyzing; the incident has also restarted debate about the gun law. WP:WIDESPREAD is not policy. --memset (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability criteria. Here is not about widespread. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence that this will have lasting impact? Are you kidding me? Two days before this happened, the father of the Winnenden shooter went on trial for improperly keeping his firearms that led to manslaughter; then this happens! You are saying there is no chance this will have a lasting impact on gun policy in germany? She used a .22 sporting pistol, one of the last things that would ever be banned, but this might even cinch it; who knows! Besides, there is a page for just about every spree or rampage killing that results in this many fatalities. 99.231.200.55 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said "no evidence" and not "no chance". By the way chance is a speculation. You said who knows. Well i looks like, you think you know, because you !voted for keep. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lasting impact is not a requirement under Wikipedia:Notability (events). It is only one of several indications or criteria of notability.AMuseo (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Impact in the news also in Italy. User:Lucifero4

That it is reported in Italy too, does not mean it can stay. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- If the news is reported outside the country where the fact happened means about the notability of the event.User:Lucifero4

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep per memset. --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously a notable topic. The nominator must be bored or trigger-happy. BlueRobe (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wide coverage of this atrocity makes it Wikipedia:Notability (events).AMuseo (talk) 02:56, 26 September 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) 02:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cornell University admissions rates[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and statistics, historical listings of admissions rates for a single university are inherently unencyclopedic. This is simply a replication of data already publicly available. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Steps 1 and 3 of this nomination were not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#STATS applies; anyone who needs this info should go to Cornell University website—Chris!_c/t 19:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not excessive listing of statistics. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cornell University. I don't think this is indiscriminate stats, but I don't see the need for it as a standalone list. Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 23 September 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 Mkativerata (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Native Instruments[edit]

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

This AfD was created by Jrobinsonjunior (talk · contribs) on 31 August with no rationale. Edit summary read "Company advert. Not notable enough for Wikipedia." I am neutral and fixing/completing this nomination in accordance with WP:AGF. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep important music software co, their titles are often reviewed in major magazines! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figmentary (talk • contribs) 21 September 2010
Keep. They actually are a pretty "big" company in the electronic music and music technology field, and their products get quite frequent coverage in industry publications such as Electronic Musician, Mix Magazine and Sound on Sound. We seem to have some articles on their individual products such as Guitar Rig and Traktor which seem to have some sources. Some of these product articles should maybe be merged to the main company article. --KFP (contact | edits) 21:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very well-known German electronic music company. Plenty of coverage in mags such as MixMag, Electronic Musician, etc. If you're involved in electronic music or music production, you'll know their stuff. Compare to Steinberg, Propellerhead Software, etc - Alison ^❤ 21:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - No question of the company's notability in the music production world. Strange to see this one contested. AtticusX (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major company, has received coverage in independent sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 23 September 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. It's obvious that this will be kept; while I see advantages to let things play out for another day or two, these nominations (this and the GNAA DRV) are really just disruptive and there's no point in giving more attention to any GNAA-related topics. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goatse Security[edit]

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

An article that promotes the same subject the former GNAA article promoted. Any differences that make this article, unlike the former GNAA article, useful for Wikipedia?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How can an article be AfD'd by a user who quit Wikipedia in 2005? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Georgia_guy/Goodbye_message 24.27.92.149 (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article seems to be written with a neutral, encyclopaedic tone, and in any case, articles should be rewritten to remove non-neutrality, not deleted. The subject is clearly notable, as indicated by the numerous sources. AfD is not a cleanup template. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough RS and information for a separate article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom provides no valid policy-based rationale for deletion. Please see arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:OTHERCRAP, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This goes into further detail at this essay here, where

The claim of "Other Stuff Exists" most often arises in deletion debates, where it is often used in a poor manner. Examples:
Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that. –LetsKeepIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –GetRidOfIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

riffic (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only ever did one thing, and even the article says that was hardly newsworthy. Figmentary (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC) — Figmentary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment – Please read the article. Goatse Security were noted for three separate events. Also, the "hardly newsworthy" was an opinion. Even if it were "hardly newsworthy", it create a stir in the media. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- People are too quick to call on the deletion of that which offends their delicate sensibilities. This is a well written, well sourced, notable and encyclopedic article. Snaisybelle (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've included reliable sources wherever possible. I haven't included any unreferenced or unsupported statements in the article. I don't believe that I've inserted any POV into the article. I don't "own" the article, and anyone is able to revise the article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-referenced work that passes WP:GNG. Furthermore, the nominator doesn't give any reason to delete. Nolelover 15:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep no argument for deletion given. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- the organization has adequate coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. It is well referenced and written in a neutral POV. Danski14^(talk) 17:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- "OMGz - it's the GNAA again. We can't have that on Wikipedia!!". Looks like a well written, cited article with multiple independent points of notability. Why is this up for AfD? - Alison ^❤ 20:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting someone close this already... Nolelover 20:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The history of the GNAA-related discussions on Wikipedia is littered with speedy closed AFDs and DRVs. Perhaps by letting things play out for more than a day, we can avoid having 20+ discussions about this article. No one has to bother commenting if they don't want to, and a few more days is trivial when you consider the big picture. --RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okee-Dokee. I just have snow on my mind...first day of fall, I guess. Nolelover 23:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's certainly no harm in leaving this for at least a couple more days, but it doesn't seem likely that this has a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted based on the arguments presented. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not a chance...Oh well, I guess we inclusionists win again. :) Nolelover 23:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Group appears to be notable, and is made up of individuals who may be notable in their own right. As long as the article can keep a neutral tone, and refrain from becoming a SOAPBOX, then I vote to keep. Heck what is even the DEL criteria this is proposed under? Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:39, 22 September 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 - closing half a day early due to overwhelming consensus in favour of deletion, with all keep !votes having little or no basis in WP policy -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACES MMA[edit]

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

Zero notability. No fighters with articles, no reliable sources about the gym and it reads like an advert. Paralympiakos (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Paralympiakos (talk) 00:Bold text43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a sherdog profile, official website, a link to one of the fighters fights, a preview of the series of commercials —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.37.202 (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Melanson look this one all there is is his webite, and another saying hes a teacher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97123 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF and besides, Neil Melanson is incredibly notable on account of training some of the top mixed martial artists in the world. Your gym is full of non-notables and has no coverage. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you live in Oregon you have heard of ACES MMA. If you know the FCFF you know ACESMMA they have commercials and fighters have you even seen the links —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97123 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Plus the owner Troy O'conner is for trainig fighters like Chael Sonnen and Rampage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97123 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_Fight_Gym look at this gym one fighter who is going to get cut nothing thats not notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97123 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at a Google search this organization/gym appears to fail WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

google again it has website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.37.202 (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the organization has a website or not is not at issue. At issue is whether the organization is notable. Wikipedia guidelines say that something is notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". A Google search shows no significant coverage that are independent of the subject. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an ad and I found nothing that shows this gym is notable. Papaursa (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DONT DELETE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vos_Gym this doesn't even site refrences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97123 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still I think something that has commercials deserves an article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97123 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can pay to air a commercial. Evil saltine (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:GNG. Evil saltine (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dont delete aces mma is one of the top gyms in the NW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.37.202 (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A notable gym is a gym that trains notable fighters working for notable organizations. See WP:MMANOT. This is not notable.
Delete. No notability of its own. The only claims are based on self-published material, mere existence, and association with someone who is independently notable himself apart from intrinsic connection to the group. Therefore fails WP:GROUP#Decisions based on verifiable evidence and WP:GROUP#Primary criteria. DMacks (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mere existence is not enough. No indication of notability in independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, only external links. So there's also very little notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 18:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's possible that some fighters from this gym will breakout and achieve notability - and then we may end up revisiting this article. But, at present, there isn't enough sourcing there to show notabilty. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DONT DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.37.202 (talk)

Snowball anyone? Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm hoping that is considered. This is inevitable at 8-1. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:32, 26 September 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 17:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bartley Gorman[edit]

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

there are hardly any facts on the page, simply conjecture and hearsay. I pointed this out months ago. But the page still hasn't been improved Doktordoris (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs to be trimmed to a stub but it is notable Gnevin (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BEFORE please - 30 seconds on Google should be enough to confirm notability.--Michig (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several reliable sources on Google, notable person. Although I agree the article may need some expansion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I'm expanding the article and adding references now. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, there's 5 reliable sources in there now, also there's info about a book on him and a film directed by Shane Meadows in the pipeline which I'm about to add to the article. More than enough to satisfy notability guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Make that 9 reliable sources...withdrawal of nomination would be good ;-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Thanks to Dylanfrom's excellent work! VASterling (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, reliably sourced: due to addition of valid, appropriate, notably sourced, reliably sourced, verifiable, properly formatted citations, and copyediting for straightforward prose. So, closed in seven days from the 21st, or the 11th? Anybody know?--Lexein (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it was a malformed nomination it'll run til the 28th, unless anyone wants to close it as a snow keep. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -Lexein (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to, although I have already said my opinion on this article, it might not be a good idea. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:21, 25 September 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. This might be a legitimate topic for an article, but consensus is that the current version is so deeply flawed at a fundamental level, that a future article would be better without this as a foundation. Courcelles 17:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Sunni Islam[edit]

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

Criticism of Sunni Islam" is a creation of User:Humaliwalay, who has been editing the article without providing sources that help readers understand from who in particular is criticism recieved for Sunni Islam, which is a strictly followed religion of over 1 billion people in the world. Humaliwalay has used www.answering-ansar.org [19], which was found unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.answering-ansar.org. I think the article may qualify under G-1 Wikipedia:Patent nonsense perhaps. Nothing in the article can be checked for verification, except the first 3 sources which I added but are not related to "Criticism of Sunni Islam". Those 3 only help explain that Sunnis are up to 90% of total Islam and Shias are the minority. When I read an article in which the faith of over 1 billion people is criticised I expect the article to to guide me in understanding why this is and who in particular are criticising their faith. The article even contain quotes such as "the Chapter of the Quran Al-Fateha (The Opening) can be written with urine", which is a strong indication that this article is made to bash Islam. AllahLovesYou (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - www.answering-ansar.org was only used for translation reference rather the original references were cited which were disrupted quite sometimes. Even sometimes the entire article was vandalized with major blanking by AllahLovesYou here [20], This article was tagged though references provided were considered as most authentic after Quraan like Sahih Bukhari and others - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further this article is not to bash any community or Islam religion, its only criticism reported found in the books of Sunni community, like how criticism has been reported in article Criticism of Twelver Shiism. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Redirect & Salt - as per TFOWR comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts here "Since Sunnis make up almost 90% of Muslims, I'm inclined to agree that this could be merged to Criticism of Islam". I have issues with the writing and sourcing of this article to feel that there is nothing I would salvage hence I am not advocating a formal merge. It is clear that the two major editors of this article (the nominator and the creator Humaliwalay) have been undertaking aggressive editing over this article, Humaliwalay's lack of understanding what constitutes vadalisum does not help their case, nor does AllahLovesYou's claim that the article meets CSG G1. Codf1977 (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rewrite - valid article, but it could use a rewrite and some cleanup, along with other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.26.222 (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or fully rewrite - If you will take a look at my comments in the talk page, you will see that this article is nothing more than selected paragraphs copied almost word for word from answering-ansar.org, which is neither notable nor a reliable source. Delete it, or re-write it completely to include properly sourced criticism. Unflavoured (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unflavoured as stated earlier, www.answering-ansar.org was only used for translation reference rather the original references were cited which were disrupted quite sometimes.Humaliwalay (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response - "Only used for translation reference" is meaningless. The article is just a bunch of paragraphs lifted directly from the answering-ansar.org, sometimes with only 2-3 words modified. That site itself is not a reliable source. If you delete the copied content, you will have nothing left in the article other than the intro. This is why I recommend that the current content be deleted, and only valid, well sourced criticism be included, OR the article be fully deleted. Also, I edited your words to a Comment, since I see this often as standard in AfDs. If this is wrong then I apologize. Unflavoured (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unflavoured, no need to apologize, you as an editor are free to post your opinion and your editing of my words which you did is not a problem, I respect your efforts. Thanks. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure on the CopyVio issue, however have asked Moonriddengirl to have a look here. Codf1977 (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are copyright concerns. I have blanked a portion of the article and provided more details at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. This article, if we are going to have it, needs to be written from a neutral point of view. Right now it is written as if all of the criticisms are valid. Having said that, the topic is a legitimate one on WP. We have other articles on criticism of religions. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. In style and tone, this article demonstrates that it exists solely to express a point of view, at least in it's current form. While I would certainly think issues of divergence and/or disagreement between the two sects are of encyclopaedic importance, they appear to already be sufficiently addressed in the main article on Islam and more specifically in the very well researched article on Shi'a–Sunni relations. -Markeer 16:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a SOAPBOX; the relevant information is already covered in Criticism of Islam and Shi'a–Sunni relations with more comprehensive material and better references. Doc Tropics 16:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Previously existing content has been warning flagged out of existence already, might as well take the old POV trojan horse back 'round the barn and put her out of her misery... Carrite (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an article on this subject could be created, but it's really intended to be about Shia objections to Sunni Islam, which could be a valid topic, but this has been a barely intelligible mess obsessed by writing the Quran in urine and other equally important matters. Paul B (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep the article, expand it so that it becomes intended to be about Shia objections to Sunni Islam. I cannot understand why the article is deleted if most of the material is not suitable. Keep the article and delete material except introduction and put a expand it tag on the page so the article can be written according to WP policies. Kavas (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like someone's got a sectarian axe to grind, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. Wanna do that over at Shiapedia, go right the f* ahead. But not here. It's a legitimate topic, so Keep if it can be re-written in a neutral, verifiably sourced, non-antagonistic tone, Delete otherwise. Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:52, 24 September 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 17:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cryotek[edit]

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

Fictional character that appears not to pass WP:GNG, sources are all primary, no individual notability asserted. Normally would merge to character list, but no list appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 22:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major character in a major franchise. Mathewignash (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding right? His fiction appearances have all been fan club materials! His toy was a store exclusive. THIS guy is the definition of not known to (and thus, not affecting) the world outside of TF fandom. --Khajidha (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't want to make this seem like wiki-stalking, I'm just looking at the Transformers AfDs at the moment. But to the article, there are only two sources, neither reliable or conferring independent notability. Searches online don't reveal anything that could either be reliable sourcing or confer notability. Skinny87 (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Predacons. --Divebomb (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect – not enough secondary sources of sufficient quality or reliability to establish independent notability of a fictional character. Lambanog (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. --Khajidha (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- poor "sources" and lack of assertion of notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Pratt[edit]

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

I can nor verify "the longest running rock and roll show" and even if I could, I do not think there's enough for notability in the one article I could find. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the coverage is definitely there (eg feature piece here) - he seems to have had a long and well-known radio career. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article sourced and somewhat expanded by yours truly. Also note that the previous version of the article wrote "America’s Longest Running Rock N’ Roll Morning Show" with caps as though it were a title, which is isn't supposed to be; I've added a ref that describes Dave Pratt in the Morning as such without the caps. —CodeHydro 20:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I look at all the sources and they look for the post part like reliable sources. on the totality of the evidence, i am thinking this is probably a keep and not a delete.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comments I'm glad some more was found, but I am not withdrawing the AfD. I am very dubious about the actual notability of local radio DJs, him included, for which there are only local sources, as here. That such local sources were found for them is not surprising, because it will be increasingly possible if sufficient search is made, to meet the GNG for essentially any local personality. This makes a for a contradiction with WP:LOCAL , which says "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" -- which has often been interpreted here as meaning that local sources do not count as WP:RS for the purpose of notability. (I know that LOCAL is only an essay, but it has sometimes been used to limit the GNG, and sometimes not.)

As for some specifics, that it was America's longest running R & R morning show is sourced only to a publicity handout; if it should be true, I would expect better sources. That his band sold over 100,000 records seems dubious, considering it is apparently not notable by WP's very inclusive standards for bands. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with your views on local notability, but Arizona (or just Phoenix for that matter) aren't exactly "local" areas.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be a reasonable amount of material out there such as Who's who in rock music. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. Drewbug (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Elizabeth Douglas[edit]

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

BLP 1E - individual who has no notability outside of her relationship to the organization she founded Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'm going to restore the removed awards and recognition section for use in this AfD as I believe they have a bearing on this conversation. I'd paste them here but the list is extensive and would be too cumbersome in my opinion. OlYeller^Talktome 18:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies WP:N and WP:Bio. Has been covered by numerous reliable sources which can be found in the reference section assuming the nominator hasn't removed the awards section completely, again. Here are three example of news coverage from NBC, People Magazine, and Business Journal. Subject has also received awards from Seventeen and Covergirl (non-free article), a Sertoma for Service to Mankind, and A Jefferson Award from The American Institute for Public Service. I can keep going but I'm assuming that the nominator assumes that those awards are to the organization itself which is a reasonable mistake but not the case. Also, I think the nominator is confusing one event with one organization. I don't feel that one event applies to the works of a person an organization that span 17 years.OlYeller^Talktome 18:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note this user may have a conflict of interest having been asked to be the photographer of the subject of the article [[21]] Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible but I think the evidence speaks for itself. OlYeller^Talktome 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note the user has also uploaded as the author of a photo of the subject of the article's grandmother taken when her grandmother was in high school [22] indicating that the relationship with the family has been a long lasting one and not simply a single business transaction. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the evidence of notability speaks for itself and you haven't really shown how my identity has a bearing on the evidence that I have presented. OlYeller^Talktome 18:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of her outside of her relation to the group has not been presented. Just as WP:MUSIC a member of a notable band who has not recieved coverage for anything other than participation in the band does not meet our criteria for stand alone article, neither does Douglas. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to engage in the use of analogies when it comes to inclusion guidelines that don't specifically apply to this article but I guess I'd point you to WP:COMPOSER point one that shows that being the composer (or creator according to your analogy?), is notable. Also, please evaluate the awards. Do they not imply notability because they're not substantial? Is it because they were given to her for starting an organization? Does that mean that winning a Nobel Prize for research in one field doesn't imply notability? Also, the articles are about her (the title literally includes her name and not the organization's) for something that she has done that are not one event. OlYeller^Talktome 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. On the merits, I think the subject is notable. Enough of the coverage listed in references seems to focus on Ms. Douglas, as opposed to just the organization. It's a bit thin, the list of awards is overboard, and there are non-independent references to the organization's website (which seems to inflate the reference count). But those are problems that can be solved by editing - a paragraph noting that the subject has received awards and then listing the most notable, for example. The list is longer than the rest of the article, and that's a pretty significant problem. But it doesn't mean that the subject isn't notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by OlYeller21 demonstrate that Emily Elizabeth Douglas has received nontrivial coverage in secondary reliable sources. I do not believe that BLP1E applies because being the founder of a organization is not, in my opinion, an event. That Douglas has received coverage ranging from June 2003 (titled Hometown Heroes: Honoring Grandma – the first sentence begins "Emily Douglas dearly loved her grandmother") and December 2008 (titled: Helping Kids in Appalachia: Emily Douglas, 26 to July 2010 (titled Woman Collects Supplies, Honors Grandmother For 17 Years) demonstrates that the coverage is persistent. The titles of the three articles I provided demonstrate that Douglas is the articles' main topic and not merely tangentially mentioned. Cunard (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, persistant coverage of her involvement with the charity that she founded. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Emily Elizabeth Douglas' notability stems from her accomplishments with the organization she founded. That this coverage is focused mainly on her (per the article titles above) and not on her organization indicates that her notability is not dependent on coverage that her organization receives. Therefore, she is independently notable of Grandma's Gifts. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have independent coverage that stems from work with Active, but focusses on her directly VASterling (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Do we need to keep this AfD alive a little longer since there was a mistake made in the initial nomination? I feel that keeping it going for 5 to 7 days from the point that DumbBOT caught the mistake may be beneficial. OlYeller^Talktome 18:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment I am not sure what "mistake" you are referring to? I STILL do not feel there is any significant coverage outside of her relationship to the charity. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you are referring to the fact that the bots didnt list it until recently on the AfD page. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just that the AfD may not have been as puclic as needed. OlYeller^Talktome 19:45, 23 September 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) 01:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion (Heidi Montag song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Looking at previous AfDs, this article has been kept solely because it was performed by two different artists. Most people would not consider Montag notable for her music career, and as WP:NSONGS states, even if both of the artists are notable, the song must have enough verifiable material about it for it to warrant an article.

Neither of the Us Weekly sources work, the Best Week Ever source isn't a critical analysis, the Amazon ref does nothing more than to prove it was on some soundtrack (which the film/soundtrack article does a fine job of already) and the content about Gaga's live performances is already present in The Monster Ball Tour. This article is totally unnecessary and not every Lady Gaga song needs to have an article. There is the Gaga wikia for that. –Chase (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not individually notable due to lack of sources, but because it was performed by two artists, a merge/redirect is out of the question. What little verifiable information there is has already been put in other articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree that this page shouldn't be kept, but there are credible sources enough to mention the topic on the Heidi Montag page with the Entertainment Weekly and E Online sources.Silent Bob (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, note that the outcome of the previous nomination (by me) was merge and merge tags were placed on the article but it never happened. Perhaps this discussion isn't required because a consensus to discard this page already exists. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 20:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure I understand the suggestion that there is not enough verifiable material about it for it to warrant an article. The article is well beyond stub length and reasonably well sourced. That the "Best Week Ever" source is not a critical analysis is hardly relevant, that is not a requirement for sources. And there are also sources from Entertainment Weekly and E!. I hate to be in the position of keeping anything by Heidi Montag, but as of now I don't see a good reason to do anything else. Rlendog (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All unsourced content, as well as the dead Us Weekly soruces, has been removed. Do you see what I mean now about there not being enough verifiable content to warrant an article? –Chase (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty borderline. The article is certainly no "Like a Rolling Stone" (nor is the song, for that matter), but that is hardly the criteria. The article as it stands now still has some critical analysis from reliable sources. Also, I am not sure why the Us Weekly sources should necessarily be removed. The links may be deprecated, but that does not mean that the information from the magazine is not reliably sourced (e.g., to hardcopies); the link could just be removed from the citation (of course, the opinion of the producer and the husband are hardly the most important encyclopedic content.) Rlendog (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)2010 September 21[reply]

Delete, the song is not notable even though it is recorded by two artists. Heidi Montag isn't noted for her music career and her version isn't released on any format. Lady Gaga's cover is only released on a soundtrack. It did not chart. --PlatinumFire 15:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the article on songs should be kept. I haven't read all wikipedia's "how to" but please consider there is individual articles on many known single, that are not found in the discography section of the singer. This is a policy by wikipedia to push the limits of the article to on many clicks away. On a random_(singer) article, there is a redirect for the discography, and there is more to click&scroll to read the track listing. Once in (singer), you click discography, follow album1, then scroll to track listing, and you may find that not every big singer has a track listing for their albums and this is not a good thing. Someone put this info on Lady GAGA ()on wikipedia.org, and you should be aware he/her did a good thing in his point of view to let me know about this song, even thank him if he did it with an unproven notority subject. If I put somethin on wikipedia.org and people deletes my articles without assigning it to a new category, then the one who has a bad notority is him, because I won't read all wikipedia's info if I want to share.

I haven't seen any worse act of charity than to destroy a good will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.53.40 (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there and welcome to Wikipedia. You may wish to read our guidelines and policies before further contributing to AfD discussions. Generally, we do not keep articles just because an editor's hard work would be wasted. It is unfortunate that this happens, but we are an encyclopedia, and some subjects are simply not notable enough for inclusion. –Chase (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 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. Seeming bad-faith nomination from a hacked account with no hint that anyone else wants to delete the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Meyer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Can't find RS for Biography Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: According to what is revealed at User talk:Weaponbb7, the nom's account was recently blocked for being "compromised". Location (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PROF #5: he is the Bernard N. Baker Chair In Chemistry. Location (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Due to notability as a department chair of a major university. Obviously, this is a stub article in need of a great deal of work... Carrite (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep endowed chair at respected university. certainly notable VASterling (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a chair at a major department at a major university is probably more notable than a Simpsons episode. Nergaal (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep of compromised nomination. Well passes WP:Prof #1 and #5. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 23 September 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 17:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ikechukwu Ndefo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ikechukwu Ndefo

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

the reason why i want this article removed is because it gives out the wrong information about ikechukwu ndefo. Firstly he is not the CEO of maersk sealand and never have been. For confirmation please check the maersk sealand website and confirm if he has ever been listed as an employee or the CEO in the company. The information is totally false. Ikechukwu Ndefo has never aspired for the governor seat in Anambra state, Nigeria as stated in the article; once again this is false information which can be verified, This is why i want the information removed immediately Chichi beybuh (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How do you know that all the information is false? Do you know him? If so, how? If it is false, why did you write it in this edit? Thanks! — $Jeff G. ツ$ 23:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"REPLY" Yes i know him. He is my dad. And you can visit the Maersk Sealand website to see if he is the CEO. He is not! 86.164.228.60 (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. All of the substantive edits to the article came from the author/deletion nominator. The article author has obviously realised that this article doesn't belong in Wikipedia, so is doing the right thing by asking for it to be deleted. Let's not punish that author for the initial mistake by dragging this process out. If for some reason this isn't speedily deleted then delete anyway as the two sources provided in the article are searchable via Google Books and the subject's name doesn't appear in them: [23] [24], and the searches linked in the nomination only find Wikipedia mirrors and social networking sites. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Please delete this. FALSE INFORMATION!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.128.138 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 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) Derild 49 21 ☼ 00:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imedix[edit]

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

No indication of notability fails WP:ORG and WP:WEB, I also note that this has been around since 2008 so certainly needs to be discussed before any deletion. Wintonian (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was mentioned in Techcrunch and I believe it is famous enough to be kept. This is considered a major health-related website nowadays. NCurse _work 16:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, also covered in the NYTimes, I added the reference. This one can be saved, I think, so adding a rescue template. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, looks like this one slipped through the cracks, I've added an AFD notice to the imedix page, now off to find someone to double check my work. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The only reason this site's article is so short is probably because it is by itself a popular health-wiki site. Most editors of it probably prefer editing on their own wiki and don't care about ours so much (WP:systemic bias). As for those who keep nominating such articles for deletion, please check the company's website for a "in the news" or "product reviews" page beforehand... just one look at iMedix's in the news page brings up a huge number of major sources that demonstrate notability. —CodeHydro 18:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not so much, some of those are dead, some blogs, some press releases--only a few are really reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a scholarly journal reference (Trivedi, Mayank (October 2009) "A study of search engines for health sciences" (PDF) International Journal of Library and Information Science pp. October, 2009 Vol. 1 (5): 69-73) — HowardBGolden (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^prattle 23:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, it has, I mentioned that I flagged it when I flagged it. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking through the pages of Google news results, I see the New York Times standing out [25]. There are others of course. Keep, and please click the Google news search before you nominate something. Dream Focus 14:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 23 September 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. # (del/undel) 18:12, 24 September 2010 KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs | block) deleted "International Kung Fu Federation" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.internationalkungfu.com/) (view/restore) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Kung Fu Federation[edit]

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

This article suffers from a copyright violation, its a non notable organisation with no third person sources therefore a delete. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should probably be speedily deleted as a copyright violation. It seems to pretty much be copied from the organization's home page. Beyond that, the organization doesn't seem to have any significant coverage by independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The combination of looking like a copy of the organization's web page and its lack of coverage by reliable sources is a strong argument for deletion. Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 24 September 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 17:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Zurkhaneh Sports Federation[edit]

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

There is insufficient third person sources to justify an article. Nor does the article attempt to satisfy notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 hits in gnews doesn't cut it. [26]. LibStar (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The sport seems to be played in a number of countries in the region, but I didn't see independent sources about this particular organization that show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find significant independent coverage of this organization. Papaursa (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Varzesh-e Pahlavani ("History" section); just a suggestion. Janggeom (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 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. I find the argument that online sources are hard to find unconvincing. This is a 2004 movie and the web was certainly around back then. A nationally released film should certainly have generated some coverage so it's surprising that little can be found. However it's possible that such sources may be available in Japanese and/or hardcopy so we can revisit this issue in a month or two. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Blade: Missing Ace[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Page seems to be mostly just a collection of original research violation, no real significant secondary source discussion or critical commentary of any kind whatsoever. -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was a film that was shown in Japanese theaters in 2004. It received plenty of press then, but we don't have access to any of it now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Closing Admin: Just merely saying "stuff existed", or "it was a film", completely ignores WP:NOTE. Lots of things are films. Porno films are films. But not all of them are notable - that requires demonstration of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was notable. It had a bloody theatrical release.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but unfortunately, everything that has a "bloody theatrical release", is not automatically notable. -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is not notable as this movie doe's not have significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Powergate92Talk 22:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Not being able to myself read Japanese, I'll wait until a Japanese-reading Wikipedia interested in digging through and translating sources speaks up... or better, a Japanese Wikipedian who has access to hardcopy sources in Japan libraries and archive... as reliable sources might well be found among the results above, or among sources not available online. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a theatrical release by a notable company (Toei Company) and part of a notable franchise (Kamen Rider Series). jgp T C 21:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Following the links provided by Powergate above, this film does not appear to have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Neelix (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It most certainly did have significant coverage. Due to the age of the subject it is near impossible to find said reliable sources online.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Such a claim could be made about any non-notable topic because it cannot be substantiated. Neelix (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well I'm sorry that you don't believe that a nationally released Japanese movie from six years ago didn't have any sort of press coverage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Neelix is always welcome to translate these or seek input from Japanese-reading Wikipedians before flatly stating that no possible sources exist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Please do not misquote me. Anyone interested in what my actual statement was is free to read it above. The lack of sources in the Google Books links in particular is not encouraging. There are thousands of books on Japanese cinema in Google Books; six years is ample time for some to be written that mention this film. Neelix (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah. Sorry. I was unaware that the only criteria for finding Japanese films notable was that they must be written up in books in order to be determined as notable. My own limited experience in American cinema is that while a film may have inumerable other sources, it sometimes takes many years before a film gets written up in a book. Do you have any translations available for these ? Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Here the English translation of your search![27] Powergate92Talk 17:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah... it may take me a while to go through all 13,400 results. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:23, 27 September 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 18:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyukai (Uechi Ryū)[edit]

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

There is no reliable third person information to assert notability and does not pertain to assert notability Dwanyewest (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any independent sources to show this art is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article gives no reason why the subject is notable and I didn't find any when I searched. Papaursa (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kamen Rider Ryuki characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Kamen Rider Ryuki characters

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

fancruft article with no indication of third party sources. Fails WP:N Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 23:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Keep characters are discussed in the following books: ISBN 978-4840224284, ISBN 978-4257036760, ISBN 978-4047135314 (among others), as well as in issues of Televi-Kun, Televi Magazine, Hyper Hobby, etc. in 2002. I was in the process of adding these other references after I removed the prod and right as the AFD tag was added.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Character lists have reasons for existing. It's not like this is an article on a specific character. NotARealWord (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability of the series is established, and it's not like it's some ultra-narrow page covering only a single character. jgp T C 22:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ryūlóng. Edward321 (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as AN appropriate spin-out list of Kamen Rider Ryuki. Lists are appropriate so long as the main topic, Kamen Rider Ryuki, is notable and the list is not too general or too broad in scope have little value. They are not directly subject to the notability guidelines. If they were Lists of presidents and most other lists would also be deleted. —Farix (t | c) 13:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Regina[edit]

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

unsourced list of buildings. Article title describes it as tallest buildings in Regina but includes a proposed 3 storey building. None of the buildings are particularly tall. An external link to Emporis.com is to an empty page. noq (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom hasn't given an valid reason to delete this perfectly valid list. This issues the nom brings up are simply article improvement requests. Deletion is not a tool for article clean-up.--Oakshade (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the list is unsourced - this in itself makes it eligible for deletion. Why do you think the list is valid? There are no inclusion criteria, no one wants to suggest one, so this appears to be a random collection of buildings without any encyclopaedic value. noq (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for a sources tag. That you feel a tallest buildings list is "a random collection of buildings without any encyclopaedic value." is a 100% WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. I dare you to put up List of tallest buildings in San Francisco for AfD with the same reasoning. --Oakshade (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have seen lists like this for other cities, and this has been accepted as a valid encyclopedia topic. Dew Kane (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in a deletion debate. noq (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sometimes it is, if it shows there is notability in such. Dew Kane (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you "have seen lists like this for other cities" does not infer notability. Can you show any discussion that establishes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply here? noq (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an adequate list. Inclusion criteria are clear, list is finite. Building height is one of the main identifying characteristics of cityscapes. List might be of interest or use to Wikipedia users, no corresponding benefit to the Wikipedia project would be gained from the deletion of this material. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article needs to have name change to List of tallest buildings in Regina, Saskatchewan as soon as this AfD closes to match form of "People from" and "Mayors of" lists. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete list of tallest building is certainly a notable topic. But creating such list for cities that have few tall buildings is not a good idea.—Chris!_c/t 19:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking notability. Maybe we can keep List of tallest buildings in San Francisco... just maybe... but even then, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, List of tallest buildings in San Francisco should definitely be kept because the city has hundred of tall buildings.—Chris!_c/t 20:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. The nom misunderstands the difference (and inherent tension) between WP:BURDEN and WP:BEFORE. Not convinced there's a huge amount of value here, but it's a reasonable article in line with other precedents. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A line has to be drawn somewhere IMO. If a city has few tall buildings, there is no reason to have a list of tall buildings. Even you said that you are "not convinced there's a huge amount of value here".—Chris!_c/t 01:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Regina, Saskatchewan. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Oakshade thats not a valid reason sure improvement can be done on the article but deletion dose not seem the right way. Kyle1278 00:19, 27 September 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 Nothing about the posting/timing irregularities of this AfD undermines the fact that consensus is crystal clear here: this is NOT the sort of article Wikipedia encourages. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Romeo Live performances[edit]

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

This is a page of links to over 80 bootlegged videos of Max Romeo concerts found on YouTube. Initially, I created a redirect to Max Romeo, which was reverted by the article's author with no explanation. Should be a G12 speedy delete, but with 80 videos, didn't quite know how to list all the copyrighted videos. The references and external links in this article is comprised of those to Facebook, YouTube, and MySpace. Cindamuse (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article's creator has a long history of creating and re-creating lists of non-notable concert tours. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The place for lists of Youtube videos are on Youtube. Article therefore fails WP:ELNO and WP:NOTLINK. This has been explained before to the article's creator. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given that Max Romeo's career dates back to the 1960s, and that it's likely to be impossible to accurately catalogue his live performances for the majority of his career, I doubt the value of a list starting in 2007. Hardcore fans might find it useful but it's going beyond an appropriate level of detail for an encyclopedia I think.--Michig (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article was originally at List of Max Romeo concerts that I merged the information to Max Romeo since both articles were rather small. Now there is also a discussion at Talk:Max Romeo#Section as to whether that information even belongs there. After I merged the information, Lurulu, true to form, created the same article at a different title. Aspects (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above this is really trivia, and the work of one determined editor to 'make his mark'. The potential interest value of an even more comprehensive list in minimal. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these shows are not notable. Roscelese (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 23 September 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 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) at 22:57, 22 September 2010 per A7. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Women's Martial Arts Federation[edit]

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

There is insufficient third person sources to justify an article. Nor does the article attempt to satisfy notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I find lots of ghits, but they all seem to be of the "so and so was certified by" variety. I didn't find good independent sources that show this organization is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I found the same thing as Astudent0. I didn't find any independent sources that discussed this organization directly. The article has been tagged as unsourced for over 3 years. Papaursa (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gnews shows a lack of indepth coverage [28]. LibStar (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following WP:DIRECTORY. Janggeom (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, there is not indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedily deleted per A7. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy-deleted under CSD A7. At no time in the history of this article has there been any indication of notability or significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Patrol (bicycle club)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. BLGM5 (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:25, 21 September 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 18:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sankūkai[edit]

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

A non notable form of karate with no independent sources should be deleted Dwanyewest (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find independent sources that show this art is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is heavy on the lineage of its founder, but gives no reason why this style is notable (since notability is not inherited). I found no third party sources supporting notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 21 September 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 18:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shingo-ha yoshukai[edit]

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

There is no reliable third person information to assert notability and does not pertain to assert notability Dwanyewest (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no claim of notability in the article that passes WP:MANOTE. This article gives no reliable sources and I didn't find any that support notability. Astudent0 (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced article that fails to give any reasons the subject is notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge into Chitō-ryū if appropriate sources are found. Janggeom (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 21 September 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 consensus is clear on this one. However, if someone wants to start over then I would suggest starting with a new userspace draft. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Webster-Doyle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Borderline Notability but total WP:SPAM, pioneer in the non-existiant field of "BioCognetics" (One hit in books, none in scholar) Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as with the last nomination. I still see no indication of notability. The previous debate was closed with the comment "Keep and clean up", but in a year and a half it is still completely spam. I think if this were cleaned up there'd be nothing left.—Chowbok ☠ 20:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Forgive me if I edit this talk space incorrectly, please cleanup as needed. Having lent a hand in the cleanup from it's prior iteration (if you compare it to the previous deletion round, it's been severely trimmed and tuned), I have a small part in it's history. I think the perception is that this is a marketing pitch (certainly some of the much earlier versions were), but I'm not really seeing this as an ad. For one, it's not really selling anything, just describing the philosophy behind his writings. Chowbok, as you've been quite vocal in the deletion, twice, is there a way you can turn this into an acceptable article? The man has written a boatload of books, his works are cited, applauded and used in a variety of Martial Arts and Peace activists programs, and he's received some major accolades in the world of Martial Arts as well as Peace, Child Welfare, Tolerance and other clearly more noble causes than say, snake oil, self help, or religious organizations. Fringey? Sure. Esoteric? Most definitely, but a guy that ties together Krishnamurta, Bohm, and other, wraps it together under Martial Arts, and mangages to help kids from Inner City slums fight bullying, turn Liberian Child Soldiers into somewhat more normal citizens, well, it *IS* going to be a niche market and esoteric. Don't let that rob the article of validity. I'd say the guy is relevent, it just needs more guidance for removing the resume or PR aspects.--RenaissanceWarfare —Preceding unsigned comment added by RennaissanceWarfare (talk • contribs) 03:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think he's notable. His books are self-published, the citation list dubious. I'll change my mind if you point me to reliable sources that show his notability, but right now, I'm just not seeing it.—Chowbok ☠ 04:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, here is what I dug up in the first couple pages of Google results (and again, please pardon my formatting errors):

Aside from his books being for sale everywhere, Amazon, B&N, Random House, Weatherhill, and hundreds of Martial Arts stores, there are the following other references:

Article in Ohio University's 'Institute for the African Child Interdisciplinary Journal': http://www.afrchild.ohio.edu/CAJ/articles/BioCogneticCAJ2009.pdf

Various Dojos and anti-bullying educators all across the country integrate his works into their programs: http://www.uamadojo.com/about.html http://www.lifeskillsschool.com/taekwondo.nxg http://www.iparenting.com/dad/5305.php http://husd.k12.ca.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=233&Itemid=219

Also included in many "Recommended Reading lists" from Dojos and other educators: http://www.pkmartialarts.com/parents.htm http://www.isaacfawlkes.com/studyguideonline/Study%20Guide%20online.pdf http://www.discoverhumanrights.org/Peace_and_Justice_Books_for_Teens.html http://pbskids.org/itsmylife/friends/bullies/print_books.html http://greendove.net/childrensbooklist.htm

Interview with Massachusetts School of Law Educational Forum on the topic of Bullying, 2004: http://www.mslaw.edu/MSLMedia/EdForum/91%20Educational%20Forum%20Bullying.htm

MA Success Magazine Interview, 2004 (Couln't find online Magazine, only an archived Article): http://www.masuccess.com/articles/the%20force%20is%20with%20him.pdf

Cited in Black Belt magazine, Feb, 2003 and described as one of "the most respected leaders in the martial arts industry": http://books.google.com/books?id=N9sDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT18#v=onepage&q&f=false

Review in Yoga Journal, Summer/Fall 1990: http://books.google.com/books?id=h-kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72

Cited from Unitarian Universalist Faithworks Lectures, 2004: http://archive.uua.org/re/faithworks/fall04/curr_ppjn.html

was originally published by the Institute for Peace & Justice newsletter, July 1996.

Black Belt magazine actually sold his videos for a time as well (their promo, not his): http://books.google.com/books?id=nM4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA156#v=onepage&q&f=false

Brief writeup in Hinduism Today Magazine, 1995: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3479

RennaissanceWarfare —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

- - Seems like pretty thin gruel. Those are all fairly obscure sources or minor mentions, and anybody can sell their books through Amazon. I'm not convinced.—Chowbok ☠ 06:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RS and GNG don't care if a source is 'fairly obscure'; RS is a pretty binary distinction. Either eg. Black Belt is a RS, or it isn't. --Gwern (contribs) 13:51 6 September 2010 (GMT)

Okay, but to take that example, the Black Belt reference is a single offhanded mention in a two-paragraph story.—Chowbok ☠ 19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at it, but maybe it's not a major reference. Feel free to look through the 130 other hits on Terrence Webster-Doyle in Black Belt. --Gwern (contribs) 19:55 6 September 2010 (GMT)

most of the "hits" look like advertisement that were scanned in with everything else in the mag. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Did some further digging, and while some of his books are self published, he is also published by the "world's largest English language general trade book publisher" Random House (see http://www.randomhouse.com/author/results.pperl?authorid=61681 ) as well as distributed by Shambhala Publications (see http://www.shambhala.com/html/catalog/items/author/768.cfm ). As far as obscurity, well, I don't know what criteria you're after. Yoga Journal has over a million subscribers worldwide, Hinduism Today Magazine has a quarter million, and Black Belt has over 100,000. Irrespective of the single "offhanded" mention, there is also a 3 page article on his works in the Aug. 2003 issue (see http://books.google.com/books?id=8tsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RennaissanceWarfare (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and no, I don't work for him or any affiliated companies of his. RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)RennaissanceWarfare[reply]

Sorry I didn't get my comments entered. Dr Doyle asked me to trim out all the unneccesary stuff, his website has the details, he was just wanting the briefest description of his influences and works) WP:ROPE and WP:BOOMERANG seem to applyWeaponbb7 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- You are correct, he did contact me and ask me to help trim his article. I know him, but I don't work for him, I don't work for any affiliations, I'm a technoweenie that he reached out to and asked to get rid of all of the tripe that had been written. Take a look at what I did at his behest ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrence_Webster-Doyle&diff=prev&oldid=275277852 ), I trimmed the majority of the article out... not exactly trying to hype him now, is that? :) RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)RennaissanceWarfare[reply]

- Lest I get pilloried unfairly, I'll give you the 30 second synopsis. He's an Author. A Wikipedia entry was created at some point. Go him. Further along, it starts getting inflated and bloated with very PR sounding stuff. It gets nominated for deletion. Insert conversation: "Hey, do you know anything about Wikipedia? It looks like the entry about me is about to be deleted." "Hmm, well, it appears that people think it's purely self promotion." "Really? Wow. Umm, I don't know anything about this stuff (e.g. Wiki, editing pages, et. al.) Is there something you could do to get rid of all the PR stuff? Just trim it to something acceptable?" "Sure, let me see waht I can do." So, I whacked out all of the fluff, inserted some links to other Wiki articles that make sense, and called it good.

I think I've maintained a pretty decent NPOV, Chowbok asked for citations, I hit the handy link at the top, and within two pages of results (out of more than 5000) came up with 18 some odd citations, including 3 different magazines with collectively close to 1.5 million readers, 2 Universities, 2 School districts utilizing his programs, and the National Public Broadcasting System (PBSKids.org), and corrected the assumption that he is completely self-promoted by establishing one of the largest Publishing houses in the world. I'm fairly confident that my conversation with Dr. Doyle is pretty far removed from those results, and I've kept this polite, factual, and informative. I think I've met the burden of Citation proof as requested, as well as RS, GNG and NPOV.

I will add that while there are indeed ads within Black Belt Magazine (which I actually cited), I would point out those ads are placed by the Magazine itself, not a result of Dr. Doyle's paid advertising. Chowbok typified a different citation as "a single offhanded mention", but if the magazine itself finds his works good enough to resell, I think that deserves a little more credit than as a "single offhanded mention". Just my .02

Attack the citations if you must, but I merely brought to light what was described as "spam", non-notable, "obscure" and "self-published". RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)RennaissanceWarfare[reply]

Weak delete (I don't like deleting articles about academics, so I'm making a long analysis, and giving a bit of advice about making an article about one or two of his books.)

WP:AUTHOR has 4 criteria. Article has no RS saying that he fulfills any of this. Then there is WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria, which has another 9 points.

I looked if he could fullfill #2 "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." but I found these problems:

"Robert Burns Medal of literature from Austria's Albert Schweitzer Society", I can't find any reference for this medal, and it doesn't even appear listed in the society's webpage[29]. Either it doesn't fit "highly prestigious" or it's only covered in austrian off-line sources? Maybe it's called something else, or it was issued by another society with a similar name, I can't find it.
"Benjamin Franklin Award for excellence in independent publishing" [30] is not an academic award but an award given to independent publishers by the association of independent publishers.
"National Parenting Publications Award" [31], not an academic award, looks sort of promotional

Then you have WP:CREATIVE. His works are exposed in the International Museum of Peace and Solidarity [32], which is nice, but that doesn't fulfill "#5 d) [his work] is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.".

Having 2 books in the "Elementary School Library Collection"[33] is nice, but it's a list of recommended books for elemental schools (by the way, I can't find anything about "British Commonwealth Collection–A Selection of Books and Journals on Non-violence and Social Change")

I'll note that the article in Black Belt is not an article about him, it's an article by him about the topic of dealing with bullies.

"Endorsed by Scouting Magazine and Sports Illustrated for Kids. Endorsed by Mothering Magazine" Not sure what this means. Did they review one of his books and recommended to read it? Then you have to make an article on the specific book, and cite the bibliographical data for the recommendation: issue, page, article title, article author, and date of publication.

Anyways, the major problem is the lack of independent third party sources that have decided to cover this author out of their own volition. The only reference that could fit that is an article in Young Children magazine[34] from the National Association for the Education of Young Children, I'm not sure if it covers his work as a whole or if it is just reviewing specific books. If this is a non-trivial book review, and if the "recommendations" in those other magazines are good independent coverage of those books, then one or more if his books could fulfill #1 in Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience.". Please notice this caveat: "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary".

I see a few personal endorsements, but those needs to be published somewhere by an independent source, sorry.

Awards are difficult to find, and it's difficult to nail this stuff because all items lack important data (date of awarding of the medal, issue where the recommendation was published and title, who gathered those personal recommendations, etc). IMHO, this author goes into borderline notability. Some of his books might be notable by themselves, but that's a different topic, and current sources in the article don't warrant that. Article lacks a "smoking gun" that makes me say "yes, this fulfills point X of guideline y". --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, thank you for taking the time to describe the process, as it helps a lot. I completely understand some of what you're illuminating. Imagine having Bruce Lee's widow endorse your work, just nowhere citeable... :)

I was able to group together the citations and references I could find, so let me quickly throw them against the wall, and you can help me discern what is useful, and what is not. Hopefully the following can close this discussion, and lead to the article itself being written better.

Here's what I've got, let's see how these line up against the criteria (that you clearly get, and I'm just learning). Please note that acouple of these *appeared* to come up as valid in Google's results, but was unable to actually display the text on the screen, so I'm taking them on good faith:

citations by other authors:
http://books.google.com/books?id=L_xGAAAAMAAJ&q=webster-doyle
http://books.google.com/books?id=D5m7e0bdT4UC&pg=PT19
http://ejmas.com/proceedings/GSJSA02klens.htm
http://issuu.com/walkerdesign/docs/madison_sports_monthly_july (see page 21)
http://books.google.com/books?id=R88L6WbD4sgC&q=%22terrence+webster-doyle%22
http://books.google.com/books?id=MhcSAQAAIAAJ&q=%22terrence+webster-doyle%22
http://books.google.com/books?id=FPr_zuUGqVMC&q=%22terrence+webster-doyle%22

May/June 2001 Mothering Magazine article cited:
http://books.google.com/books?id=wz6UIHwClooC&pg=PT364

Inline citation as resource:
http://books.google.com/books?id=hcc1jQBCT2AC&pg=PA76
http://books.google.com/books?id=93tHAAAAMAAJ&q=%22terrence+webster-doyle%22

Works were part of a published Clinical Application:
http://books.google.com/books?id=pum5j7r5YloC&pg=PA358

Psychiatric Association Reading List
http://books.google.com/books?id=hmJLAAAAYAAJ&q=%22terrence+webster-doyle%22

12 Paragraph review of 'Karate: The Art of Empty Self' in Yoga Journal:
http://books.google.com/books?id=h-kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA72#v=onepage&q&f=false

1 paragraph review of a different book in Yoga Journal:
http://books.google.com/books?id=VukDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA106

Review in Kirkus Reviews:
http://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/childrens-books/terrence-webster-doyle/facing-the-double-edged-sword-the-art-of-karate/

Black Belt Magazine references:
3 page article in Black Belt by him:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8tsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

Described as "acclaimed author" and 2nd of 3 explicit mentions as "respected leaders in martial arts industry"
http://books.google.com/books?id=N9sDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT18

Described as "nationally acclaimed author" to teach at seminar:
http://books.google.com/books?id=m9sDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT104

His lectures at Seminar included in "highlighting events"
http://books.google.com/books?id=SNsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT113

Review of conference, highlighted as 2nd of 6 focus points:
http://books.google.com/books?id=YNwDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT11

credited as contributing writer
http://books.google.com/books?id=dtkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA6

Article itself: http://books.google.com/books?id=dtkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA122

Article about 2004 MAIA Achievement Award (in lieu of actual MAIA article online)
http://www.tangsoodoworld.com/articles/Martial_Arts_That_Are_For_Peace.htm
—Preceding unsigned comment added by RennaissanceWarfare (talk • contribs) 05:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2000 National Publications Award mention in Black Belt Magazine
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ys8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT121#v=onepage&q&f=false

Possible Award or citation reference (in German)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xj51TZaJy3wC&pg=PA225
http://books.google.com/books?id=a4xnqJUNBrkC&pg=PA141

Does that help the discussion and analysis? RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)RennaissanceWarfare RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)RennaissanceWarfare[reply]

For this discussion, they are not useful because they don't make coverage of the author himself.

For making an article about a book, the reviews are all about different books, a review in "Kirkus reviews" is not going to count towards notability. "Karate: the art of empty self" has only one review (I made a brief search in google and in google books, and I couldn't find more)

Other issues: the Black Belt magazine talks about a "2000 National Publications Award", and I can't identify it.

Sorry, I can't make anything out of this. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity page. Roscelese (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that this is promotional and vanity. BioCognetics itself does not appear to be notable, so being an authority on it isn't notable either VASterling (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First impression of this article is that it was a vanity piece written to push a POV. The entire section of "Endorsements" was particularly nauseating. Without entering into the debate whether "BioCognetics" is anything more than a concept made up to sell books, I ran a search of ABEBooks to get a sense of whether this was a widely-published author. The author-name search returned results for nearly 400 copies of his books, a fairly massive number. My sense is that this is indeed an individual who meets standards for inclusion-worthiness and also that this article, as written, is an unmitigated disaster. Where does that leave us? Not sure. I suppose blowing this thing up with no prejudice against future recreation in NPOV form would get us there, with strong sentiments that the subject of the article should not be the one writing the next incarnation of the piece. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - If I were writing this bio from scratch, my first line in the lead would be something like "Terrence Webster-Doyle (b. 1940) is an author and educationist specializing in issues of childhood conflict resolution." I think there is a case for notability on those grounds. The whole "BioCognetics" hoo-ha could be brought into play deep into the bio's discussion of the author's ideas, but should not be pushed in the lead. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And another comment - And line two of my lead would be Doyle is best-known for his advocacy of "Martial Arts for Peace" as a means of defusing the problem of school bullying and for his efforts to explain the psychological programming of child soldiers." And then I'd attempt to demonstrate notability on those grounds, which could probably be done. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - This is actually kind of an interesting case. The original 2007 stub touted him as a high-level martial artist and author (which seems pretty much on the mark) and then the article was spammed out in 2008 by an editor with a total of 6 edits between account formation in 2007 and today. The article needs to be blown up and restarted, I think. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working from the premise that this article is probably a goner at AfD as currently written, I'm going to spend an hour seeing if it can be salvaged by massive reconstruction. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bailing and reverting. The job is bigger than an hour. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Carrite says. For me, this just needs some independent coverage to push him into notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Carrite, I completely agree with your suggested approach (let it die, and then the simple lead you suggested), and I hope that some of what I've brought to light above makes that easy(er) for you. Truthfully, the subject never wrote this, but I think someone close to him (or his publisher) went gung ho on getting it all in there, and that is what led it down the primrose path it's on. As far as the Biocognetics aspect, from what I understand, his life's work can be best described as "Martial Arts for Peace", and using MA while addressing the bullying (not just for children, BTW) and countering the effects of Conditioning. That is also where most of his accolades come from. It is in recent years he's been building a foundation addressing conditioning overall, and that is what he calls "BioCognetics". Think of it as the base aggregate of all his work on Krishnamurti's and Bohm's premises that is the foundation for the MAfP teaching. I think the Liberia program was the first significant application of the BioCognetics program, which was cited on one of the University links I'd posted above. I'll back away from the thread now, and I appreciate Carrite's perspective. RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)RenaissanceWarfare[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Published work is negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, there's nothing here for PROF and the media coverage is just not sufficient for GNG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As was mentioned above there's been a lot of time to clean up this article, a task which the last AfD should have given special urgency to, but this has not happened. It's basically still WP:PROMOTION (the "endorsements" section is especially blatant). The notability situation has not changed either: (1) his books are not widely held by institutions (I checked 2 via WorldCat: "Eye of the hurricane" is in about 40 and "Martial arts masters" in about 30), (2) and his concept of BioCognetics is a neologism whose article has already been deleted, and (3) none of his awards are notable (see above). Independent sourcing is nil, etc, etc. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The heavily promotional tone and blatant wikipuffery, besides being a violation of WP:NPOV, makes it impossible for me to pick out any real accomplishments that he might have. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lack of hits in gbooks and gscholar makes him non notable. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Imperial-Federalist party of America[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Imperial-Federalist party of America

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

No evidence that this group exists beyond a Facebook group with 65 members. Wikipedia is not for something you made up one day. Ground Zero | t 04:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this is a legitimate political party (which I doubt), it is not a notable political party. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 09:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – Please go somewhere else, where you can "Create a Free Website". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Sorry, dude. Try Wordpress for your party website or something. 71.184.147.117 (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I don't think this meets the Speedy Criteria, though the assertion of notability (reforming the entire US Government) is implied rather than explicit. It's not an obvious hoax, seeing as a few dozen people buy into the idea. But a few dozen people does not notability make. Come back with reliable sources when the party has a candidate for major office, as an example of the sort of notable things notable parties do. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and above comments.--JayJasper (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons already stated and cited. I suggest the creator tries using a free wiki host. DerekMBarnes (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam? If not, normal delete as a fringe political manifesto with no indication of notability for the party. It might be a better party than the present ones (I have no great love of the parties in my own land either), but it's not ready for Wikipedia yet. Try aboutus and LinkedIn - so far as I know they're still free... Peridon (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no idea whether this party is legitimate or not. And no one has provided evidence that this is a hoax. We don't delete articles on political parties simply because those parties do not have the financial resources to "spread the word". As such, I'll err on the side of caution and vote to keep. That said, the article does need significantly more detail and WP:RS if it is to be taken seriously, (I'm not even sure if it's about a political party or a political movement for constitutional reform). BlueRobe (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I applaud BlueRobe's good intentions, but Wikipedia has standards for inclusion based on verifiability. This group cannot be verified to exist outside of the author's mind and some quickly constructed websites on free web-hosting platforms. Whether or not the article is a hoax, there is no independent verifiability of the existence of this group, and therefore the article cannot be allowed to remain. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blurobe, if you have "no idea whether this party is legitimate or not" you should not vote to keep. TFD (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious hoax. TFD (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 September 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 2010 North Carolina Tar Heels football team. Content already merged. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unc football investigations[edit]

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

Non-notable controversy article. Unreferenced and is likely WP:OR. Yousou (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... possible merge Not notable enough as stand-alone, but might be information merged into appropriate UNC page(s). --Quartermaster (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - as per Quartermaster, not notable enough for own article (WP:NOTNEWS), if it is a merge should be without a re-direct as it is an extremely unlikely search term. Codf1977 (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to appropriate UNC article and add verifiable sources. 173.8.11.157 (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ worthwhile content into 2010 North Carolina Tar Heels football team, the most suitable article avaliable. That would be the best place for this information. Oh, and the content sorely needs an update, since the mentioned game against LSU has already been played. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Now that a section has been included in the main article, this one is redundant. I also don't think a redirect is necessary; it might even be misleading if there were past rules issues concerning the program (though I don't know if that's the case). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge right now it looks like a great candidate for Wikinews...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I'll write up a section in the 2010 team's article. It's definitely notable, with tons of RS, ([35], [36], [37], [38], [39], etc.) but WP is WP:NOTNEWS, a this should be a section in the 2010 article. Nolelover 12:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it should be retitled "UNC..." Nolelover 12:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have entirely rewritten the article, and merged it into 2010 North Carolina Tar Heels football team. I am also leaving a note on the talk pages of everyone who has voted. Nolelover 14:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This merge looks satisfactory to me. As a searcher, I'd probably never think of looking for an article "Unc football investigations in the first place, and would probably look up the article on UNC Football first to see if any hanky-panky was listed there. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I like the merge too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no reason to delete, as the redirect may or may not be useful to some readers looking for that information, but I see no harm in it. Nice work by Nolelover on salvaging the material for the season article. Strikehold (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2010 North Carolina Tar Heels football team seems most logical, as this doesn't seem notable enough for a standalone article... and in fact it's already been done, so redirect this page to the season article and be done with it. –Grondemar 14:31, 25 September 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. Actually, there is a weak consensus to merge but no consensus for a target. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States Chung Do Kwan Association[edit]

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

There is no reliable third person information to assert notability and does not pertain to assert notability Dwanyewest (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references available at Edward B. Sell. According to this, it was the largest Tae Kwon Do organization in the United States at one time. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any independent sources that show notability. Claim of being the largest was in an interview with a local paper so I'm not sure about the verifiability of it. Now it pales in size to organizations like the ATA. Astudent0 (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Edward B. Sell The organization is already mentioned on his page, although the claim there that the organization "currently contains nearly 250,000 members" needs verification. An organization that large would certainly be notable on its own, but that number seems awfully large to me. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chung Do Kwan ("Later Graduates" section); just a suggestion. Janggeom (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I am wiling to accept merge as an alternative it just clearly doesn't deserve a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:48, 28 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visa policy of Andorra[edit]

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

Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very short but factual information on the policy of a sovereign entity. That qualifies as encyclopedic to me. Could be longer, but will probably grow in time... It is not used as a dumping ground nor is it random information as it is policy information from a reliable source... L.tak (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has a well-accepted list of articles on this topic for a lot of countries. Dew Kane (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject matter for a well-established series of articles. Lugnuts (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [40] bobrayner (talk) 16:30, 24 September 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 18:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visa policy of Moldova[edit]

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

Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia has a well-accepted list of articles on this topic for a lot of countries. Dew Kane (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject matter for a well-established series of articles. Lugnuts (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [41] bobrayner (talk) 16:53, 24 September 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 18:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visa policy of the Marshall Islands[edit]

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

Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia has a well-accepted list of articles on this topic for a lot of countries. Dew Kane (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject matter for a well-established series of articles. Lugnuts (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it's notable, useful, and sourced. (Another source might be nice; but you won't fix that by deleting the article). Can this AfD be closed like all the others...? bobrayner (talk) 16:01, 24 September 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. Wel... I'd usually write something here about why an 8th nomination is reaching a delete conclusion, but consensus is pretty clear here. Courcelles 18:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitruth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

On the face of it, this is a pretty non-notable website, the 'major publicity' is pretty minor, and outside of Wikipedia it is likely to be completely unheard of. WikiTruth as a term is no longer associated with this website - a walk through internet search results for 'Wikitruth' will show this. I think it would be a good time to review the existence of this article, after the events have passed. Prodego ^talk 15:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination appears self-contradictory - if the term has spread beyond the original website, then its obviously heard of outside of Wikipedia. Regardless, notability is not temporary. Surviving 7 previous AfDs shows a consensus for this subject being notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only lasted a couple years and did nothing important.Figmentary (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC) — Figmentary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I realize it survived eight times already, but Jesus, it has exactly one footnote, which is a trivial mention, and the link to the website is dead. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete the current article blatantly fails WP:N and a search for additional sources found only more trivial coverage in English. The mentions in French and Spanish did not appear to be any more substantial. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 16:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources give only trivial mentions to the website. Nothing to indicate notability. No evidence that the website ever managed to do anything of impact either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete #6 was kept entirely via WP:ITSNOTABLE and #7 was thought to be POINTy. As for this nomination, I say good faith; clearly, there's no non-trivial coverage, no matter how much someone might say there is. Saying "it's notable, it just needs sources" won't make sources magically appear out of thin air, you know. Why can't anyone figure that out?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 September 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) 13:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjit Edward[edit]

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

Apart from his blog and a few articles he once wrote for a newspaper in Sri Lanka I can't find any sources on this person. From WP:V: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Hut 8.5 12:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to have no published work. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. An astronomer ~~from a minor country~~ that has not received any significant distinctions: not sufficiently notable. Nergaal (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that the country being minor has anything to do with the matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Important at least for his theoretical/mathematical skills. Member of RAS. --xJaM (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually have any references supporting the claim that this person is a member of the RAS? Hut 8.5 08:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A search finds no evidence of it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reference. In fact perhaps in this way you can doubt about everything. Do you have any reference that RAS itself exists? Why searching in this way. Such prominent organisation I guess should have a solid list of its past and present members, doesn't it. Even adequate Slovenian organisation, the DMFA, has it. --xJaM (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That search link was restricted to the RAS website, where you would expect to find his name, but it doesn't seem to be there. That may be because all members of the RAS, even undergraduate students, are called "Fellows", so that it isn't really a notable distinction. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, if there are no references for something it can't be included in the article. There are indeed abundant references for the fact that the RAS exists. Hut 8.5 09:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, ~~very few~~ no GS cites, dubious unsourced claims, fails WP:PROF. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are in fact zero hits and zero cites on GS. Is there evidence to show that this person actually exists? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

My mistake, I misread some GS cites that had two separate names "Ranjit" and "Edward". Apart from what seems to be a blog and a LinkedIn profile, there does indeed seem to be no evidence for the existence of the subject. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, made-up claims. Abductive (reasoning) 19:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The FRAS is meaningless as it merely indicates that he has paid for a membership, and there is nothing else to support a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 26 September 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. No credible claim to significance. Mkativerata (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Selmes[edit]

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

Facebook is NOT a reliable source. I'm also not sure that this meets the GNG. >> Access Denied // FATAL ERROR 10:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed. Does not meet the GNG or WP:BIO --Korruski (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only claims to have played in small local teams and the Australian Schoolboys national rugby union team, which isn't enough to pass WP:ATHLETE. Can't find anything even close to significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Hut 8.5 14:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It would be hard for him to play at any much higher level - seeing as he is still only 15! "Selmes was lucky enough to sign a contract with the Henwood Park Hawks in 2004" - he was then 10. Played for England in MDIFA? From the (deleted) Wikipedia article on MDIFA, I quote: "MDIFA is an intra-school competition held yearly at MDCC, Wagga Wagga, in the suburb of Lake Albert.", and it is a "Football tournament held each lunch time for two weeks in Winter on the college oval.". The only sort of notability I could see would lie in the number of sports and teams he has been involved with in such a short time. Ghits mainly bebo and facebook. I rest my case. Peridon (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:45, 22 September 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. Green Giant (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Police Service of Pakistan[edit]

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

This article was tagged as a hoax by Green Giant (talk · contribs), who wrote on the talk page:

I understand that there are several provincial and federal police forces but I have never come across a "Police Service of Pakistan". The tone of the lead sentence suggests wishful thinking by the original author because it reads a lot like the article on the Indian Police Service, i.e. "The Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) is one of the All Pakistan Services of the Government of Pakistan" compared to "The Indian Police Service, simply known as Indian Police or IPS, is one of the three All India Services of the Government of India." In fact if this service existed, surely there would be an official website, not a list of people's personal websites. The national police academy that is alluded in the external links is actually a unified policy body for all the provincial and federal police forces. The "pspassociation.org" no longer exists. Several of the other personal websites fail to mention a "Police Service of Pakistan". All-in-all this seems a pure hoax. Green Giant (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the ((db-hoax)) because this is not a blatant hoax. There are some results on Google News Archive that mention a Police Service of Pakistan (PSP), such as this article. I am neutral. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on closer examination of government documents such as this press release it appears there is indeed a Police Service of Pakistan but it is a civil service pay group and not a full scale police force as the lead sentence of the article suggests. I am therefore withdrawing this nomination and will make the necessary changes to reflect this. Green Giant (talk) 10:09, 23 September 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) 13:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Brady[edit]

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

Contested prod. Original reason for prodding was "This guy fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never made a competitive first-team appearance for a fully professional club, nor has he played senior international football. Under-21 appearances are not enough." The prod was removed on the basis that the subject "would appear to meet GNG". However, there is minimal coverage of this individual other than incidental mentions in teamsheets, meaning that GNG is not satisfied at all. – Pee Jay 08:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 08:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- this guy does seem on his way to represent Ireland (if not united) in the not so distant future. I suggest probation for a month to see if things change, it seems silly to delete an article which probably meets the GNG in short time. Likewise, shouldn't Bebe be deleted?Sandman888 (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Violation of WP:CRYSTAL...Giant Snowman 11:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why should Bebé be deleted? He has played 26 matches for Estrela da Amadora, hasn't he? Brady hasn't played a first-team match for any club. – PeeJay 16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Needless to say, because that still fails WP:ATHLETE... Sandman888 (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Who does? Bebé passes WP:ATHLETE because of his appearances for Estrela da Amadora, doesn't he? – Pee Jay 19:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        According to its article, Estrela play in the Portuguese third division which isn't listed at WP:FPL, therefore he would fail WP:ATHLETE. Looking at the references though, he'd pass an AfD. Bettia (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG. Recreate if and when he passes the criteria. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userify - he fails WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG, and therefore should not have an article. However the article is resonably well written and sourced, and its not unreasonable to assume that he will be notable some day, so we should hang on to the content. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to userify. If he ever becomes notable, we can simply ask an admin to undelete the page and it will be restored to the way it was before it was deleted. – Pee Jay 20:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all relevant criteria. I've heard he might be coming here on loan so it can easily be undeleted if he signs here and plays. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:04, 26 September 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) 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recipients of nanosecond[edit]

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

This article does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Hopper distributed hundreds of these pieces of wire at nearly every appearance. There is no notability associated with being a recipient of one. There is no "Nanosecond Award " as the currently requested move suggests. At most, this is worth a single sentence in Grace Hopper listing a few examples of celebrities who got their bits of wire.

Nominated and seconded for PROD, which was declined. TJRC (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hopper handed these out like candy … totally fails WP:GNG … no need to try to document who received them, even in the main article … things like YouTube videos (the David Letterman link, for example) can hardly be considered WP:RS. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{11:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete. Anything beyond a brief mention in the main article on Grace Hopper is disproportionate coverage to the importance of this, despite the potential reliability of the sources. This is (fun) trivia, but not encyclopedic biographical detail. Note that I am not suggesting "merge" for two reasons—the level of detail here is too much to include, and there is no reason for a redirect from this implausible search term. ^Bongo_matic 13:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but... the Hopper/Letterman video clip is a marvelous source. Calling it a non-reliable source shows a complete misunderstanding of what WP:RS actually says and means. It's a primary example of Grace giving the full anecdote in her own charismatic style. Sadly, the video is also a copyright violation, and that is the only reason why we cannot link to it.
The other references are all blogs or uninformative (the ganssle.com ref is almost useful, but contain no author-name), and she gave the wires to hundreds of people, and there is already a good full paragraph about the nanoseconds in her article. Hence I'm not suggesting merge at all. -- Quiddity (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Quiddity on the Letterman clip. A cite to a television show is no more inherently unreliable than a cite to a book or newspaper. The only issue with using youtube is the link to an allegedly infringing page. The same sourcing, without the link, would clearly be acceptable. I should also comment that I did not review the sources for reliability. I have no opinion or concerns about reliability of the sources one way or another; my nomination is based on the notability of the subject matter. In the event the article is kept, it should be limited to reliable sources and notable recipients, of course; and if a trim results is a "list" of one or two individuals, that may be a reason to revisit a Keep disposition. TJRC (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. It's not looking good, but can I question most of the logic so far? The reason for the proposal seems to be that each individual "award" wasn't significant, because there were so many of them. But the first question here is: Do we want an article or article section (either by whatever name) on the subject of these bits of wire? (The possibility of a rename or merge is currently under discussion, this AfD and the PROD preempt that discussion. I'd agree that a rename or merge is in order.) The question in deciding whether we want to keep this content is whether these bits of wire in total are encyclopedic, not whether each individual one is significant. So the fact that they were given out like candy isn't important here (but it's very important to the questions of article name and focus, and in that context the point is well made). The second question is whether the article should be merged. I'm inclined to think not, that this all on its own is a significant piece of history. The current Grace Hopper article reads in part Grace Hopper is famous for her nanoseconds visual aid and the most memorable part of these talks was her illustration of a nanosecond. But my vote keep or merge means I want to refer this question back to the talk page. Andrewa (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, did you see the large paragraph under Grace Hopper#Anecdotes? It contains all the information from this stub, and is better written as far as I can tell. As I said, that's why I haven't suggested merging. (I'm a m:mergist, usually I would!). Maybe we just need to add a ===Nanoseconds=== (and ===Debugging===) subheader there? :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that 'each individual "award" wasn't significant'; it's that there was no such award. Hopper gave out lengths of wire as a demonstrative aid to show how far light could travel in a nanosecond. I was in the audience once; I got one. There is no such award. It's a famous prop, but it's just a prop (and already covered as such in Grace Hopper), and being a partial list of the several thousand to get them is not a point of notability.

The PROD and the AFD do not "preempt" the move. The point is the article, under any name, fails WP:GNG. There's no value in having a discussion about where the article should be when it gets deleted. TJRC (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of the five recipients that were listed, only two (Letterman and Booch), appear to be notable. There is no indication that any of the other three are notable, either in the article or the sources. I have removed the three non-notables. I'm making this edit conspicuous since I'm the nom here, and don't want it to appear that I'm stealthily trying to sandbag the article for AfD purposes. TJRC (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notable recipients may be mentioned at Grace Hopper, but there in no reason to keep this as a separate article. No content to merge, unlikely search term. -Atmoz (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment. The recipients claim notability in receiving the article remarking on the event decades later. The article was created as an attempt to quantify If the original Grace Hopper article had contained a claim that, for example, 'more than 800' pieces of wire had been distributed it would have, correctly, been rapidly ripped out through lack of verified sources. Creating a new article seemed more appropriate than trying to graft the list into the existing article. Renaming to refer to an award would not be appropriate.

In this discussion page the number of issued pieces of wire varies by four orders of magnitude. How does one credibly establish notability in the face of such uncertainty? The intent of the article was to attempt to establish how many pieces were distributed using public sources (to assure verifiabillity) and then possibly update the original article with this count as a memorable measure of the magniture of the 'prop'.

I see that there has been no comment on the identified similarity to the Erdos number where not only association, but even association by association with a person, is glorified in a similar manner. The article List of people by Erdős number contains a subtantial fraction that do not have articles in Wikipedia (which by definition makes them unnotable) and the list is considered incomplete. The number of easily identified recipients makes the item an interesting piece of folklore. If desired, the actual recipients can be relegated to the Talk page and just the count kept on the (any) article.

The major contention on the article seems to be WP:GNG. Of the items Significant coverage (references by notables), Reliable (easily accessible references by notables), Sources, Independent of the subject (no references by the subject) and Presumed (determined by the administrators), only the last is not met.

Question How would one create an article that attempts to establish an upper bound of a notable activity where the individual items are not memorable but a high level of certainty is required without having to reference one's own primary research? --Pekkapihlajasaari (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a mathematical paper in collaboration with Erdös is a significant achievement. Even writing a paper in collaboration with an author a few-degress-removed from Erdös has been considered a worthy anecdote, and a potential indicator of respect-due.

In contast, receiving a visual-aid prop in a lecture hall, where dozens or hundreds of other people also received one, is not worth commenting on (per WP:UNDUE). Even if given personally, it's still just a visual prop. It carries as much significance as receiving a copy of an autographed-photograph. People may legitimately cherish them as keepsakes (I would), but the individual recipients are still not worth listing out, here. We wouldn't make a list of the people she handed pepper-packets to, either. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful, but not completely so. I would agree that the sale of an Erdös number on Ebay is a debasement - however, it has happened. This makes it a prop for some. I neglected to note pepper-packets as these were not mentioned by the (presumed) recipients. The WP:UNDUE qualification suggests that minority views should not receive undue mention. Note the title of the article is Recipients of nanoseconds - The recipients are the central theme. As I asked, and did not receive and answer for, I would still like to know how to record the individual recipients to avoid double counting when establishing an upper bound on recipients for use as a quantum in the main article. --Pekkapihlajasaari (talk) 21:37, 24 September 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) 13:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive Cigar Manufacturing Ireland Ltd[edit]

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

Delete A group of articles all on Exclusive Cigar Manufacturing Ireland Ltd and its products, with no sources or evidence of notability, all created by the same single purpose account. Exclusive Cigar Manufacturing Ireland Ltd qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD A7, but I thought, rather than speedily delete one and bring the others here, it made more sense to bundle all of the articles together, as they all form part of the same group. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: no evidence of notability for the company or any of its products. The only relevant google hits are for the wikipedia article, and the company's profile on a couple of company bio websites. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any reliable sources for this non-notable company. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 23 September 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 greeting. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of words for hello[edit]

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

WP:NOT a dictionary. This is a list of translations for a word, not an article about a word. As far as I know, Wiktionary is not interested in this kind of list either, otherwise transwikying to Wiktionary is fine by me. Fram (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The content has already been moved to Greeting, and some of the ones that are cognates (i.e., they are adaptations of "hello") are at Hello. It's amazing how silly the word "hello" looks after you see it written over and over. Mandsford 12:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not directory or a dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aloha (as in goodbye). All that's needed is in Greeting. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to greeting. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – agree with Jclemens. Jenks24 (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't oppose redirect after deletion. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greeting, per above reasons. BlueRobe (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Taylor[edit]

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

No sources cited, article is more or less copied from IMDB. Search did not find any better sources. This person is a behind-the-scenes participant in television and does not appear to have received any significant attention from the press. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The subject does not seem to the the object of critical analysis by television critics, thus there are not sufficient reliable sources available to provide content for the article. Which is why it could never grow beyond a mere laundry list of mentions in credits. Fred Talk 06:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, IMdB is an often helpful movie biz database, en.WP is an often helpful general encyclopedia. This topic could one day be encyclopedic and of general interest owing to independent coverage, but it doesn't seem to have neared that threshold yet. I do think this could speedied at any time as an A7. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage yet Vrivers (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subjects has not met the criteria for inclusion yet -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 23 September 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) 02:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Murdough[edit]

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

White nationalist runs for political office and gets some media attention. Clear WP:NOTNEWS violation. Yephedid (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ongoing significance as he is still the state chairman of his political party. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He chairs a minor political party. Big deal. Yephedid (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes him notable enough for Wikipedia, though. The notability bar for party chairmen is set very low; Jim Clymer, who has never won an election, nonetheless passes the notability standard because he chairs the Constitution Party. Murdough has received more media coverage than Clymer ever did. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least that guy has been around for a while. This guy only appeared briefly in July. Yephedid (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid argument; there's no minimum length of time that someone has to be in the public eye in order for them to be on Wikipedia. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The duration of coverage is a valid consideration per WP:PERSISTENCE in that it helps differentiate between subjects that are truly notable and things that fall under WP:NOTNEWS. BTW, Clymer has had respectable showings in multiple elections and is the national chairman of an established third party, whereas Murdough is only the state chairman of a lesser known third party that has only been around for three months. Location (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per guideline at WP:Wikipedia is not a source for election candidate biographies. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The full policy is: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Which is the case for Murdough. Ergo, he does satsify WP: POLITICIAN. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. I interpret a relative blip of routine election coverage in local news sources to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Location (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - They weren't just local news sources; national news outfits (like MSNBC) as well as outstate ones (like the New York Daily News) also ran articles about him. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did you actually read what was in MSNBC? One paragraph that quotes three sentences from the Daily News and two from the Concord Monitor. There was no "significant coverage" on the part of any national news source. This was merely a news blip. Location (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed candidate in a primary (he got 296 votes [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741843/]). "State Chairman" of a trivial-to-nonexistent party which is not recognized by the state of New Hampshire or any other state [42]. When I leave here, I will evaluate the page of that supposed party to see if it passes muster as notable. Mr. Murdough certainly does not. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The party doesn't either. I have nominated it for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 04:22, 28 September 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) 02:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eirin Jansen[edit]

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

Article about an actress with no verifiable notability. Just a list of works appeared in, no references except IMDB and other resume sites. No evidence of substantial discussion of her in reliable sources, seems to fail the criteria at WP:BIO. Jayron32 05:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a few theatre pieces, a few short films, a couple commercials, and no third party refs. Best of luck, but no. Hairhorn (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She has a lot more than that; 35 credits including The Kennedy Centre, National Theatre, Royal Lyceum, and Young Vic. She's worked with important names in theatre; Mark Ravenhill, Charlotte Keatley and Kjetil Bang-Hansen. She's been in several features too, among them "I Am Dina", which is one of the most high-profile movies in Norwegian movie history. There she worked with Gerard Depardieu and Christopher Eccleston. I've seen her on stage and film. I thought IMDB was a reliable source, but will add more.

IMPORTANT- Eirin is also a high profile artist (co-creator of the city-wide Mankey Monkey project in Liverpool), I will add an artist biography, links, articles etc. relating to that as soon as I have time. --James W. Turner (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while she has had lots of jobs I didn't seen any that weren't minor roles. Eeekster (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually correct, from what I can see of her credits, most of them are leads or main parts. The last part I can see that wasn't a major one was in 2002, and that was in a movie with Gerard Depardieu and Christopher Eccleston. I've seen this actress in several plays and movies, (that's why I decided to write about her) and I've rarely seen her in a minor part. She's also a high profile artist, I need to add a chapter about that, but there a lot of links to articles about her artist work already, more to come. --James W. Turner (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The parts I've picked at random appear minor. As to the Mankey Monkeys, I am in Liverpool two or three times a week (sometimes more) and can't recall seeing anything of this campaign. I have had a connection with Alder Hey in the past, which would tend to make me notice this more than I might otherwise. From the Post and Echo's articles, it obviously happened. Unlike the multiplying of the Lambananas, it equally obviously made no impression on me. From the bulk of the Mankey Monkey links in the article, this is an important piece of work for the subject. There is virtually nothing there to back up the acting side, as far as I can see. The links given are not ones usually acceptable here as references (as external links, yes - but no references are given). IMDb, Casting Call Pro and Filmfront use supplied information. The Filmside poll of actors? Eirin in 18th place was beaten by an actor who is not well known for either his film or stage work. Adolf Hitler came in at number 9 (see his linked profile at http://www.filmfront.no/index.php/filmfront,actor.view/id,5541/ ) and Francis Ford Coppola managed 168, which isn't bad for a director, producer, writer and hotelier. The Who's Dated Who link I dismiss (apart from a Wikipedian's urge to correct the site's name to Whom. Peridon (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the friendliest possible sense; you're of course entitled to your opinion, but through my extensive knowledge of Theatre, I can confirm that most of those parts are major. I could go into detail if you'd like me to? There is also a one woman show there. More smaller parts in the early years of her career yes, but that goes for most actors. Regarding Mankey Monkey, that was a huge art project, over 100 sculptures and widely written and talked about in Liverpool. I'm surprised you could've been to Liverpool during that time and missed it, I went to see what it was all about and they were everywhere. One article says "Mankey Monkey fever" in Liverpool, it was. But there is plenty of documentation. Ultimately, I don't decide if this article stays or goes, but it would be a shame to remove it. She is an important actress and artist. I don't know if you're trying to dismiss the Din Film Side webpage, but that is an actual list of searches made at that website, which shows who people actually search for. Adolf Hitler is appearing in many documentaries, and I don't find it strange at all that people search for him. Plenty of the almost 70 links in the article can be used as references, I just need to move them and expand the article as soon as I have time. --James W. Turner (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making was that 1224 people looked for (or voted for - I haven't worked out which yet) for Hitler as an actor - and that Hitler has a profile on Filmfront. To my mind, this casts doubt on both the validity of the figures as an indicator of 'popularity', and the reliability of Filmfront as a source. Of course, coming high in a list like this might mean that very few had heard of the person before - which is the usual reason I look people up. I stand by my lack of perception of the monkeys. Not one did I see. I would suggest getting some references considered reliable in quick - see WP:RS. Most of those Monkey links don't mention Eirin at all, and having so many could lead people to thoughts of spam... Technically, I think, as there are links but not references, the article could be subject to deletion as unreferenced BLP. That's nit-picking, I know, but good reliable refs for the acting side are needed. To me, the monkeys aren't enough by themselves. Peridon (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler also has a profile on imdb. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0386944/ He's not an actor, but is appearing in many important documentaries, which is why people would search for him. To my understanding the list on Dinfilmside is of searches. I generally search for actors that interest me on film websites, not those I haven't heard of. I'm sure you agree that the reason Hitler is so high up on the list isn't because only few people have heard of him. I doubt 1050 people would search for an actress that only a few have heard of. I do apologise if I've misunderstood your point. There are also 2 features in Business Ezine, one about her art company, which mentions a lot more than the monkey project. I will add a chapter about the other art. Also, according to the official map: Tesco, BBC, Grosvenor, Pizza Express, Liverpool FC TV and Hollyoaks all sponsored a monkey, I think that's a pretty big deal. Regarding the monkey links, I thought the point was to find as many links as possible for credibility? I had no idea that could be seen as spam, I certainly have no wish to spam anyone. What should I remove? I Googled "Mankey Monkey" to find the links to articles etc, and they definitely do mention her and sometimes has her picture there too. She's even in a Mankey Monkey video with Henry Winkler. There are a lot of links on Mankey Monkey and I disagree wholehartedly that none of them are reliable. I certainly consider many of those sources, including Liverpool Echo and The Daily Post to be very reliable. I would like this article to stay because I think it belongs here and I will add more to help it, although after all this I'm really ready to write about other subjects too! Thank you for your views and help! --James W. Turner (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is a working actor but does not pass WP:BIO and certainly does not pass WP:ARTIST. No reliable sources, non-trivial sources are available. freshacconci talktalk 00:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely more going on here with this new article than only a "few" theater pieces. Appears to meet WP:ENT, WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. While yes, it lacked inline citations and referencs when first nominated,[43] new editor User:James W. Turner has since added a great many external links,[44] many of which are news articles dealing directly with this person and their work.... and yes, many of these external links need conversion to proper references... but concerns with style and format would seem addressable through regular editing and not a reason for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She has played quite a few parts (note that some in the list are 'rehearsed reading' which are NOT parts played on stage) - but I find most to be either minor parts (Helen) or untraceable (Heather Clarke), or major roles played at very minor venues (Juliet at a secondary school). I am open to being convinced - but the links steer well clear of the acting side and concentrate on the Monkeys. My delete post above was after the great list was part of the article - and that list went a long way to helping me make my decision. Peridon (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few notes; I've researched it and she played Juliet at a Drama College, not a Seconday School. And according to her birth date on imdb she was 19. Also, most are not minor parts, all these are major; Cherie, Diamonique, Catherine, One Woman Show, Abigail, Miranda, Hedvig. I don't know all the other films/plays, but I can only find 3 minor parts here (apart from her early years); maid, Helen and Cordelia. (And Helen is far from as small a part as you indicate; at least not in the performance she was in. First time I saw this actress on stage was in A Doll's House in Edinburgh.) Only 3 out of 37 credits are rehearsed readings, and all 3 are with two of the most important British playwrights of our time. --James W. Turner (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies about the Hartvig Nissen - I was taking it to be the high school of the same name. Still, as with the Rose Bruford, roles undertaken at college are not usually regarded here as particularly notable. As to Helen, I re-read the play to make sure. The character is listed as Housemaid in the DP, is called Helen by Nora, but doesn't have many lines. I don't know if there is a different version of the play. I'm having a Google problem - it's only giving me one page of results for any search. Don't know what's going on there. I haven't altered anything. This is stopping me finding things beyong first page. Peridon (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got my Google back again... "cherie and diamonique" on Google gives three results - here and two profile lists. Like with Heather Clarke, I can't see any more about it. If you have references that will tell us, please give them. I'm afraid that her lists and you seeing her don't count as reliable sources. Equally, "Nowhere Close Omnibus" only comes up with the same three ghits. Peridon (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to patronise anybody and I don't know how much you know about staging plays. But when staging a play, it's hardly ever done exactly as it says in the script. The director will take a new approach and choose a focus, a direction he wants to take the play in. He will remove lines and often whole scenes, and also add lines, actions and sometimes scenes to it. Otherwise there wouldn't really be any point in re-staging old plays, they'd all be the same. Eirin Jansen's part in A Doll's House was in no way a lead, but it was much bigger than, and far from as insignificant as you describe. As I mentioned, I watched it. The reason I mention Cherie and Diamonique is that that's the other play I've seen that actress in; which is how I know the parts were major. I may still have the program (I have hundreds of theatre programs, but I can have a look-through if I get time) but I have no idea who wrote the play or how to get hold of a copy of the script to prove it, so I guess (unless I find the program) I can't. But there are 37 credits to choose from, and I agree wholeheartedly with Schmidt. This article should be kept. --James W. Turner (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a problem here in that we have no evidence (beyond your word) that this is the case. Everything seems to come back to Eirin's profiles. There should be some word about C&D, but I can't even find it in connection with the producer Carl Wharton (who smiles) or the actor Carl Wharton (who scowls). (Actually, the same person wearing different expressions on two sites giving details for his different sides of the business.) There should be reviews, but I'm not even finding blogs. Peridon (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've Googled up this profile of another actress who was in the same production of Nowhere Close directed by Carl Wharton: http://www.uk.castingcallpro.com/view.php?uid=46869 So it clearly happened. I can't prove C&D were major parts unless I find the program, but there are 37 credits to choose from, so and all in all I still agree with Schmidt that the profile should be kept.--James W. Turner (talk) 18:49, 28 September 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 Fail Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intercolegial de Baile[edit]

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

Terribly written, terribly formatted. No sources for over 2 years, list format. No sources found in English or Spanish. Intercolegial de Baile 2005 was already deleted via AFD in May; 2009 had an AFD around the same time but was closed as no consensus due to lack of participation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sources found? What about the ones that show up when you click on the words "news" and "books" in the nomination? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transcopic Records[edit]

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

Contested PROD : No indication that this company meets either WP:GNG or WP:CORP as there does not appear to be any significant coverage of this company. Codf1977 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Codf1977 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, trim lede, and rename to Transcopic Records Discography. The label is already adequately covered in the Graham Coxon article, and this is largely a list of releases on the label, most of which are by notable artists.--Michig (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christl Ruth Vonholdt[edit]

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

Nomination repaired on behalf of Shivago12. Reason is: Hoax article. All English and German Articles listed here are self published. Articles purpose seems to promote her articles / books here. Entire editing history is for the single purpose to promote her German article, which was already noted for deletion. Pgallert (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Article is abysmal but this seems to be a notable individual of controversial views. Carrite (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I would not go so far as the nominee in imputing a motive for having the article, she seems non-notable. She holds a doctorate in an unrelated field; having a doctorate does not render one notable. 3 of the books under publications she co-edited rather than wrote or co-wrote. The only books listed there that she wrote are the self-published second one (Selbstverlag) and her dissertation (on varicose veins, but in any event writing a dissertation and one self-published book does not make one an author). The first article is a translation on the website of a private anti-gay organization of an article that de.wikipedia states was published in a journal of another private anti-gay organization, and the other (other 2 on de.wikipedia, which adds one on transsexuality) was (were) published in a journal of the organization with which she is affiliated. Hence the articles are not peer-reviewed. This is not enough to satisfy the notability criteria as an academic or an author. And her position is director of an institute within a church or religious organization, so she is not notable for heading that, either. I do not find evidence in the de.wikipedia article of her having had sufficient coverage by independent reliable sources that she warrants an article. There are numerous footnotes there, but the vast majority are statements by her or by her organization or references to the law and legislative deliberations. There is one interview for a newspaper, reproduced by her organization here (and footnoted 2 different ways in the de.wikipedia article - same interview). This is by no means the substantial coverage required for general notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. But why a hoax? Is there evidence any of this is unverifiable? Vrivers (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no need to look beyond the Google News search spoon-fed at the top of this discussion to find notability, with many reliable sources found such as these. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for putting these forward - they will be needed if the article is kept, because it badly needs more refs., and 2 of them (1 and 3) specifically report on her having appeared by invitation at a conference and the resulting outrage. However I still do not see the notability. That's exactly the purport of the coverage on the conference - whether she and the church institute she represents should be accorded this much respect. And (2) is from Mitteldeutsche Zeitung, which German Wikipedia portrays as very much a regional organ (southern Sachsen-Anhalt) and so I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source. (One might reasonably say the same of Rheinische Merkur, where the one interview with her cited by the German Wikipedia article appeared.) Also the MZ article is about the Catholic church - it may be from their equivalent of the "god slot". Certainly limited in focus to religious ethics, hence she is being cited as an expert within a strictly religious context. I do not think this meets the threshhold for generally recognized expertise or for generally broad coverage in the press. The Marburg conference looks a bit like a "one event" flurry in the news. So my opinion stands: not sufficiently notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll work on the references some more tomorrow, but it is quite clear that she is notable, having been covered in a non-trivial manner in all of the major German newspapers. I personally believe her views are sickening and disgusting, but I can't argue about her notability. Silver seren^C 04:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic is clearly notable but more ref. would be good. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Phil Bridger. Dewritech (talk) 16:03, 28 September 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. Nominator withdrew, no outstanding delete !votes. Courcelles 03:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting pitchers[edit]

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

So what???? copied from below: "to me this list appears to be breaking the Wikipedia:NOT#STATS#3 policy ("Excessive listing of statistics.") and is of very limited notability outside the sport. Even if A manager thinks they are the strongest pitchers, I do not know how is that any more notable than listing the starting roster of a soccer or a basketball team at the beginning of the season chosen by A manager.

I do expect a ton of baseball fans to probably snowball it, so I would prefer to have the opinions of non-fans of the sport. Nergaal (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Nomader ^(Talk) 04:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I vote, three things come to mind: (1) Wouldn't it have been better to bring this up at WP:BASEBALL before starting an AfD? (2) If you really want an AfD, shouldn't you nominate all of them at once, rather than just nominating one of them? (3) Are you aware that some of these pages have achieved featured list status? How do you figure that articles that passed FLC aren't notable? --Muboshgu (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Um...someone care to translate that rambling, incoherent mess of a rationale for this nomination so that I can figure out what I'm voting on? -Dewelar (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Actually, I think I've got it...the rationale is pretty much purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Still, I'll respect the nominator's request for "non-fans" to speak first... -Dewelar (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could the nominator give a more specific rationale as to why this article should be deleted? The nomination was rather meandering and as Dewelar said, it mostly just dregged up WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply No, it is not IDONTLIKEIT, but instead WHOCARES. Opening Day is not a defining point in the baseball season like playoffs are. Being a starting pitcher in a minor event of the season is not notable. Nergaal (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHOCARES states, "... personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article." I've never really been a hardcore baseball fan myself and I've never edited a baseball list here– however, I can say that Opening Day does seem to be pervasively important in baseball and the starting pitcher of the first game shows who managers feel is the strongest pitcher on a team at that point in the season. I found the list to actually be a pretty fascinating read in its odd statistical quirks. It needs work, as I've commented at the FLC and will continue to do so throughout the period of this AfD, but I feel overall that this is a net positive to Wikipedia and a valid subject for an article. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise I just noticed that half of the articles in the category are already FLs, which means 1) I should have clicked around before AfDing; 2) editors will be extremely reticent in voting delete. Anyways, to me this list appears to be breaking the Wikipedia:NOT#STATS#3 policy ("Excessive listing of statistics.") and is of very limited notability outside the sport. Even if A manager thinks they are the strongest pitchers, I do not know how is that any more notable than listing the starting roster of a soccer or a basketball team at the beginning of the season chosen by A manager. Nergaal (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted elsewhere, being the Opening Day starting pitcher for a team carries a status that starting at another position does not. For one thing, unlike other positions, starting pitchers do not play every day (or at least haven't in over a century). As for the NOT#STATS argument, the only statistics I see on the entire nominated list are the game scores, so that's an awfully low threshold on which to base that argument. -Dewelar (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-baseball fan chipping in here. To me there seem to be two issues here: 1) what is the significance of a pitcher starting on Opening Day in particular? Presumably List of Chicago White Sox 37th-game-of-the-season starting pitchers would be laughed off WP, but what makes the list for those who pitched in game 1 more, I dunno, important....? 2) is there particular significance in an opening day pitcher, as opposed to any other position? Why not List of Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting shortstops? If someone could answer those, I'd be in a better position to comment on this AfD. Hope what I'm driving at with those two points makes some sort of sense....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a team's starting pitcher on Opening Day is seen as an honor and a mark of status - an acknowledgment that the pitcher in question is his team's preeminent starting pitcher (commonly termed an "ace" or "#1 starter"). The situation with shortstops isn't analogous, in that teams do not rotate between five different shortstops game-by-game throughout the year, as they do with starting pitchers. Teams will typically use a set lineup, with the exception of the starting pitchers, who need to rest for several days after pitching before they can pitch again. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

any sources to back it up with? The better the better. Sandman888 (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to your post below. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ 1) appealing to the existence of other similar lists is a bad argument. 2) a gnews search imply that opening day starting pitchers are not a notable topic. If someone can convincence me that it is, I would be happy to support/keep this as a content fork of "list of opening day starting pitchers". Sandman888 (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your search was malformed - the common term of art within baseball is "Opening Day starter", not "Opening Day starting pitcher". ["Opening day starter" baseball] returns 115,000 Google news hits, as well as 221 book citations. A few of those will refer to position players (which is why the list under discussion is located at the less-common but also less-ambiguous title), but the vast, vast majority discuss pitchers. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convinced by the appeal to outside data I've struck my oppose. 1) I will however remind people to remain civil, it is perfectly reasonably to AfD an article if the notability is questioned no matter how many similar article exist. 2) This AfD does in no way qualify for speedy keep and should run its course. Sandman888 (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will acknowledge that the honor of starting on opening day is not laid out as clearly as it should be in these lists. However, it is an honor, and as all of the arguments for deletion being bandied about are a stretch, I say ~~Speedy~~ Keep. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Speedy Keep, just a Keep. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found through Google news and Google books– the lists do not do an adequate job of stressing the importance of the Opening Day pitcher, but it is an important aspect of baseball nonetheless. Although I respect Nergaal's decision to bring this list to AfD and I see why he brought it here, I feel that the notability for this kind of list is not just on a fan, in-universe basis as he suggests, and as such feel that the list should be kept. Nomader ^(Talk) 14:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "So What?" is not a valid reason to delete. Opening day starters have received much coverage in reliable sources, more so than the other games that nominator mentions. The article is sourced fairly well so this nomination seems to be just personal bias on the part of the nominator. Spanneraol (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep So, now you're seriously arguing that the scores of the games on the list (which, as I have said above, are THE ONLY STATS ON THE PAGE) qualifies as too many stats? Wow...just...wow. Embarrassing. -Dewelar (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a seriously embarrassing misrepresentation of my reasoning. I am not sure useful is this discussion after you said above that you would abstain from this AfD only to start throwing unfounded statements when people start presenting opinions against your own. Nergaal (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you're the one who brought up WP:NOT#STATS as an argument. What other stats are there on the page? Perhaps you're also counting the team win-loss record in such games, but as that is part of the article's prose the guideline does not apply to that. Seriously, if you can tell me what else is stats beyond the game scores, I will apologize and withdraw my above comment. I have also struck the "speedy" portion of my !vote per Sandman888's note.

Second of all, I never said I would abstain, I said I was going to allow non-fans to speak first per your request. Your arguments, beyond the one about Opening Day not being important outside the baseball world (which, despite your misuse of the term "in-universe", could be considered relevant), have been thin at best.

Third of all, I'd posit that, from your initial language in your nomination, you meant this nomination to be disruptive. You certainly meant it to be insulting to baseball fans. -Dewelar (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the original nomination language is actually bad form because many of the above comments were in response to it and a closing admin might not understand the full scope of the conversation. Spanneraol (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's a good point. When I saw the nominator deleted the original text of his nomination, I thought about reverting it. The guidelines on AfD are clear that striking it out, as you did initially, is the way to go, but it wasn't firm enough that I would actually revert the edit myself. You're entitled to qualify your original post, but it should remain part of the record. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an invalid deletion rationale. Default to Keep. Vodello (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - regardless of whether the nominator likes it, opening day starters are notable, as indicated by the sources and coverage each opening day of the starters. Further, several similar articles are featured lists, indicating a consensus that they topic meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Rlendog (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting withdrawing if that is appropriate. Nergaal (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the notability guidelines of WP:N and the guidelines for lists in WP:CLN. BRMo (talk) 03:40, 22 September 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) 03:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16 Biggest Hits[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Nothing but a directory. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTCATALOG Nowyouseeme talk2me 03:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Film Festival of London[edit]

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

Contested PROD : Non Notable Film Festival, promotional in nature. Codf1977 (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The two references since added to the article indicate that it meets the general notability guide. In addition, being 'promotional in nature' isn't an argument for deletion - it's an argument to remove the promotional text, which I have done. Finally, it can't be unduly promotional if it's about an event which happened in the past - it finished on 5 September. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is not significant rather more WP:ROUTINE in nature. Codf1977 (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might become notable someday, but isn't now. Of the two references provided, one is from The Guardian, a Reliable Source, but is just a routine one-paragraph calendar item. The other reference is from an online magazine specializing in South American topics. Nothing else found in a Google search. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Chase me ladies - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It is not clear to me in what way the article asserts notability about the event. Lambanog (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XS Malarkey[edit]

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

No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well it certainly exists, as even a perfunctory search will show. And according to The Guardian here, and The Independent here, it's popular. AfD is not WP:CLEANUP, so it boils down to this: should comedy clubs be in Wikipedia? Back to The Grauniad, this time here; "Running a comedy club for a decade is quite an achievement in any circumstances, but outside London, on a shoestring, it really is something to be proud of." So, keep. Mr Stephen (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources easily available if you look. I have found, and added sources from The Guardian and Time Out as well as a brief mention in The Metro. --Korruski (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mr. Stephen and Korruski. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think the question is whether comedy clubs should be on Wikipedia, but whether this comedy club should be on Wikipedia. There, we find some sources to indicate that notability may exist, and that's sufficient. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:54, 24 September 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) 01:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Northern Car Clubs[edit]

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

No decent refs found after search, poor context. Beeshoney (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion. Page was created to remove this information from the ANCC disambiguation page. bd2412 T 13:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jmundo (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no notability asserted. Obviously no one cares. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:09, 21 September 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 Mu (lost continent). Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mu (Cthulhu Mythos)[edit]

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

fictional Continent Fails GNG the Cthulhu Mythos article does not even mention it The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Lovecraft took the idea of Mu from earlier mytholgy about this place which we cover at Mu (lost continent). This is documented in works such as The 13 Gates of the Necronomicon and so the matter is notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Col. Warden. Mu in Lovecraft's works is not substantially different from Mu as exposited in prior fictional works. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 23 September 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) 03:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manga meat[edit]

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

Dubious notability, sources only seem to mention it tangentially. Nothing but a list of OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to have to agree, this topic isn't notable and I don't think it deserves its own page. Delete I Feel Tired (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 07:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholeheartedly concur with the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the heck is manga meat? This is pure WP:OR - 205.172.21.157 (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A classic example of original research. —Farix (t | c) 13:14, 27 September 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) 02:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Rıfat Ülküman[edit]

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

Possible hoax, as someone from the public asserted. Not really sure, but it is plausible, so bringing this to AFD. NW (Talk) 02:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to be verified. The only source apparently covers his death; nothing backs up anything else about his life. Google searches are cumbersome with the language issue, but I didn't turn up anything. Additionally, there is no article about Ülküman on the Turkish Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not hoax. You can check from Encyclopedia of Turkish Authors vol. III as cited in the article. He is rather unknown to common people who are not deeply involved in Turkish politics. Alexanderanenko (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC) — Alexanderanenko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, fails WP:V. Ironholds (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is also bogus. There is no encyclopedia with the title "Türk Yazarlar Ansiklopedisi" as cited in the article. There is one "Türkiye Yazarlar Ansiklopedisi" though, yet it does not contain a Fatih Rıfat Ülküman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.178.92 (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. Nothing found in a Gsearch. Not even a Turkish language article. I find it amazing how many articles appear on the English language Wikipedia that don't seem to exist on the native language WP for the subject in question. Or do I? Anyway. If he is so unknown that there is only the one mention of him in an apparently untraceable encyclopaedia (although Türk and Türkiye are fairly close), then he hardly merits an article here. "He is rather unknown to common people who are not deeply involved in Turkish politics" - so English speakers other than those with involvement in Turkish politics are unlikely to want to look him up, and presumably those who know about him won't need to.... Peridon (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's upsetting for me to see that someone can falsify and deny the existence of true Turkish novelist F. Rifat Ulkuman just because their political views.As i mentioned in C.Fred's page today it's almost impossible for a reader find an original copy of his novels ,but a copy of Cankaya Tables can be found at the 3. floor of the library of Istanbul University( I would love to give an ISBN number but as you all know it wasn't exist at 70's). Labeling the life and publications of such a person as 'Hoax' just because of not supporting or completely opposing with his ideas , is a dumb mistake.I believe that one day F. Rifat Ulkuman will get the courtesy that he deserves while he was living from every part of the society even though they don't support his ideas.

Ps. His haters mention that there is no article stands in Wikipedia Turkish which is right, but just because the number of the results in English is more then it comes up in Turkish doesn't mean that he is not real. A good example for this situation is Orhan Pamuk with this kind of weird determination methods we can claim that Orhan Pamuk doesn't exist . Other than that there is no problem with the name of "Türk Yazarlar Ansiklopedisi" as his clear intention of misleading the administrators here stands i must make something clear.Türkiye is the name of the country like US and we don't call it America Idol, or America Plant Encylopedia ,same in Turkish we call it Türk Yazarlar Ansiklopedisi(Turk Respresent any human being who lives in Turkey or has a Turkish Origin).As my last sentences please guy don't waste your time to remove the sign's that has given to the path of history by such a great person even you removed it from everywhere else we will always remember him.

alparslan2 (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC) — alparslan2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I am not a hater of him. I'd never even heard of him before today, as I suspect is the case for everyone else here except the creator. I, for one, couldn't care a tinker's cuss about Ülküman's political views. I can only go by the internet for establishing notability in this caser, and there are no ghits I can find for him - in any language. I never restrict my search to one language only. To me, this suggests that no-one either inside or outside Turkey has thought it worthwhile to mention him online - until now. I am not saying 'hoax' as I can't prove that. I am saying 'no evidence' - as I can't find any, and you don't seem to be providing any. Without some evidence, no article. Orhan Pamuk? Well known, wide-selling, easy to verify. Interviewed by the Daily Telegraph, referred to in the Guardian - and that's just in the first six ghits. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked on Vikipedi and no-one has tried to create an article there. Peridon (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. He is a fictional character created by an ekşi sözlük and twitter user to criticize Turkish ideology of Kemalism. Kavas (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"ekşisözlük"?? Peridon (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You define anything you want in this dictionary, but the correctness of the information is unclear. One user created a fictional writer, wrote a definition of him to this dictionary and this has come to WP. Kavas (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Ekşi Sözlük (for which, thanks to Kavas.) Peridon (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be removed due to the fact that "Fatih Rıfat Ülküman" is a bogus historian created by an "ekşi sözlük" (http://sourtimes.org) web site user, in order to lay down an hoax that provides a false claim that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had ordered the execution of his former brothers-in-arms (http://www.eksisozluk.com/show.asp?t=fatih+r%C4%B1fat+%C3%BClk%C3%BCman and http://www.eksisozluk.com/show.asp?t=ismet+ben+%C3%B6l%C3%BCrsem+adnan%27%C4%B1+ve+celal%27i+ast%C4%B1r). The existence of such an author named "Fatih Rıfat Ülküman" could be checked from the National Library of Turkey (http://www.mkutup.gov.tr/index.php?yenidil=ing) and also from Bilkent University Library online catalogues (http://librarycatalog.bilkent.edu.tr/uhtbin/cgisirsi.exe/x/0/0/49) which are the two of the richest sources on Turkish books). It should be noted that the article is lacking any citeable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.109.143 (talk) 18:37, 24 September 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) 01:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fretzie Joans R. Bercede[edit]

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

Someone else tried to AFD this but didn't finish their work. Only references are OTHER FREAKING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES. How stupid can you get?

Anyway, fails WP:ANYBIO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we can cite ourselves. She's cute, but third runner up on a reality show isn't going to do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. She may become notable, but currently she is not. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She seems to not have done much notable, (obviously) in and out of the PBB house. Maybe in the future... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who have achieved simultaneous UK and US number-one hits[edit]

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

What's the point of this intersection? It's trivial and original research. None of the sources mention the songs or artists being number one in both countries. This kind of list can be done with any two (or more) countries. But if that's ok, so be it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable intersection. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nice list. These are the two largest English-language sales charts, so it stands to reason that this is a matter of significant interest to rock historians. Carrite (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interesting list. It's a well recorded fact that getting into both charts is both difficult, and a major goal for English-language artists, so this list has importance that a random intersection of two other countries would not have. --Korruski (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having sources to back that statement would be a big help for your argument. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List has clear inclusion, really should be tagged for cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. And certainly books/articles about the Beatles at least have noted their simultaneous topping of the US and UK charts. Rlendog (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coldplay's album achievement got press, which also referenced Radiohead's.[45] MusicWeek also noted that very few artists have managed to top both the US and UK single and album charts at the same time: "The Beatles, The Monkees, Simon & Garfunkel, Rod Stewart, Men At Work, Michael Jackson and Beyonce remain the only artists in chart history to score simultaneous number one singles and albums in the UK and the USA, after Coldplay are knocked off the US singles perch."[46] So this isn't really improper synthesis, so I reckon we should keep. Fences&Windows 12:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments. This could well be made into an FL, should the effort be expended, and the above findings have demonstrated that this is not an unencyclopedic cross-characterization. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 23 September 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) 01:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Anne Taylor[edit]

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

Seems to only be an extra or bit part in her dozen or so roles. There is no reliable, independent sources that I can find on her that show she is anything other than an extra in the shows/movies she has appeared in. Does not pass WP:BIO standards. either way (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of her roles appear to rise above bit part, but in really, really bad movies that nobody has seen, so she hasn't gotten any press. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. She had no major roles. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 September 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. No opposition to deletion and the article is an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Lloyd[edit]

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

Article uses a single website as a reference, that's hardly enough to establish notability. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 00:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no secondary references. Google searches return many other Raymond Lloyds making it hard to identify items that may be related to the subject of the article in particular. The publication this person is supposedly known for is obscure too. Lambanog (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 September 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. Significant arguments leaning in favor of Keep, however valid concerns raised by multiple users arguing for deletion of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andreja Gomboc[edit]

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

Lacking notability per WP:PROF. Web of Science lists 39 articles between 1996 and 2010. There is one with 92 citation, but also with 30+ co-authors where she is in the middle. All others have max 38 cites, again with plenty of co-authors and her name in the middle. Total number of citations is 492, which is rather low. She might be notable for the Slovenian wiki, but not for English one. Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As at least per 3rd item of criteria in WP:PROF she is among others a member of the European Astronomical Society and International Astronomical Union. Then she is an active researcher in the field of astrophysics, high energy physics, relativity and the Gaia mission. --xJaM (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EAS membership is fee based. IAU members are elected, but usually on a country basis, i.e. she might well be notable nationally and thus be an IAU member, this says nothing about her international notability. Materialscientist (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If memberships of EAS and IAU are not enough, let me continue. In November 2007 she received award for research project of the year, which is awarded by British newspaper The Times Higher Education. Reviewers had awarded exceptional team work and results of measuring polarisation of optical afterglows, which were published in Science.[47] Among others she is also a coauthor of article in Nature. I suggest extending article (if it is not yet suitable regarding notability), and not deleting it. Primož Trubar for instance is actually also not 'internationally notable', but en wp has its article. Can you evaluate more precisely (or just by hand with an eye view) statement that she is in the middle...? Is this fact perhaps due to nature of this kind of astronomical/astrophysical work? --xJaM (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about that Nature article above, in the nomination. Extra large collaborations are not uncommon, and usually crucial contributors are in front (those who done most work) and at the tail (heads of laboratories who organized measurements). She is in the middle, same for the Science article you mentioned above (it is not much sited, I don't know why). Materialscientist (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you perhaps any suggestions for extending (and of course not deleting) the article? I can add some latest (although anonymous) additions from Slovene wp (which currently unfortunatelly have inline external links) - but better if I wait for outcome of this deletion proposal. --xJaM (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much on GS. Early career researcher. Not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
For another Prekmurian - sinologist Jana S. Roškar there are 16 enries on GS ([48]). Should we then also propose deletion for articles of some other Prekmurians? --xJaM (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, unsourced BLP, appears to fail WP:PROF. Article may be keepable if evidence of notability is found. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This deletion discussion is clearly based on prejudical nationalism and I therefore oppose upmost harshly. She is a promising scientist known to a wide international scientistic circle and already noted for her research work, even though she is not in her scientistic and researching prime yet. @Materialscientist: If you want to delete the articles, which really need deletion, try rather some low-profile young actors and actresses. I'll definitely back you there. Cheers to whereever --Jambornik (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Nationalism. I thought it is a science debate. Materialscientist (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We might call this kind of 'nationalism' "academic nationalism". For instance, at least two prominent Slovene mathematicians had to go through AfD, Pisanski and little later Marušič - I do belive that without any particular reasons. I think I understand Jambornik. For professor Marušič there was debate about the Zois Price, which is the premier science prize in Slovenia. If someone never hear of it, this does not mean that it does not exist. --xJaM (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that it exists, but the question is-is it notable? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: Google Scholar should not be relevant for determining person's notability/importance (especially for non-English speakers; there are other local tools). Even I (as a high school student) got some entries, comparing to some notable Slovene philosophers that haven't got any entry. --Smihael (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, once you oppose, provide us with such sources please. She is not a philosopher and not ancient. In her field all achievements are widely published. Materialscientist (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, putting aside any concerns about citations, she hasn't done or discovered anything yet. Encyclopedia articles need to be more than a CV. Abductive (reasoning) 19:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Discovered anything yet' - this is very relative statement. As English article is mainly written by users who do not speak English as mother tongue, I believe it is more then just a CV - and as I've written some line above, some additions can be transfered from Slovene article. Perhaps even you and me can not define at all what is in these fields discoverable. --xJaM (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...planned ESA mission, GAIA, which will measure...", "The space probe is to be launched ... in November 2012." Then it will take years to gather and analyze the data, and then more years to figure out if she has personally discovered anything. Abductive (reasoning) 07:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From page of HST we can see that this activity began already with Oberth in 1923. So there is a span of 67 years, when STS-31 mission finally launched this space telescope into Earth's orbit. We might also say that Oberth was one crazy dreamer, not to mention Spitzer. --xJaM (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking back at past decisions on these academic AfD pages I find that to satisfy WP:Prof #1, 500-1000 citations in the scientific literature have usually been needed with an h index of greater than 15. With only 45 cites and an h index of 3 from GS the present subject comes nowhere near these figures and does not satisfy any other the other categories of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC). Web of Science has higher statistics but still not enough. What about Scopus? It is to be noted that assistant professors are rarely found to be notable on the English Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
DELETE: no non-trivial reliable sources to verify information in the article and establish notability. The best independent source I could find was this, but that's not enough. Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me one example of 'non-trivial reliable source' elsewhere of other academics, so we can figure it out what do you mean? One such source is stated, which can be also reached from site at the FMF UL. Source you've given quotes wp. --xJaM (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable source, independent of the subject, which would verify one of the points #1 to #9 in WP:PROF. For example, this source establishes #2 for Frances E. Allen. And sources that quote WP are never acceptable. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't notice the source I linked quoted Wikipedia. That just makes your argument all the weaker.
The page from FMF UL is VERY TRIVIAL coverage. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Protector of Wiki: You probably mean later added page (in Notes) and not her homepage from FMF UL (in External links) that I was refering to? I do not know if it is trivial, but I've just used it to confirm that she is assistant professor at FMF, not to cover anything else. Yes, this is perhaps small paradox, if we neglect that you didn't notice that, that one 'independent source' summarizes from wp, and now we are voting to delete.
@Radagast3: This source is equally reliable as your example (unfortunately in Slovene), that she received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. (#2 in WP:PROF) - Prekmurje research award 2002, which is of national level class. But the other question is then if this national level can do the trick.
I can also debate about #4, as she is young educator in (locally not so well known and covered) fields of astrophysics and astronomy, together that she was national coordinator of IYA2009 for Slovenia, of course again just at national level, and not at international one. On January 2010 she also held lecture (titled Universe and we) in Slovenian National Assembly within project Znanje žanje (Knowledge reaps), which is I believe a great honour, and probably goes into #7. Also, article was written already on 2004-06-23, and it took over 6 years then for voting of deleting it. Strange indeed, isn't it. --xJaM (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We"? Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Universe and we. Here are some nice photos from that event. --xJaM (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ups. 'Official translation' is The Universe and us according to lecture presentation --xJaM (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to xJaM, being national coordinator of IYA2009 for Slovenia does not satisfy WP:PROF #4, nor does giving a lecture satisfy #7 (see the "Notes" section of WP:PROF). The best claim to notability is the "Pomurska Research Award". However, from WP:PROF, "For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc, always qualify under Criterion 2. Some lesser significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g. the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc." The "Pomurska Research Award" does not seem to measure up to this standard. As to the delay in nominating the article, Wikipedia's policies have changed since 2004. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per xJaM--Deviator13 08:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would User:Deviator13, who is an administrator on the Slovenian Wikipedia, care to say under which category of WP:Prof? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Especially #2, if we literally follow the national level, but that is my opinion.--Deviator13 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply but, as noted by User:Radagast3, this award does not seem to be sufficiently notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Per Criterion 7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." She had a lecture in the National Assembly of Slovenia regarding astronomy in January 2010, she regularly publishes articles in the most read Slovenian popular science astronomical magazine Spika, she was a national coordinator for Slovenia in the International Year of Astronomy (2009), organized several highly visited exhibitions in this capacity, etc. Overall, she has greatly contributed to the popularization of astronomy in Slovenia and was bestowed the Prometheus of Science award by the Slovenian Scientific Foundation in 2009 for "exceptional achievements in organizing the communication of diverse astronomical contents". --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand that link correctly, the "Prometheus of Science" award was shared between all 8 members of the IYA Organising Committee. However, I can see the case for Criterion #7, if sources can be found for the claim that she "greatly contributed to the popularization of astronomy in Slovenia." Certainly, if she's widely known in Slovenia for her popularization of astronomy, then she's notable, in my opinion. However, that notability would need to be demonstrated by sources (either English or Slovenian), e.g. references to the exhibitions, news coverage, etc. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & expand Per #7 for WP:PROF. Time should be given to expand and improve upon the article given these issues pointed out. QuAz GaA 02:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to expand and improve the article irrespective of result of this voting. --xJaM (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence of passing any of the criteria of WP:PROF. We've seen criteria #2 and #7 discussed in this AfD, but the only clear published evidence of that that I can see is the "Prometheus of Science" award, and she is only the recipient of 1/8 of 1/8 of 1/4 of the award (there are four categories, eight winning entries in her category, and eight co-recipients for her entry). This seems a bit too slim for my taste, and the other WP:PROF criteria seem even farther out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, Jennifer Hudson won 1/24th of an Oscar? 24 categories, single recipient... Gomboc doesn't appear that notable, but, well, the discussion is kinda hopeless now. --JaRoad (talk) 07:54, 28 September 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) 12:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Spa La Farandole[edit]

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

hotel article , doesn't estabilish notability Melaen (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I may be missing something, but none of my searches have come up with anything beyond confirmation that this hotel exists. No notability that I can see, here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits in google books or reliable sources. There are far more notable missing hotels in the Alps.Dr. Blofeld 15:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chicagoblok[edit]

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

Non notable block of flats where notability has not been ascertained. No relevant speedy deletion criteria. Wintonian (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has significant coverage in these sources, has been the subject of a 65-minute documentary film and is described as both "famous" and "infamous". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spatulli (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject to sourced improvements to content. Inclusion of Phil Bridger's links (above) might be useful. BlueRobe (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Phil. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:28, 22 September 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 Data assimilation. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assimilation (meteorology)[edit]

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

Poorly written article. Nothing here that isn't already in Data assimilation Dondegroovily (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect - This article doesn't provide anything substantially different then what Assimilation already has. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Data assimilation. Nergaal (talk) 14:48, 21 September 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) 01:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structure101[edit]

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

Article doesn't establish notability and hasn't changed in 2 years. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no indication of notability. The award is not significant. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think winning the award might make it notable. Website provides links to a number of reviews [49], too. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable software by a non-notable company that received a non-notable award. The award ref is a self-published website; I cannot find it mentioned by any WP:RSS. Thundermaker (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Henderson (novelist)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article claimed the author was a NYTimes Notable book for 1993 or 1994, but the Times articles do not support statement. Article appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. ttonyb (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Please see here for book being noted in Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/books/new-noteworthy-paperbacks-326296.html Vrivers (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That may show notability for the book, but I don't see "non-trivial" coverage of the author as required by WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Vrivers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – for writing at least two books that got coverage several years apart. WP:AUTH #3 is likely the pertinent point by which this AfD stands or fails. Lambanog (talk) 18:52, 21 September 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) 01:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stereoside[edit]

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

This is an unremarkable band. A7 declined because the band as existed 5 years. So what? No reliable sources provided, no third-party coverage, no indication of importance. — Timneu22 · talk 11:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does Billboard.com count as a valid chart source ? If so, the article satisfies WP:BAND due to them having an album that has charted [50] Ezhuks (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to this they spent one week at number 48 on the heatseekers chart, I'm not sure this brings them up to the level of notability required...Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete charting only at the very bottom of Heatseekers for one week without substantial third party coverage isn't enough. Gigs (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The band has released 3 albums, 2 on Bieler Bros. Records, and in addition to the minor chart placing there's a short Allmusic bio and a few other items of coverage ([51], [52], [53]).--Michig (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per charted album, added mention of it to article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. In response to a few things brought up in this discussion: Billboard.com is not just a valid chart source, but I would argue that it is the best valid chart source for the U.S. music charts. (The print version of Billboard is just as valid, but the online version is easier to reference.) On the other hand, the Top Heatseekers album chart is one of Billboard's lesser charts, because it only include artists who have not placed in high positions on Billboard's other charts yet. On the other, other hand, the one week when this band charted in Billboard appears to be last week -- September 18, 2010. So this band is apparently at its most successful point in its career right now, and deleting this article now may not necessarily be the best idea. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mette Karlsvik[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO and only has one semi-reliable source. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 14:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article fails both WP:BIO. Also failed to find enough reliable sources for this person. Please note that the article's subject's Twitter is protected. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What on Earth does the statement that "the article's subject's Twitter is protected", whatever that means, have to do with the question of whether she is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipient of major literature award, Tarjei Vesaas' debutantpris, which alone would vouchsafe notability. __meco (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her first novel won the national award for first novels, that makes her notable enough. I've improved the article using the Bokmål one so that the statement in the lede that she is a journalist is now supported and so that her academic credentials and the nature of the external links are clearer. One of the latter turned out to be best used as a ref. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She appears to be a major emerging Norwegian writer with a bevy of awards for her first novel. Am I missing something? Vrivers (talk) 17:12, 26 September 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 18:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debate over oral Torah[edit]

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

This article really should be either in the article on the Oral Law or parsed back into the articles on the parent sects/offshoots/streams of Judaism. The arguments of each group are different, and it is likely a gross oversimplification to lump them all together. Avi (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strip down all the vague/poorly sourced content, keep whatever can be sourced to high-quality secondary sources and then merge with Oral Torah. JFW | T@lk 09:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of value to merge. -- Y not? 03:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because this article violates Wikipedia:Content forking multiple times since there is a comprehensive Oral Torah article already that deals with alternate views, including the ones repetitively reposted in this poorly-constructed article. This article is pointless and is just a shot at stirring up hatred of the Talmud by certain groups opposed to it for their own extreme POV reasons. IZAK (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the above comments. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strip WP:OR and merge with Oral Torah. Joe407 (talk) 12:59, 28 September 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. WP:SNOW, WP:PROF, and WP:GNG all cited. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouter Schievink[edit]

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

Delete: Subject appears well below the bar for notability Fell Gleaming ^talk 21:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly notable subject, sought after opinions, well cited in news sources and extremely well published author. Basket of Puppies 03:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A simple search shows much notability. He's well cited, as earlier stated, and a well known author, and neuro surgeon. M J ₉₄ 03:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list of publications section is overblown and unnecessary, however, the subject has been described as a "world-renowned expert in familial aneurysms and strokes" by Medical News Today.[54] Location (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The bit in Medical News Today does appear to be a press release by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in order to generate interview requests for the subject and another doctor. Still, this guy appears to be a big wig at a renowned hospital. Location (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Pioneering expert in his field and editor of Frontiers in Bioscience. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 22 September 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 Quarl ^(talk) 18:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Square Off (group)[edit]

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

Fail's Notability as all References say nothing about group, with only a "MySpace" page is avaible on group. The article itself say that this group is "an unsigned Rap group". This is probably a page created to promote this group, failing wp:NOTADVERTISING --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 20:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under CSD A7 and possibly CSD G11. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 21:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree . I have never seen the ((db-band)) tag before or I would have mark it that myself. I agree that this page should be deleted per CSD A7 and possibly CSD G11.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:55, 22 September 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.