< 10 August	12 August >

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. Will someone do so? Bearian (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entry clearance[edit]

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

I am nominating three articles relating to the immigration and customs and the United Kingdom. They are Entry clearance, Administrative removal, and Immigration Rules. These articles are WP:Original research, WP:Neologisms, lacking WP:Reliable Sources, and/or not WP:Notable. They should all be merged into an appropriate article such as an article on the custom's of the United Kingdom or the Immigration Policy of the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longthicknosnip (talk • contribs) — Longthicknosnip (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

note, nominator has been blocked as sock of user:FireTool87--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ALL. I agree that they are unreferenced WP:OR without independent WP:RS and are not notable WP:GNG subjects in their own right. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't understand in what sense or respect Entry clearance is to be considered original research, a neologism, or lacking reliable sources. It would seem to me that the web page referred to in the article, which is a page published by the UK Border Agency of the Home Office, can be considered a reliable source with regard to entry requirements of the UK, and the terminology and information in the article are in close agreement with that provided on that web page. --Lambiam 01:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said "and/or" as I used a template to refer to all three in general. It is original research because the topic is not notable, it is not not notable because it does not have multiple non trivial reliable references independent of the subject, the fact that there is no coverage and the article itself makes claims of any sort makes those claims original research because they are not verified statements. The Agency's website is not independent of the subject itself, notwithstanding that website is about the agency, which may be notable, this is just a term they use and is therefore a dictionary definition that belongs on the wiktionary.Longthicknosnip (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could it be that the nominator is a reincarnation of User:FireTool87 (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Disruptive AFD nominations by SPA). --Lambiam 01:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not that person at all, I saw this debate before and saw it delisted and it was shot down appropriately because it was part of abusive mass AfD abuse, however this article and the other two related ones in and of themselves on their own merits (I believe) are not worthy here.

Merge to Immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922, preserving the contribution history under the redirect, per nom. Annoyingly, User:Nipsonanomhmata's "delete" !vote prevents this from happening speedily.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please see The development of British immigration law for an example of a substantial source covering this topic in detail. This demonstrates that the claims of the nomination - OR, not-notable, &c. are quite false. Warden (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close. Again, nom is advocating merging rather than deletion; that should be discussed on the talk page. (BTW, I can confirm entry clearance is a distinct immigration status in UK law and not a made-up term at all.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Will someone do so? Bearian (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative removal[edit]

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

I am nominating three articles relating to the immigration and customs and the United Kingdom. They are Entry clearance, Administrative removal, and Immigration Rules. These articles are WP:Original research, WP:Neologisms, lacking WP:Reliable Sources, and/or not WP:Notable. They should all be merged into an appropriate article such as an article on the custom's of the United Kingdom or the Immigration Policy of the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longthicknosnip (talk • contribs) — Longthicknosnip (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

note, nominator has been blocked as sock of user:FireTool87--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate, since a user entering this as a search term could be looking for several different things. Immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922, preserving the contribution history under the redirect, would need to be one of them; another would need to be Wikipedia:Deletion policy.—S Marshall T/C 09:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This process is quite notable, being discussed in detail in sources such as Immigration and criminal law in the European Union. The process is also used in the USA - see Migration Law in the USA, for example. Warden (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close and continue discussion as a merge debate. Whilst there are arguments for and against a stand-alone article, as the nom is proposing merging rather than deletion and there aren't large reams of text that would stand to be deleted by a merger, an AfD isn't the right forum for this. This is better done as a content discussion because merging will be complicated. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Will someone do so? Bearian (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration Rules[edit]

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

I am nominating three articles relating to the immigration and customs and the United Kingdom. They are Entry clearance, Administrative removal, and Immigration Rules. These articles are WP:Original research, WP:Neologisms, lacking WP:Reliable Sources, and/or not WP:Notable. They should all be merged into an appropriate article such as an article on the custom's of the United Kingdom or the Immigration Policy of the United Kingdom. This particular article on immigration rules is on such a vague but normal topic it really is just a good example that wikipedia is [a] WP:NOTDICTionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longthicknosnip (talk • contribs) — Longthicknosnip (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

note, nominator has been blocked as sock of user:FireTool87--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate, since a user entering this as a search term could be looking for quite a lot of different things. Immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922, preserving the contribution history under the redirect, would need to be one of them, and the equivalent articles for other major countries should also be listed.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Immigration as the title is too general and similar to that topic. Warden (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Immigration for now. There could be a case for an article specifically about immigration law, but currently we only have astub whose information is more than duplicated elsewhere. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, make that Immigration law, which is almost a synonym. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G12, copyvio) by Qwyrxian. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aleks de Carvalho[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC Vanadus (talk | contribs) 23:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-promotional autobio with neither evidence nor plausible assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio and I have tagged as such. Safiel (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Gibson Roc[edit]

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

As per original prod: autobiography lacking reliable sources to support notability; Google searches don't reveal a single article about her, only passing references. N^oformation ^Talk 22:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, my original prod, and rationale at article talk page. Rather than writing a vanity piece and persistently removing maintenance templates, if the subject can provide any published references to support notability, this would be the time. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - vanity autobio of non-notable performer; see WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing a huge conflict of interest here other than the user is attempting to create/save an article about themselves when they may not be notable but in my opinion, that's much less of an issue than if someone comes and posts lots of fluffy opinions about themselves (I think it damages the view of WP more). All that is totally irrelevant. I can find only one reference that could possibly be used to satisfy WP:GNG. There are currently no Google News search results and any Google News Archive results (besides the one reference in the article) are to blogs (non-reliable sources). I don't see any way that the subject satisfies WP:GNG, WP:BAND, or WP:BIO and I don't see any other inclusion guidelines that could possibly apply at this point. OlYeller^Talktome 12:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any notable sources on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete via WP:SPEEDY#G7: the only significant author concedes deletion in good faith. Marasmusine (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FutureRP[edit]

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

No ghits. Fairly new web game. Article written by creator. Fails WP:WEB. Article was speedied, then I restored per OPs request as he said he could fix it. PRODded the article but OP removed PROD, so here we are. Alexf^(talk) 21:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:N. I was unable to find a single reliable source, using the WikiProject Video games guide to sources as a reference (as well as the WPVG custom Google search). All current sources out there are self-published, wikis, press releases, or are on sites specifically found to be unreliable by WPVG. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As nom, and as the admin who processed the speedy, I still think, as I did then that it has not complied with WP:WEB. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For further reference, here are the discussions with the OP before this AfD. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, cannot find any reliable sources. Pretty much same as Wyatt Riot. I see author is putting a good faith effort, but unfortunately the game currently fails Wikipedia notability guidelines as it has not received any media coverage. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article, I understand your concerns, and formally submit to the article being deleted. If the deletion question is being asked now, then presumably, it would be an ongoing struggle to keep the article up. I would much rather have the page deleted until such as time as there are adequate sources to cite (n.b. I have a copy of the article in preparation of deletion).

This is the reason that I removed the PROD. I assumed that it would subject it immediately to the deletion process, and since the sources are just about as good as they're going to get for now, waiting for the PROD to expire seemed futile. I'm not privy the workings of Wikipedia, so this may have been a poor decision on my part; nevertheless, it is the reality of the situation. In summary, if the sources are inadequate as of now, feel free to delete the article. Save your time for more complex cases. Cyberkilla (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The concerns about notability have been refuted by comments here. Cleanup is required, as well as proper referencing, but in this case, it appears consensus is that a bit of TLC is all that's needed. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Creators Documentary[edit]

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

Prod removed without explanation. Concern was: No notability claims. Appears to fail WP:NFILMS. BOVINEBOY2008 21:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject appears to fail WP:NFILMS. Topher385 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and clean up the format and tone problems. Sorry to disagree with the nominator about notability, but we DO have a special set of problems when dealing with documentary films made in South Africa. I note that the article offers a very decent set of sources through a lengthy article in Huffington Post [1] and another in Mambo Magazine [2] While more would be better, we have "just" enough very decent ones to allow this to remain and be improved. The original findsources above has problems as it will not even lead you to the film's IMDB page.. but I found it.[3] Also, in seraching for the director, Laura Gamse, I found that the film screened recently at the "LA Film and Music Weekend".[4] As a recipient of a Fulbright Scholarship, she moved to South Africa to make a documentary. The result was The Creators.[5] Considering that the film is only now hitting festivals, but HAS already been the recipient of critical commentary and review in some decent reliable sources, we can let it stay and be fixed. We will need a move to The Creators (documentary film) per naming conventions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the original author of the article (and a South African who pays by MB for internet, and thus is not eloquent in the language of wikipedia edits) I think the article should not be removed on account of the differences in internet accessibility on our various continents. As mentioned above, Wikipedia has a need for more minority voices, and deletion of an article made by Africans about Africans will only exacerbate the problem. The lack of web-accessible sources citing the various artists included in the film only suggests that they live on a continent where word of mouth and print supersedes the virtual world. I will argue that even in the virtual world, there is enough evidence to justify the notability of the film. In addition to the above-mentioned IMDB, Huffington Post, and Mambo Magazine independent sources, The Creators has screened at the LA Film and Music Weekend, the Fulbright Academy Film Festival, the Texas Black Film Festival, the Hot Docs Doc Shop, the Encounters International Documentary Festival, the National Arts Festival, and the Zanzibar International Film Festival (http://thecreatorsdocumentary.com/screenings/) - many more than the one festival mentioned as evidence of 'notability' in the above-linked article. I can also provide direct links to all the artists listed above, but I am not sure if that will resolve the problem. If someone could tell me clearly what exactly needs to be done to remove the deletion notice from the page, I will happily do it. I am, however, a bit confused as my UserTalk message reads "You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the "proposed deletion/dated notice" yet the deletion notice asserts "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." How do we go about closing this discussion? Apologies if I have unknowingly side-stepped some conventional standards of Wikipedia. Myburgh.bernard (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps confusing, but a "proposed deletion"[6] is different than a nomination for deletion. THAT notice was renoved by User:Littlebeak,[7] but as it was felt that the article still had issues, it was then nominated for deletion and a new and different notice was placed.[8] Once a WP:AFD discussion is opened, it usually runs about 7 days. The tag comes off after the discussion on THIS page reaches a resolution. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am familiar with the film and the artists and I am happy to add sources and references to each artist in the film. Littlebeak (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deal or No Deal (United States) models[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is still overly detailed fancruft. Not a single source to be found, and I can't think of something that would source it. Way too much trivia. This was originally deleted, but then overturned and relisted, where it ended up with a "no consensus".

TJRC suggested a few sources in the last AFD, but all of them turned out to be unreliable, and when I called him out on it he just shrugged it off. Hullaballoo suggested a primary source, which is clearly not enough. All of the other "keep" arguments were WP:ITSNOTABLE, but all of the "delete" arguments were WP:Not notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's unbelievable that this actually got through a deletion review (I didn't comment after it was thrown back after the DR because my vote still stood as I wanted it presented). There isn't much salvageable here and it reads like something that belongs on a DoND wiki where it would be good, not here where it just seems like someone spent too much time DVR'ing GSN and NBC and put all the names in a notebook to present this article. It's all WP:OR and when you get down to it, the vast majority of the models rarely have a bluelink to a BLP of their own. Nate • (chatter) 05:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close this is too soon within the window (9 days) after the last AfD close. If you believe that AfD was closed in error, then you may take it back to DRV if you really think that's the best course of action. Three months would be a good window to see if consensus has shifted, which gives you a bit more than two and a half to go. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV closing statement was "Relist for further discussion. The arguments are fairly even here, but on balance, the overturn side makes an argument sufficient that another week of discussion is the best way forward.– Courcelles 17:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)". I think that means it is fine to have this discussion now, though it wouldn't be the end of the world if we waited for another few months. NW (Talk) 18:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NW, I enacted that decision by reopening the first AFD, and discussion continued for another week. (And there, was, indeed, a decent amount of fresh discussion), following which Sandstein closed it as no consensus. Courcelles 00:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All this information is synthesized by the photos originating from one sole source, the 1st party.Curb Chain (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Shaw; Gary E. Shaw; Gary Edgar Shaw[edit]

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

this has all the hallmarks of a personal advertisement SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious promotion, and high COI to boot--author is Gdshaw (talk · contribs). This article's been here since 2008? Blueboy 96 22:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First of all, the title is inappropriate and secondly it reads too much as an advertisement rather than a biography. I didn't see any notable mentions on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Ximénez Fyvie[edit]

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

Appears to be an autobio and lacks evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject appears to fail WP:BIO. Topher385 (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - I didn't see any mentions on Google and Yahoo except Facebook and his blogs. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannis Kontos[edit]

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

Notability? I was unable to find reliable, secondary sources to establish notability under WP:GNG, and I didn't see a claim of notability under WP:ATHLETE. Haven't dealt with a lot of volleyball players, though, so if I'm missing a usual handling of them, please be gentle. Additional sources welcomed, as always. Language barrier and an identically named poet/author are potential issues. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 15:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also tried and failed to find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PokerStrategy.com[edit]

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

Contested PROD: non-notable poker website that lacks reliable source coverage. Previously deleted, nothing seems to have changed since last AfD: it's still a promotional article for a non-notable website. The reasons given when contesting the PROD suffer from WP:ATA problems. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see third-party sources on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This website doesn't seem to have received any commentary from reliable sources. Other than mere mentions of it's existence, there's nothing that could be used to create an article. Lord Arador (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First, I want to be open and make clear that I am working for this site. Being situated not in a big city and generally not covered well, I was rejoiced when I recently saw that some one took the time to make an article - I think a lot of players, people in the industry, potential applicants etc. have been looking for this article in vain before. // (A) Why do I think the article is relevant? - It's the by far biggest website on poker (see e.g. http://www.pokerscout.com/PokerInfoSites.aspx) and with its 5m+ members, it holds a day-to-day relevance for many people in many countries. (B) If arguing for deletion, it would be great to have some more argumentation - there are quite some sources, such as industry magazine EGRMagazine. Why exactly is this not a 'reliable source'? I deem renowned industry magazines in a market reliable. Gibralterra (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Joan[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Non notable breakcore artist. Doing one album which features a notable artist does not constitute notability. Also, there are no reliable third party sources. The Undead Never Die (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If he fails specific guideline, then the article must not be kept, but if the album has charted, it turns the way all around. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did find this, but that's nowhere near WP:MUSIC. Lucky not to have been speedied. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Gigwise article is fine as coverage and there's also this, this, and this. It's not an awful lot but enough to have a well-enough sourced stub. --Michig (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. There are a lack of reliable sources to prove its notability. Truthsort (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to discuss Michig's sources. Sandstein 18:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources Michig provided do not establish notability. Truthsort (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always felt that when a band does not meet any of criteria 2-12 of WP:MUSIC, it should only be deemed notable on criterion #1 (independent third-party coverage) if it unequivocally meets this requirement - otherwise, we put a few mentions in the local paper in the same league as going on a national tour or entering the album/singles chart. The sources that have been found are some reviews in gigwise, one article in BBC News and one article from The Observer. The Observer article is about bands in Bristol in general which mentions Big Joan in one sentence, and the BBC News article is a local What's On article. The Gigwise coverage is better, and had there been more sources like this one there would have been a case for better coverage, but as Gigwise appears to be a website whose purpose is to cover as many gigs as possible, I'm afraid this isn't enough to get a meaningful encyclopaedic article out of it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would beg to differ - we already have a meaningful, sourced encyclopedia article here.--Michig (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CADO Reference Frame for an Accelerating Observer[edit]

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

Article promoting the author's views on how to tackle the Twin paradox and other issues in Relativity. The only ghits are to pages or comments posted by the author, nothing in google scholar. The references supplied don't mention the "CADO frame". This is original research lacking reliable sources andy (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(my response to Andy Smith:)

You wrote: "References don't mention the "CADO frame". This is original research lacking reliable sources".

My CADO article is a description of the material in reference 1. It was published in a refereed physics journal, more than ten years ago. Although the exact phrase "CADO frame" may or may not appear anywhere in that published paper, the phrase "CADO" is used pervasively, and there is no doubt that the definitions and results specify a frame of reference for an accelerating observer.

The CADO reference frame fills an important need: as far as I know, it is the only published definition of a reference frame that is consistent both with Taylor and Wheeler's results, in Example 49 of their SPACETIME PHYSICS book, and with the "gravitational time dilation" frame described on the "Twin paradox" Wiki page, both of which are widely accepted. Taylor and Wheeler use the same MSIRF concept, to define a frame for the traveleing twin, that I use (although they use different terms to describe it). But their analysis only addressed the idealized case of an instantaneous turnaround. The CADO frame extends their approach to any and all acceleration profiles, and such a generalization was needed and is important.

There have been other published reference frames defined for an accelerating observer, which, like the CADO frame, don't rely on fictitious gravitational fields, but (as far as I know) they are not consistent with Taylor and Wheeler's results, nor with the gravitational time dilation results. Michael Fontenot (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(my response to RHaworth):

In Wiki's description of the term "original research", it says "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." My article, and my reference [1], both conform to that requirement. And in Wiki's description of "reliable sources" it says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Again, my reference [1] meets that test. Michael Fontenot (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - reference #1 was written by you! You can't be your own reliable source. Please provide direct quotes from the other sources to show that they either use the term "CADO frame" or that they directly support the article - i.e. that they echo the thesis of the article in clear and unequivocal terms that any well informed, independent and reasonable third party would count as direct support rather than your own interpretation of what they might mean. andy (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

(My response to Shuba and Smith):

In each of the three references (Dolby&Gull, Minguzzi, and Taylor&Wheeler) that I have cited, in the subsection "Reference frames without fictitious gravitational fields, for the accelerating twin" (which I have added to the "Twin Paradox" Wiki article), the authors explicitly provide their answer to the question: "How does the home-twin's age change, according to the traveler, as the traveler's trip proceeds?". Any rational person reading those references cannot fail to conclude that those authors' three answers are all different. It is absurd to contend that some additional published source is needed, in order to reliably come to that conclusion.

In the section preceding my added subsection, there is a reference cited (Einstein, 1918) which gives the "gravitational time dilation" determination of the traveler's viewpoint. That reference answers the above question with the same answer that Taylor&Wheeler give, although the approach used in Einstein-1918 to get that answer is quite different (fictitious gravitational fields are utilized).

My CADO reference (which I cited in the subsection I added to the "Twin Paradox" article) explicitly gives the same answer that both Taylor&Wheeler and Einstein-1918 got: all three of those references say that the home-twin's age will change abruptly during the traveler's abrupt turnaround.

Dolby&Gull, and Minguzzi, clearly do not get that answer: they say that the home-twin's age changes only gradually, over a prolonged period of the trip, even when the traveler's turnaround is instantaneous. But they disagree with one another about how that gradual "her age versus his age, according to him" curve is shaped.

Michael Fontenot (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) As I explained on your talk page Wikipedia is not a place for promoting your own views even if you are certain that they are correct. Who, apart from yourself, takes your point of view? Who, apart from yourself, believes that your paper, around which the article is based, is "part of accepted knowledge" per WP:NOTESSAY? Who, apart from yourself, cites your paper in a reliable secondary source? andy (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete For the mentioned reasons. MadCow257 (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure original —although correct and valuable— research. Sorry, Mike. DVdm (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; looks like just the kind of thing the OR label was invented for. bobrayner (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the article's author has been indef blocked for edit warring on a related article. andy (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nouha Dicko[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:NFOOTY having not played in a fully professional league. There's some coverage out there but not enough to pass WP:GNG yet. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established. Truthsort (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable player. Safiel (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He does have 3 appearances for RC Strasbourg, one of the most historically prominent clubs in France (played in the Championnat National last season, one place below Ligue 2, but not quite fully professional). But by the letter of the law he's not notable enough. ugen64 (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Lydon[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player, no longer in affiliated baseball so unlikely to make it to the major leagues Spanneraol (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BASEBALL/N. Truthsort (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a 9th round choice, never made it to the majors, nothing in college or high school career raises him above the bar for an article. Blueboy 96 19:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never made the Major Leagues, nowhere to merge, quick glance at google looks like the usual he played in a game mentions. Secret ^account 05:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BASEBALL/N. Lacks non-routine coverage is multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. This WP:Run-of-the-mill player does not deserve a standalone article. Since he is not active in 2011, he also cannot be merged to a related minor league player article. —Bagumba (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Twardzik[edit]

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

Good faith creation; author believes that this article passes WP:GNG (despite failing WP:NFOOTBALL) and approached me for my views. I disagree, and believe the subject is not yet notable, so we decided to bring it here for wider views. Giant Snowman 16:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He may at this point fail WP:NFOOTBALL, but he (and brother) are prominent subjects of two articles (already provided and linked in the article), and that, IMO, meets the threshold of WP:GNG, which is all you have to meet for inclusion these days. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wish you guys would hang out whenever an American high school athlete's article goes up for deletion ... it seems they rarely get cut. So be it ... LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage regarding his transfer is nothing more than run-of-the-mill, and fails WP:NTEMP. Giant Snowman 17:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL at present moment (although that could change at any time), but I think he meets WP:GNG. I think the interview in the Daily Record goes beyond WP:ROUTINE. And while his transfer may come under WP:NTEMP at the moment it is fair to assume that he is not "likely to remain, a low-profile individual" as stated there. The reason I chose Filip over Patrik is that Filip is much more likely to make his first team debut this season, (played in several first team friendly matches and was on the bench a lot last season). And with the injury to first choice left back Emilio Izaguirre for 4-6 months, he is likely to play relatively soon (As Neil Lennon said in a post match interview). Adam4267 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable reserve/youth team footballer. See WP:CBALL Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PorridgeGobbler (talk • contribs) 19:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Player has reliable secondary articles written about him. So is not non-notable. Whether this is enough to pass WP:GNG is what we have to decide. Adam4267 (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is notable to some degree but he fails WP:NFOOTBALL we arent a crystal ball so the decision is whether or not he meets GNG now not in a few days time even though it seems he might. If the scotsman and the daily record article are the only non footballing articles available them in my opinion he does fail GNG. I tried a quick scan of google and thats pretty much all i could find amiss a lot of unreliable blog articles. If that changes and more can be found then he might scrape GNG but for now its a delete. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I personally wish things would change WP:N absolutely trumps WP:NFOOTBALL. If one says "He is notable to some degree" (and you mean "notable in a Wikipedia sense"), then you are saying that policy supports inclusion in this case. For the record, I do agree with being careful about crystalballism. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

first of all I said notable to some extent as he has had two articles written about his transfers which are from decent sources. However I don't feel certain that makes him notable in a wiki sense. If there was slightly more coverage then fair enough but if we keep this it's because it's only just scraping through. Is there a source with Neil Lennon talking about him playing from a reliable source not a blog. Warburton1368 (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Lennon just mentioned him in passing during the post match interview, it wouldn't be enough for notability on its own. However he has been mentioned in passing in quite a lot of media; several match reports, stats databases and by Neil Lennon. I think we all agree that he is notable to some degree at the present time. I am not trying to say he is non-notable now and will be notable tomorrow. He is notable, to some degree, now and is likely to become more notable soon. Adam4267 (talk) 11:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Wikipedia diesn't have those degrees of notability - you're either notable enough for an article, or you're not. Giant Snowman 12:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable youth-level footballer without any experience on the senior level. - Darwinek (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it's possible for a youth footballer to receive enough significant media coverage to pass WP:GNG, it's pretty unusual. In this case, the report of his signing for Celtic is routine sports reporting, and the other piece, while more substantial, isn't enough. WP:N sums up notable topics as "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". Mr Twardzik hasn't, yet. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, non admin closure, WP:SNOW.The Undead Never Die (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meital Dohan[edit]

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

Non-notable actress seems to fail WP:ENT. EyeSerene^talk 16:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC) EyeSerene^talk 16:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn thanks to MichaelQSchmidt's fantastic work in improving this article. EyeSerene^talk 06:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any other sources on Yahoo and Google that could help a biography aside from IMDb.Keep - Since sources have been found and the article has been written appropriately to Wikipedian guidelines, I suppose the article can stay. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I have seen less notable actresses BLP's surviving. --BweeB (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO[9] and WP:ENT[10]. While the article itself needs work for style and tone, the actress and her work and awards are verifiable and do seem to get coverage in sources[11][12] which would allow article improvements. I think this will be my improvement focus for tomorrow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources seem to be passing mentions (ie cast lists and the like). Is there anything that would support our requirement for meeting every clause of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:BIO? EyeSerene^talk 11:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  While nice, the GNG is not the policy, and is only one the many means by which we determine if something may be worthy of note. The pertinant part of WP:BIO is WP:ANYBIO's stating this person "...has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". And while that fact requires verifiability, the verification does not itself have to be significant coverage.
  
  And as this article is a work in progress, a presumption that those many "seeming" mentions will lead to something more substantial is reasonable. I do not read Israeli, but I will see what I can find, as notable in Israel is just fine for en.Wikipedia, and our requirement per WP:ENT means verificability of the many notable productions and a presumption of coverage, even if not immediately found or in English. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interestingly, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs offers a comprehensive article.[13] More a-comin'. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The paragraphs in the Playbill article covering the Anthony Neilson stageplay Stitching (in which she had a starring role) contain something more than a mere mention,[14] and offer decent information suitable for mandated verification. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article about her in Los Angeles Times,[15] covering her background and her role in Monogamy, is also one that represents significant and in-depth coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Though brief, the article about her in Israel21c also addresses her directly and in detail.[16] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Village Voice spoke in depth about her original stageplay Bath Party.[17] That and others show her meeting WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The New York Times also was one to devote a complete review of Dohan and her work in her play Bath Party.[18] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And too, The New York Times spoke directly and in detail about her performance in the Anthony Neilson play Stitching.[19] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Monsters & Critics also offers in-depth and significant coverage of this actress.[20] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would ask that editors and the nominator consider how the article and sourcing looked when first nominated [21] and compare that earlier version to the improved version after I have addressed concerns.[22] I was able to find and the requested significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so as to confirm meeting WP:GNG, WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. I believe my original reasons for !voting "keep" have been born out through only a little effort. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MichaelQSchmidt has proven its notable without any reasonable doubt. Not sure if the nominator can withdrawn this sicne one other person did say Delete. Dream Focus 15:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators can change their minds and withdraw anytime. A sole delete will simply hold off a "speedy" snow keep close. That sole delete !vote has been notified of the article improvemnents, but appears to have not made any edits since before the notice was placed.[23]] Our choices are either to be patient or to not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milroy goes[edit]

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

Film director with no evidence of notability. A single film to his credit, which has received no perceivable attention in independent media. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable student filmmaker writing about himself. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. No independent sources. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Shehzad[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, unable to find significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. All sources cited (as well as all sources I was able to locate) are credits for articles written by this journalist. Article was deleted under WP:PROD but was undeleted at the request of the subject and principal author of the article. Hut 8.5 16:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see anything on Google and Yahoo that could help a biography. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per proposal. Blatantly promotive article containing no indication of notability, and searches provide nothing. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. discussion of potential rename can continue on article talk page (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian rabbis[edit]

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

After the deletion of Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis and other related categories per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_2#Category:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis, Chesdovi (talk · contribs) continues his tendentious editing with the creation of an article about a fictional term. There is no such thing as a "Palestinian rabbi", and the term doesn't denote anything. I do not mean the fact that "Palestinian rabbi" may be misunderstood as "Rabbi with Palestinian nationality" or (even more unlikely to happen) "Rabbi of Palestinian ethnicity". These alone are more likely reasons to delete a category, not an article. I mean that the term simply doesn't exist. And the creator and so far sole editor of this article states that himself implicitly in the first sentence "Palestinian rabbis encompasses all rabbis who lived in the region known as Palestine", which is his own made-up definition. In addition, the usage of the term Palestine for this region also is incorrect, since the region has been called by many names through the ages, as has been argued profusely in the Cfd discussion.

This editor has shown that he is relentless in his tendentious editing, as he has shown when protracting the deletion discussion above for two months after initial deletion of that category taking it to all possible places with an Rfc, Drv and finally to Cfd, and has been topic-banned from all pages involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The creation of this article about a term of his own fiction, is just another step in this. Btw, I would have speedied this, but I think it is more proper to go directly to Afd, so that editors may comment on both the article and the editor, and so that I shouldn't be accused (again) by Chesdovi of evading discussion. I recommend reading the long Cfd discussion and perhaps the Rfc (if somebody will temporarily undelete it) to get the proper perspective on both the issue and the editor. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reason added later: there is nothing defining (in the sense of setting apart) about an English rabbi compared to, say, a French rabbi, or a Palestinian one. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although I seriously doubted that such a minuscule and obviously contrived topic could have garnered any serious coverage in reliable sources, I looked anyway, and found nothing. To my knowledge from the research I have done into this "topic" there has never been an instance of third party coverage or encyclopedic discussion about, "Rabbis," who are in an ambiguously determined way, "from Palestine," neither on the internet nor even a passing mention in a book. This topic wouldn't even deserve a list in my opinion. Lord Arador (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There must be hundreds of books dedicated to the subject matter. Here’s one: [24] How could you have missed the term being used in over 90% of the presented sources? Chesdovi (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it is easy to find sources on a similar topic, for example to look up books and articles about certain rabbis, or about rabbi social structure at a certain time, as you presented, in Roman Palestine, it takes more than a simple google search of the article's title to find sources on the actual topic. Sure, those are all worthy topics you presented as sources in and of themselves, but the article in question for deletion is about none of those topics. No, it is about the rabbis themselves, as a specific and continuing socially constructed group that has evolved, "up till modern times." I agree with Debresser's contention that no such continually evolving social group exists. From a systematic viewpoint, the religion Judaism itself has an inheritance of such fundamental changes that no social group, for example living rabbis in the Palestinian area, could claim a direct social evolutionary decent from the "original" rabbis which the article claims to be the tannaim. That line of thought precludes centuries of tribal involvement in Judaism, specifically the Levites, as well as Roman intervention, which astoundingly enough the article makes mention to, and the modern intervention and displacement of the Israelites from the Zion area. All the sources provided by the author of this article and by the supporters for keeping the article should be taken to separate and more appropriate pages, perhaps some new articles can be created from them, but the mishmashing of dozens of topics into one very confusing and misleading article is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Lord Arador (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you not support renaming to, let's say, History of rabbis in Palestine? Please also note that nearly all books about sages during the Talmudic era call them Palestinian rabbis. I don't see why such a page needs to be about a continual evolution. It deals with rabbis of Palestine, all rabbis whoever lived in and made Palestine there home are called "Palestinian". They do not need to have "connections" with rabbis of previous generations. In fact they do: They are rabbis who also live in Palestine. Hey presto. The connection! There are indeed a number of topics covered, but the common factor is: Rabbis in Palestine, hence the article name. I cannot see why it is "misleading". As linked below by Nab's comment, there is a book in Hebrew titled: Encyclopedia of the rabbis of the Land of Israel. Chesdovi (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Debresser is nominating for the following 3 reasons:
- "There is no such thing as a "Palestinian rabbi", and the term doesn't denote anything."
- "Palestinian rabbis encompasses all rabbis who lived in the region known as Palestine", which is his own made-up definition."
- "The usage of the term Palestine for this region also is incorrect, since the region has been called by many names through the ages."

I created the article based upon 1 reason: The wide application of the term in reliable sources.

This article is about a historical appellation. Contrary to Debresser’s claim, there is such a thing as rabbis who lived in what was/is termed Palestine, and it is therefore correct classify them “Palestinian rabbis.” And no, I did not “make this up!” Nor is it a "fictional term." Far from it. The term “Palestinian rabbi” is used widely by academia and its extensive usage, particularly among by Jewish and Israeli scholars, provides ample support for retention of this beautifully presented article. Over 90% of the presented sources use the term. Chesdovi (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were rabbis of the Palestinian Patriarchate, there were Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine, there were rabbis who wrote the Jerusalem Talmud (which is sometimes called the "Palestinian Talmud"). But to unite all these and more unrelated rabbis under the umbrella "Palestinian rabbis" is a fiction and part of Chesdovi's tendentious editing. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What title would you suggest? Chesdovi (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest deletion. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed from the first comment that the problem was the unification of various Palestinian rabbis. Do you suggest splitting the article? Chesdovi (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must have misunderstood my intentions. Nothing to split here. You already created Palestinian Patriarchate, which is a doubtful term in itself, since it seems to me it is also in part an umbrella term, but at least that one was made by certain academic circles. But "Palestinian rabbis" is a no-option deletion imho, per my argument(s) above. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the procees of creating English rabbis. I need to know if you intend to nominate that too for Afd? Chesdovi (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by the same reasoning. There is nothing defining about being an English or French rabbi. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The country a person is from defines that person. I can't see how this is much different from Palestinian Jews. Chesdovi (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jews are different in different countries, with different customs e.g. In this respect, rabbis are like all Jews. So again there is no reason to single out rabbis. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and I honestly cannot understand how somebody can possibly contend that this is either a made up term or that it is an "obviously contrived topic" that has no reliable source coverage. In the 10 seconds I spent looking, I found this. This book, published by Oxford University Press, discusses these rabbis extensively, as does this one (published by BRILL). This one published by Cambridge University Press likewise discusses these rabbis, as does this one. Then, going to the academic journals, one finds numerous sources discussing such rabbis. One of them is Palestinian rabbis and the conversion of Constantine to Christianity, in P. Schäfer and C. Hezser, eds., The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. II (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2000), pp. 1-9. There are an abundance of such sources, and to claim that none exist is just baffling. nableezy - 17:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's just in English. There are also many book in Hebrew on the subject: [25]. Chesdovi (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sources all use the term to refer to rabbis living in this region in a specific age. Chesdovi made an additional step, uniting all rabbis who ever lived here under this term, and that is fiction.

What do you mean "fiction". Thats what RS call them. Chesdovi (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's like having an article called baseball players (note the plural, and note that this is a redirect to Baseball), and saying that that is a meaningful article because there have been notable baseball players who have each in their own right been called "baseball player", but that doesn't mean that there is something defining setting apart baseball players from other sportsmen. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. But also note that Baseball players is a redirect because Baseball alone can accomodate it. But this article cannot be merged into rabbis as it deals extensivley with the rabbis of Palestine only. I have had a potter around wiki and it seems all such similar titled pages, e.g. "Italian artists" are redirects to "List of Italain artists" instead. Many also have a separate page called Italian art too. But this page is still acceptable, just like Greek scholars in the Renaissance is. Chesdovi (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below to Alansohn, at best this article is a content fork of Palestinian Jews. I have no problem at all with a merge of relevant content in to that article. I do appreciate that you have done a lot of work. I just think that this article with the name "Palestinian rabbis" has not right of existence. But the information could definitely be merged. Debresser (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's scope and content seems quite reasonable and well-supported by sources. It is not our editing policy to delete such material. Warden (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it is our policy to delete articles about non-existing entities. See my previous post. Perhaps you should try and reread the reason for nomination. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have clearly been many rabbis in Palestine so your point is counter-factual. And, in any case, existence is not necessary for our topics - see Russell's teapot. Warden (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading the nomination and the article several times, it seems clear to me that the article (and the sources it provides) address the issues raised in the nomination. This is a well-sourced article, with several dozen reliable and verifiable sources, that establishes the term and its notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not so. This article is just a historical overview of people who were rabbis in a certain area, which was sometimes called Palestine. Viewed as such, it is a content fork of Palestinian Jews. And I can't escape the thought that you should take into account that this article is part of Chesdovi's tendentious editing. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A clearly encyclopedia-worthy topic, backed by sourcing. Obviously, the title of the article is like a handgrenade salad, but that doesn't change the fact that this is scholarly and factual. My one complaint is with the very spammy way books are listed, linking titles to the giant corporation known as Google — which IS making big bucks off e-book sales these days, complete with bookseller UPC codes (ISBNs), which people continue to think is some magic aid to WP users. No. It is an aid to booksellers, specifically publishers. If you want to find a book in your library, you don't enter the UPC code, you enter the author and the title. If you want to buy a used copy on ABE or bookfinder or some other firm, you don't enter the UPC code, you enter the author title and the publisher and maybe the date. UPC numbers, (ISBNs) are bookselling tooks and WP needs to decommercialize itself by eliminating these. Google is not your friend. End of rant. Carrite (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to avoid linking directly to Google books now for similar reasons but you're seem to be going too far in deprecating ISBNs. These are subject to an ISO standard and are assigned by an international agency and so seem quite neutral. The way that we link them lets the reader decide whether to use Google Books, Amazon, World Cat, Goodreads, &c... Warden (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason so many books are linked is so that it can be seen that all these books contain the words "Palestinian rabbi" in them, something Debresser wants to gloss over. All the recent chief rabbis of the UK have used the term to describe such rabbis, as have prominent Jewish historians such as Cecil Roth. It is also used in the translation of many religious Jewish texts as I presented at the Rfc. Yet Debresser claims the term is used by a "minority" and is a "fictional term". What lies I tell you! Chesdovi (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a ton of orthdox jews living in Palestine that are happy and well and identify as Palestinian and oppose Zionism. Ignoring reality isn't what wikipedia is about.Longthicknosnip (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an interesting topic under a suitable name. The name "Palestine" for the place concerned has been in use for two thousand years by Jews and non-Jews alike. The argument for deletion seems to be based on an attack on the good faith of the article's sole author so far. The only good argument for deletion I could imagine would be that the content is already covered in an existing article, and this has not been suggested. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do yo not see that this is precisely like an article American baseball players? Which surely you would disagree with, saying that there is no reason to single out American baseball players from others. And that the article would at best be a collection of unrelated information about each American baseball player. That is precisely what this is! There is nothing defining about being a Palestinian rabbi as opposed to a Belgian one. Nor is there any connection between the information in the different sections of this article.

Palestinian rabbi's wore tabooshes and spoke Arabic. They wrote discourses, instructed their flock and had a hand in the evolution of the community's customs as influenced by their location in Palestine. Belgian rabbis ate chocolates and spoke Flemish. They wrote discourses, instructed their flock and had a hand in the evolution of the community's customs as influenced by the local Belgian culture. If someone wrote an article about American baseball players I am sure it would be as fascinating as this one. Hopefully it would be more comprehensive than let's say Australian rugby league premiers or Australian Living Treasures. Maybe something along the lines of Greek scholars in the Renaissance... Chesdovi (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a very brief search I found Baseball America, National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Baseball Writers Association of America, History of baseball in the United States and American Baseball Coaches Association, which perhaps begin to allay any anxiety about American baseball players. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I have mentioned that the information in this article would better be merged into Palestinian Jews, saying that at best this article is a content fork of that more general article. Debresser (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Jews in its current form is in no way "more general", being limited to the last couple of centuries and mired in disputes about nomenclature. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a place called Palestine and it contains people who describe themselves as orthodox Jews. There are also plenty of sources already listed for this perfectly encyclopaedic topic. I do understand why pro-Israel editors would want this article gone, but I'm afraid I see that as purely politically motivated.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope that "pro-Israel editors" and "politically motivated" were not in reference to me. Debresser (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in reference to those who object to the term "Palestinian". My position is that to object to the word "Palestinian" is normally evidence of (a) a pro-Israel view, and (b) a political view.—S Marshall T/C 15:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Why did Debresser not nominate Category:Palestinian monks for deletion? Are these early Christian monks connected with the modern political entity? No! If the term Palestinian is "confusing", it should be confusing for everyone, not just Jewish rabbis. Debresser can try and explain the various reasons why he only nominates for deletion Palestinian categories about Jews, but by doing so, he has effectively shown himself to being politically motivated. Does the same "problem" arise with many other country/region specific categories. Why are Italian rabbis called so if when they lived, Italy was not called Italy?! But Debresser only finds a problem with "Palestinian". Clearly an attempt to sever the connection of Jews in the Holy Land with the historical term Palestine. Why? Because Palestine represents the enemy of the modern state of Israel? What nonsense! Chesdovi (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys, let's try to keep the conversation civil. I am sure that Debresser's motivations were sincere, and his suggestion to delete this article was out of ignorance rather than malice. As he clearly states in his opening argument, he was unaware that there really was a clearly defined group of rabbis from historical Palestine who made specific contributions to Judaism. Perhaps now that he has been exposed to the arguments he will revise his opinion. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article discusses an important and well-documented Rabbinical tradition in Jewish history. These rabbis, who are identified in all the historical literature by this name, were instrumental in defining key elements of Jewish tradition, including the structure of the Jewish Bible, the rules of Hebrew grammar, the codification of the Mishnah, and more. The suggestion that this is an invented topic is surely out of ignorance. I recommend to the supporters of deletion to read the article and read the sources, and reconsider their opinion. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ravpapa, please don't be denigrating. My ignorance is actually your lack of understanding. There may have been rabbis, even groups, that is not being questioned. But calling all of the unrelated rabbis and group by one umbrella name is a product of fiction. Debresser (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you felt my remarks were denigrating. I do urge you to reread the article, which, I believe, makes pretty clear that it is not about a bunch of "unrelated rabbis" but about a consistent school of thought over a number of centuries that had a decisive impact on the Jewish religion. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I do respect your opinion, but respectfully disagree with it. But yes, the article is the touchstone. Debresser (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Just give it a ref~~ (see below) — I've added a ((cn)) to the term. Fill in the ref and it's kept; don't give a ref and it needs to be deleted. It's that simple. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Prove that not only have single rabbis been called Palestinian, but that "Palestinian rabbis" is the collective name for all rabbis who ever lived in this area, and there you go. Debresser (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is absurd: Provide a source that mentions that all Popes from Poland are collectively referred to as Polish… The lead does not need references if the main body of the articles contains the necessary sources. Chesdovi (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After this commentary, you must now admit that this article must be deleted. There is no article Polish popes! And for the very same reason I have been repeating here without much success so far, until you of all people now agree with me: there is nothing more than coincidence connecting "Polish" and "popes", just like there is nothing connecting "Palestinian" and "rabbi", apart from a coincidental period of the one living in the other (and often for only a minor part of his active life). Debresser (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be able to live with a list called List of rabbis who ever lived in Palestine, even though that would be problematic as well because of the fatc that the term "Palestine" was only sometimes the official name of this area. I vastly prefer the term "Land of Israel" in this respect. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why Debresser thinks Polish popes is an outlandish suggestion is strange. Is it just as valid as this page. And, notwithstanding his “vastly preferred” term Land of Israel, the proposal that he could “bring himself to live with” is merely a suggestion to replace all this source material with a list of Palestinian rabbis, which I encourage him to produce. Chesdovi (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Roman times "Palestine" has always been an acceptable and comprehensible name for the area, whether or not "official", whereas "land of Israel" can only be an anachronism thinly concealing a POV push. The only other name I can think of which has real historical validity is "Holy Land", which was possibly the majority term in pre-1947 English. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case this is not the issue here. The issue is that there is no term collectively describing rabbis who lived in the Holy Land during all kinds of ages as "Palestinian rabbis", and that this article therefore describes a non-existing entity, and as Chesdovi has no agreed to should therefore not exist. Debresser (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes thing are just too patently obvious, I wonder what exactly the problem is. The place was known as Palestine. Therefore any groups of people from there are naturally called Palestinian. End of discussion. Just like medieval rabbis who lived in Ottoman ruled Damascus are called Syrian rabbis. Just like medieval rabbis monks who lived in Ottoman ruled Palestine are called Palestinian monks. Enough of this bunkum. Chesdovi (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Rename After reconsideration below. Chesdovi (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — the "Polish popes"-thing now makes it obvious. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coptic Orthodox Popes of Alexandria. What did you request a ref for? That the term is applied to rabbis who lived in Palestine? There is no dearth.... Chesdovi (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see why you disagreed with the Polish popes point, as there has only ever been one. But let's use Polish rabbis instead. There is enough material out there to put together a comprehensive article about Polish rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAP. The issue here is not whether or not there were rabbis in that geographic area. The issue is whether or not the term "Palestinian rabbi" exists. There are cats in America; that doesn't make them "American cats". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually checked the source here, over 90% of whcih use the term!! Here's a source that shows that rabbis Palestine are called "Palestinian rabbis":

This study also examines rabbis who lived in Palestine under Roman domination from the late first century CE, the approximate date of our earliest reliable rabbinic sources, until the eighth century CE the approximate date of the final editing of the latest classical midrashim. This book refers to Palestinian rabbis of the first, second and early third centuries CE as Tannaim…. [26]. Chesdovi (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

African elephant, African Forest Elephant, North African Elephant, Borneo Elephant, Chinese elephant, Javan elephant, Indian Elephant, Sri Lankan Elephant, Syrian Elephant, Sumatran Elephant. Now shall we start with Cats in the United States? Chesdovi (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your elephant-example is irrelevant, that's what's they're indeed called; "Cats in the United States" is not the same as "American cats", don't pretend that you don't know the difference. I would have no problem with "Rabbis in Palestine" or some such; this is about the deployment of the adjective — do you understand now? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

African elephant is a species of elephant in Africa. Elephants in African cover all species of elephants in Africa. Both are valid, as are Rabbis in Palestine and Palestinian rabbis. Has it slipped you attention that over 90% of the articles sources use the term “Palestinian Rabbi” as shown in the above quote? You will see that most Category:Rabbis by country use the adjective as a prefix, as do most other similarly named categories when describing people from various region/countries. We should keep page names consistent, don’t you think? If you still prefer Rabbis in Palestine, why do you still want this material to be deleted? Chesdovi (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough; so rename it. You know quite well that it is not as easy with adjectives in that particular part of the world, and when it comes to animals, there isn't really a misunderstanding possible: no-one would think that an African elephant is black and speaks Swahili or whatever. "Palestinian" these days, to most people at least, applies to speakers of Arabic in the area. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a 2011 media outlet. It is to inform and educate people. Sure, some terms have different meanings for different people, but that does not preclude us from using such terms in a way that the majority of contemporary RS do. There is no question that the historic term for the region in English usage is Palestine. It is therefore correct and proper to call historic people from there Palestinian, as do all reputable RS who mention such people. I constantly come across the term when reading Judaic works as I presented at the Rfc. Do you? Chesdovi (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that American rabbis also called their brethren in Palestine Palestinian: Ezras Torah Fund for Relief of European and Palestinian Rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of David Ben-Gurion: “Rabbi Yitzhak of Acre was not the only Palestinian scholar to leave the country in this period". Chesdovi (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning, Polish rabbis is a piped link to List of Polish rabbis. As I said before, I'd have no problem with a list, but there simply isn't such a thing as a collective term "Palestinian rabbis". Debresser (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above proves quote you wrong. Rabbis (note plural) from Palestine are known as "Palestinian rabbis". Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think there was a Palestinian identity before the state of Israel came into excistence. People clung to their tribe, not to a national identity. Deletion is my prefered choice, but renaming it to "Category:People living in the pre-1948 territory named Palestina" could also be possible. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources refer to such people as Palestinian. Sorry. Chesdovi (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources. And only to individuals, not as a group spanning two millennia. Debresser (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. The vast majority of sources, to individuals and groups, and from all eras. Debresser really does himself a dis-service here. Chesdovi (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not so. Only to individuals or closely connected groups of rabbis. Nobody perceives rabbis in this area for the last 2000 years as one group. Because they weren't. Some belonged to a Gaonate, other were Talmudic rabbis, yet other medieval kabbalists, others chassidic masters, yet others were early or later settlers of Israel. Most lived only part of their productive lives in this area. There is nothing in common between them justifying this general name. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They all fall under one general term as documented in the RS: Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NotBW: Please note this is not a category! :-) Chesdovi (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, my mistake. But in fact it does not alter my opinion about removal or renaming. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are for rename to Rabbis living in the pre-1948 territory named Palestina. I could possibly go with that. Chesdovi (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) We should not have articles like "People of occupation X living in region Y". Which is precisely why this article should go. Debresser (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just said above "I'd have no problem with a list." Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I reread this article, the dispute between Debresser and Chesdovi, as well as my own comments, and I now realize that what is obvious to me might not be obvious to other readers. Perhaps because I have a passing familiarity with this history.

My point above was that this article is not about a random collection of rabbis, who happened to live in CysJordan. My point is that the rabbinical schools mentioned in the article constitute a unified historical tradition. The rabbis themselves, as well as the Jewish residents of the region, viewed themselves this way. The Massoretes considered themselves the continuation of the Tannaim, and the movement to reestablish smikha, discussed in the section "Attempt to revive ordination" was an effort to formalize the chain of tradition and authority which was informally recognized by all the rabbis of the region.

In this sense, the article is not at all like Notable musicians from Vienna, which is a list of musicians who happened to have their home in Vienna. Chesdovi's example of Cats in the United States is unfortunate.

Since the importance of this continuity - which is supported by the sources - is not apparent to those who suggest deletion of this article, I urge the editors who created it to revise it to strengthen this aspect of the Palestinian rabbinical tradition. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I should add that the above is true for all except the last section on "Palestinian Rabbinate". While the Sephardic chief rabbi calls himself the "Rishon Lezion", that is, heir to the rabbinical tradition stemming from the mid 17th century, the Ashkenazic chief rabbi has his roots in the European rabbinical tradition. Both these posts were established by the British mandatory rulers and are continued today by the state of Israel, but only the sephardic rabbi considers himself a continuation of the Palestinian rabbinical tradition. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The point of view brought forth by Ravpapa is untrue. I dare him to bring prove for it. Attempts to revive ordination were an attempt at reviving a tradition that was specifically considered broken (see Rabbinical_ordination#The_decline_of_classical_semikhah). Likewise, no rabbi in Israel will see himself a continuation of any local tradition that predates Yosef Karo (16th century). Nor could he, since there were times that Israel was all but void of Jewish inhabitants (let alone leading rabbis). Debresser (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is well known that the Jews claim connection to Palestine by dint of the presence of earlier generations of Jews who resided there. They see themselves as a continuation of the original Palestinian Jews, even though they came there from all over the globe in the late 19th-century. What Debresser just wrote seems to enforce the assumption that the connection was indeed broken since the land was for periods devoid of Jews and that today’s Jews are not related in any way to the Jews of yore. I can tell you that many an Arab will harbour the same sentiment: No Jew in Israel should see himself as a continuation of Jewish people who lived there before the 19th century since at times the land was devoid of Jews... So by what right do Jews claim Israel? I suggest Debresser read 2004 attempt to revive the Sanhedrin which shows that rabbis in Israel see themselves as heirs to the great Palestinian Academies of old. Chesdovi (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, had you called my contentions incorrect, I could have ignored you. But when you write that it is untrue, you are suggesting that I am not ignorant, but a liar. Not surprisingly, I find that offensive.

Because your remarks are insulting, I do not intend to make a detailed reply. Instead, I simply grabbed the nearest book at hand, A History of the Jews by Grayzel. Here is what he says:

"In some respects the interests of the Jews of Palestine differed from those of Babylonia. The latter were more concerned with the legal part of the Jewish tradition; the Palestinians favored the poetic and imaginative. This tendency, dating from very early times, was strengthened..."

This is, of course, a very superficial explanation of the nature of the Palestinian rabbinical tradition. I don't think your remarks merit any more detailed research, though, as I said above, I do think the editors who created this article should devote more of the article to this aspect. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does that quote show that has to do with the present discussion? Sorry, but I fail to see your point.

I had no intention to imply anything by choosing the word "untrue" over "incorrect". But it is still incorrect.

I am familiar with that article, and do not see there anything contradicting what I said, that there is no continuation of any "Palestine" tradition, just of a rabbinical tradition.

Nor could there be, as I have told you above, because there have been periods with negligible Jewish communities in the Holy Land.

Note that the discontinuity argument is not my main argument. My main argument is the one above that. It is just an additional observation of historic fact invalidating your assertions. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But presumably the discontinuity is enough ot cause Debresser to wish to delete History of the Jews in the Land of Israel? (I would argue for "Palestine" in that case). SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even begin to see what you're trying to say. Probably because it is something really not to the point. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rabbis of Palestine have a monopoly on ordination, and it is only able to be reinstated in Palestine. If it was a mere rabbinical traction, it could have been revived in anywhere. Ordination is the sole prerogative of Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Ordination is the prerogative of rabbis who have received ordination themselves in the Land of Israel. That is the most precise wording, based upon Jewish sources. Don't forget I am a rabbi. Debresser (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maimonides' view was that ordination could be reinstituted only with the consent of all the sages of Eretz Israel. The geder of what "of Eretz Israel" is, I do not know, but posiibly along the lines of intent for permanent residence, or even a residence of 30 days suffices. Ie. they need to be Eretz-Isralian, or in common english, Palestinian. Chesdovi (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“There is no such thing as a "Palestinian rabbi", and the term doesn't denote anything. I do not mean the fact that "Palestinian rabbi" may be misunderstood… I mean that the term simply doesn't exist.”

The term denotes rabbis of Palestine and the term does exist. I ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination. Chesdovi (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term denotes individual rabbis residing in the Land of Israel, and even that only in certain sources. There is no collective usage if this term for all rabbis, as this article by its very name suggests. So it should go. And do you remember the Polish popes argument? Debresser (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain "There is no collective usage if this term for all rabbis":

“Palestinian rabbis were undoubtedly aware of this new religion, particularly in the fourth century” - Calendar and community: a history of the Jewish calendar, second ... - Page 226.

“There was a minority of "infidels" in Egypt too, including some outstanding Palestinian rabbis who had settled there”- Gershom Gerhard Scholem - 1978

“Among the opponents of the Sabbatian agitation in Egypt were Palestinian rabbis who had settled there” - Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah, 1626-1676 - Page 642. Chesdovi (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certain sources? What do you mean by "certain sources"? I have come across the term in a plethora of RS in a wide variety of literature. Chesdovi (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi, with all due respect. It seems you don't understand my English. I'll repeat it just once more.: those quotes of yours refer to specific rabbis or small groups of rabbis. But there is no collective term "Palestinian rabbis" for all rabbis who lived in this area for the last 2000 years. It is a thing you made up. Very much like writing an article about Palestinian flora. There would be no connection between the entities in such an article which set them out as being "Palestinian". Debresser (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Palestinian flora would be a perfectly fine topic for an article. Zero^talk 11:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser said: "The term denotes individual rabbis residing in the Land of Israel, and even that only in certain sources". I want to know what he means by "certain sources"? Chesdovi (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much like the theoretically valid Polish Popes, an article entitled Flora Palaestina would document the native plants of Palestine. Chesdovi (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“There is no collective term "Palestinian rabbis" for all rabbis who lived in this area for the last 2000 years. It is a thing you made up.” Tell me, is there a collective term for all rabbis who lived in Spain, France or Poland during the past 1,300 years? If yes, prove it. If not, we delete all “Rabbi” categories. Chesdovi (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If "There is no collective term "Palestinian rabbis" for all rabbis who lived in this area for the last 2000 years," My question to Debresser is: Is there one? If yes, please provide the collective name, by era if necesarry, as you see fit, backed up by RS. If not, how do humans refer to rabbis who lived in Palestine over the last 2000 years, or is that it: "Rabbis who lived in Palestine over the last 2000 years?" Chesdovi (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is none. We could perhaps agree upon some desciptive term, though. Now, I don't feel you or I are adding anything new to this discussion, so please stop repeating yourself. Debresser (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“There is none. We could perhaps agree upon some descriptive term, though.” Funny, in Hebrew they are called חכמי ארץ־ישראל. Chesdovi (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT YOU MUST ANSWER: You said: "There is no collective term "Palestinian rabbis" for all rabbis who lived in this area for the last 2000 years. It is a thing you made up.” Tell me, is there a collective term for all rabbis who lived in Spain, France or Poland during the past 1,300 years? If yes, prove it. If not, we delete all “Rabbi” categories. Chesdovi (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I must nothing. Please take a little more modest position. 2. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Cfd_for_Category:Jews_by_country where I already replied to this ludicrous suggestion that you should study Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. 3. "Palestine" in the sense you are using it here is not a country, so there is no connection. 4. Please stop posting and repeating old arguments. Debresser (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It is someone trying to push a point of view that has already been deleted by wikipedia repeatedly and after weeks of debate. It appears that there were many categories with similar phrasing deleted after weeks of debate. This is suppose to be an encyclopedia, not a soap box for someone to push a cause. --Provimento (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provimento's account was created today, and this contribution is Provimento's sixth edit ever.—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Above comment added after Debresser removed — Provimento (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. claiming "He made 5 other edits before he came here". Chesdovi (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Hi African. PS. How does a day-old editor go from Peter Gotti to this page in 14 minutes? PPS. Where do you get the "Strong" from? Are you already that familiar with wiki? PPPS. Did you not notice in the nomination that a distinction was made between categories and pages? Also, it's interesting tht I have only been accused of "pushing" by one other editor. And the cause is adherance to WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME. When in the past 2,000 years has the name of the region been known by non-Jews as the Land of Israel? Did Omar call it that? Maybe the Crusaders did. Hang on, was it Suliman? Maybe under the rule of Mohammed Pasha? No, the Brits called it Israel. Well they did, didn't they - as an abbr: E"I? Funny how the usual translation of the DoI refers to Palestine... Chesdovi (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the number of edits a person has made with intent to diminish their perceived significance is an ad hominem argument. Ornithikos (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When a person makes a new account and immediately jumps in to an AfD, that tends to point in a certain direction. Informing others of that may be ad hominem, but appropriate nonetheless. nableezy - 08:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alansohn. This is a very simple and clear keep based on sources and consensus. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After studying the case for deletion given above, I am underwhelmed. The scope of the article is no less well defined than a large number of good articles, and the phrase is a very common one used by scholars to describe that scope. Zero^talk 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article may be misname, but its content is worth keeping.-MacRusgail (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alansohn and Chesdovi. RonaldMerchant (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is hard to attack, because it is factual, and hard to defend, because it can be seen as taking a position in a religious debate. However, the situation includes an interesting symmetry. Many Israeli citizens are Muslims, and some of those Muslims are doubtless Imams. Many other Imams must have preceded them through the centuries in the same geographical area, which in some views has always been Israel. Some of those Imams surely were and are as respected by their people as the Palestinian Rabbis were and are by theirs. Therefore: how about approving this Palestinian Rabbis article, and creating an article titled Israeli Imams that gives the same level of coverage to noteworthy Imams past and present in the territory known to many as Israel. Each article could then cross-reference the other, giving balanced coverage to the general topic of religious leadership in that part of the world. The current facts would all remain, many more would be added, and the symmetry would support all viewpoints. Ornithikos (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is the region is not known historically in RS as "Israel", otherwise there would be no problem calling these rabbis "Israeli Rabbis". You will find no sources about "Israeli Imams" before 1948. Chesdovi (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Reynolds (singer)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this punk singer under GNG or MUSICBIO. There is some coverage at this retailer: [27]. Additional sources welcomed, as always. -- joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 15:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Feinstein[edit]

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

Another in the series of promotional articles mentioned below. The sources are poor in this one - not in my view enough to support a bio article. Recommend this be deleted and redirected to Feinstein/McGuiness Public Relations (which probably has the best claim to notability of the bunch) EyeSerene^talk 14:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with EyeSerene. The few references that seem close to RS's are about the products rather than her. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Resume. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any notable mentions on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 02:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEMP Technologies[edit]

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

Another non-notable company (article created by recently blocked sock/meat farm, likely a PR company, that have been using WP for promotional purposes) EyeSerene^talk 14:22, 11 August 2011 (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.

Delete. Another non-notable networking appliances company advertising on Wikipedia. They have a flagship product. They produce load balancing networking products and application delivery appliances for small, medium and enterprise businesses. "Small, medium, and .... enterprise"???? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 95% of the article is essentially their product catalog and sales points for their products. No evidence of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete Spam. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found two mentions on Google and Yahoo, but aside from that I didn't see any other notable sources. SwisterTwister talk 19:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I find it odd that this article has been on the wiki for 2 years without comment, then, all of a sudden, there are four comments wanting to delete on the same day withing 4.5 hours of each other. Hmmmm. Maybe not coincidence. The content is very relevant to the companies business and to that of load-balancing and no more sales oriented than other company sites. And a quick check of the competition (F5, Radware, etc) shows much more sales and general blurb. Also, during the past 2 years KEMP has become much more successfull and a google search will show high click rates. Granted the information could be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cejayem (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infosurv[edit]

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

Non-notable company (article created by recently blocked sock/meat farm, likely a PR company, that have been using WP for promotional purposes) EyeSerene^talk 14:21, 11 August 2011 (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 Advertising-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Another non-notable online market research firm advertising on Wikipedia. The references that aren't to routine listings like Better Business Bureau or Inc 5000 lists are to stories on trade related websites that refer to surveys they made, which does not constitute significant coverage of the business itself. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. wp:notability is unclear. But there's no content to be lost; the content is essentially a promo piece for the company and their products. North8000 (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There isn't enough notability aside from this one mention here. I didn't see any other notable sources on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 21:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McBean[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN for me, hasn't played a competitive football match at senior level, so doesn't meet any criteria there. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NFOOTY states that youth players can be notable if they are shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. I believe that McBean meets GNG due to the extent of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (BBC, ESPN, LA Times, Daily Mail and others) for more than one event. My understanding is that WP:FOOTYN is not to be used as a guideline, but in any case that also states that any player may still be notable under GNG. Deserter1 14:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fails WP:NFOOTY but in my opinion passes GNG. Warburton1368 (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a case of WP:BLP1E I reckon i.e. all the media attention is about his nationality, nothing substantial or of note. GiantSnowman 14:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is his nationality "one event"? Jenks24 (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly has coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. This seems to constitute more than WP:ROUTINE coverage. Adam4267 (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously fails WP:NFOOTBALL but passes WP:GNG (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 16:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E failure. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys I'm asking permission to vote at this AfD, as I'm told I need to discuss all edits on Scottish football before making them. Would anyone object terribly if I voted? Obviously I would hate to cause any disruption. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No objection I see no reason as to why you cannot vote/comment here. Adam4267 (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Lots of coverage in reliable sources but mostly for Levein's comments. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this should be kept because he seems quite notable to me. Tony (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mainly per Deserter. While he clearly fails WP:NFOOTY (a section of WP:NSPORTS), the lead paragraph of NSPORTS clearly states that a person can still be notable per GNG, whether they meet NSPORTS or not. As is shown by the references in the article and by clicking the news link above, McBean has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources (and major international sources, not just the local paper) and clearly meets the general notability guideline. How his nationality is considered "one event" is beyond me. Jenks24 (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linklint[edit]

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

The prod was contested. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of wp:notability. Zero references. Also no indication of real world notability. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references, no indication of notability for this software. Dialectric (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any notable sources on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Green[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:BIO; claims to notability rest on academic awards in school and winning one community service award; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Sounds like a fine person with a bright future, and a referenced entry in National Beta Club is certainly warranted, but not yet notable enough for a separate article. Gurt Posh (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto what Gurt Posh said. Seems like a fine person, but no indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Good student, but nothing here suggests Wikipedia-level notability. Additionally, the article appears to have been created by a WP:SPA. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any notable sources on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 02:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Joseph Fox 23:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bound for Glory (2011)[edit]

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

Non-notable future sporting event; WP:GNG Chzz ► 11:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list (and the 2010 edition) shows that the event is notable and will be covered by reliable sources (it already is covered by third party sources). It certainly isn't WP:CRYSTAL because it's certain to take place with the non-independent source confirming several important details. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 14:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I give up I am sick of doing this song and dance every month. You post up quick WP:JNN nominations, and everyone else has to do the work for you, as usual. I don't like hours of editors times being wasted every month by your wrestling PPV nominations. You win, Chzz. The imaginary brownie points are all yours. Maybe just once you can rewrite the article after the event takes place? No? Of course. Bound for Glory is TNA"s equivalent of WrestleMania. But who cares? Do whatever the hell you want. I'm not letting you waste my time anymore. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of an ongoing series which meets wp:notability. This year's version may also meet wp:notability by itself, but it would probably be better to have it as a section in the series article. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the main editor and at most times the only one who works on TNA PPVs, I can say this article is certainly notable as the entire company is building this one event at this time. The past several PPVs have been revolving around this one show. It has been covered in depth by wrestleview, pwtorch, wrestling observer, slam sports, etc. It is notable. As for being included in TNA Bound for Glory, that article is under re-expansion by me (the original editor who got it to GA status) and soon it will have a different format. It already includes a section regrading the event, but only a summary is to be included. The main article is needed to fully cover the promotion of this sporting event. Nominating of these PPVs is becoming rediculous. Every single event nominated as passed the notability guidelines. This needs to stop.--WillC 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 7 references makes it notable. - Sir Pawridge talk contribs 15:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they do not. Evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources makes something notable.

Ref. 1 is a YouTube advert from the producer, TNA. A primary source, and hardly neutral.

Ref. 2 doesn't look to be a reliable source - "Reported by Steve Gerweck of Wrestleview.com" (with a hotmail email address). "location announced" on a site like that hardly constitutes "significant coverage".

Ref. 3 "How Pro Wrestling Works" on HowStuffWorks is certainly not a reliable source, and seems to make no mention of this event.

Ref. 4 "bfgppv.com" is the website of the event; again, a primary source.

Ref. 5 is another blog-like posting, merely repeating "The following was posted on the Impact Wrestling Facebook page"

Ref. 7 is TNA again (the producers). Chzz ► 17:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per examination of refs above. Neutrality^talk 18:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - BAD FAITH NOMINATION! John cena123 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, votes like these only serve to encourage him to do this even more, and also encourages other deletionists to come in and attempt to get the article deleted on general principle alone. Please remove or amend this vote. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above !vote from John cena123, and the response following it, were both removed by John cena123 [28]; I undid that edit [29], as it inappropriately re-factored this discussion (and because it removed a comment from another user). I have indented the two comments instead. Chzz ► 21:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - Im tired of WWE fanboys quick to getting rid of TNA pages! 4urge (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has also AFD'd several WWE PPVs over the last couple of months so this is not a case of a WWE fanboyism.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IF your statement was true then it would mean the Wrestlemania 2012 article was selected for deletion right?...NO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4urge (talk • contribs) 09:52, 17 August 2011

I had a look; WrestleMania XXVIII at least has some independent reliable sources - so, no, I don't think that should be nominated for deletion. Also, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Chzz ► 14:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also while it is true that he did not AFD Wrestlemania 28 he had AFD the last two WWE PPVs Money in the Bank and Summerslam 2011. There are seveal things on can can about the nominators deletions attempts but a WWE fanboy trying to remove TNA from Wikipedia is not one of them.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your still trying to take this off the topic Tell me how a PPV which is not intill next year is more noticeable than TNA Bound For Glory 2011 which has been featured on ESPN and will be also having a live concert featuring Stind, all Chzz is doing is being a WP:DIVA which his little pages 4urge (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I was saying is that I did not agree with the assessment of WWE fanboys trying to remove TNA articles and not was supporting the attempt to delete the article. I in fact not been in favor of his deletion attempts.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

What does "which his little pages" mean in the above? Chzz ► 21:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again your getting off subject not answering my first question 4urge (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand - are you directing that comment at me? Is there something I have not answered? Apologies if you're not asking me; just, please, could you clarify? I can't see any unanswered question; I answered the one about that other article.

Also though, I would like to know what you meant by "all Chzz is doing is being a WP:DIVA which his little pages". Cheers, Chzz ► 20:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not answering my questing confirming your just getting rid of this page because it's a TNA page 4urge (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? -I am trying to understand here, I really am. If your q is "why this?" then, I point to WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you specifically are talking of WrestleMania XXVIII, then - as I stated above - it at least has some independent reliable sources - so, no, I don't think that should be nominated for deletion.

As I've tried my very best to answer all your questions - as best I know how - could you please answer mine - ie, what you meant by "all Chzz is doing is being a WP:DIVA which his little pages". Thanks. Chzz ► 02:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Seeing you are the nominator and have done this a few times, I would believe you've done a bit of research and looked around the reliable sources sites for WP:PW, but out of curiosity I ask if you have at all? Because one little search on PWTorch using "TNA Bound for Glory" has brought up a nice little list of articles revolving around this event and that of No Surrender which was just deleted saying the sources didn't exist, when they do the article just hasn't been expanded like I stated. (on a side note as to waiting for a match to be announced, revolves around storylines and promotion for the event as it is unknown where it is leading to until the ending occurs, like a movie. You don't state the beginning when you have no end. It is pointless.) Seems to me, this is a case of the nominator not making it his duty to upgrade the articles here, instead be like many in humanity's history believing it was better to kill, in this case delete, than better or work. Can you answer these questions: Did you do any research into these events besides a goggle search of the names? Maybe even the history of the events on here to see of any notability before nominating? I ask, because sources are only a part of establishing notability on here, but seeing as you are saying this fails notability I would assume you know this by now.--WillC 07:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, before nominating, I tried to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources - and I couldn't. Chzz ► 14:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If such is true, why did you nominate SummerSlam 2011 for deletion just four days prior to the event, with significant coverage for WWE's second biggest event of the year readily available? Do you know wrestling? Do you know SummerSlam? Do you know WrestleMania? Anything wrestling? Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 19:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for now with no prejudice against recreation if and when the promised sources are available Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Surrender (2011)[edit]

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

Non-notable future sporting event; WP:GNG Chzz ► 11:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Annual event held by the second largest wrestling promotion in the world. Builds to Bound for Glory (2011). Been covered by reliable sources Pwtorch, wrestling observer, wrestleview, and slam sports to name a few.--WillC 16:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per above. - Sir Pawridge talk contribs 15:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can either of you please demonstrate specific evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources - either by adding links right here, or by adding them to the article? Thanks, Chzz ► 21:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once TNA starts announcing matches for the event, tons of information and sources will be available. At this time, only a production section could be done. As a future event, it is not expected to be fully expanded. Once a match has been announced, I will be glad to add three reliable sources to please you. It isn't hard one bit. PWTorch, Wrestling Observer, WrestleView, and Slam Sports has No Surrender all over them.--WillC 05:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - and that's the whole point about WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:GNG - and, why I nominated it.

When such sources become available, then it will be fine to have an article on it. Until then, it is not. Chzz ► 20:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:PROMOTION and WP:GNG. The page lacks a single independent source. If the event is so important, why can't we find anyone but them talking about it? BusterD (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonel Angel Coira[edit]

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

Seven-year-old boy who has reportedly been signed up to train with one of the world's top football (soccer) clubs. Not notable for anything other than the act of this contract signing, hence I move that it be deleted per WP:BLP1E -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I saw this story a couple of days ago and thought "I just know this'll be on AfD before the end of the week" - lo and behold, here we are! Clear failure of WP:NFOOTY and WP:BLP1E. —BETTIA— ^talk 11:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated above. The coverage is insufficient for WP:GNG, and that at seven years old he fails WP:NSPORT goes without saying. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - give him 10 years, when he makes his professional debut. Giant Snowman 15:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Monterey Bay (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - Why shouldn't it be there, apart from the policies and all, any logical reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashim7vmda (talk • contribs) 12:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup. (non-admin closure) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angels (2007 film)[edit]

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

While tidying a tangle of old cut-and-paste moves, and of articles sitting over old deleted or non-deleted articles about other subjects (see Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#Completed requests August 2011), I found three separated sequences of edits about the film Angels (2007 film), and put them all here. But many of its edits seem to be by Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gerald Gonzalez, and thus by banned users. But the references in this article seem to show that this film exists. Does this article need to be deleted? Old misbehavior by Gerald Gonzalez does not stop readers from wanting information about this film. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks clean enough, and the film was shown in theaters so this is a default keep as per Wikipedia:Notability (films). –H T D 15:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clean up maybe. I found some refs indicating notability, listed below. Too busy to place them myself though. Note that there was another unrelated Filipino film entitled 'Angels' in 2003, and a Belgian film entitled 'Angel' in 2007. Both make it harder to look for refs.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Vibas (July 3, 2007). "Fallen Angel". 108 (263). The Manila Times: 13-14. Retrieved August 11, 2011. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Nestor U. Torre (July 1, 2007). "Angels in our midst". 22 (203). Philippine Daily Inquirer: 44. Retrieved August 11, 2011. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"The angel in Angel Locsin". 21 (12). Filipino Journal. 2007. Retrieved August 11, 2011. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"Angel Locsin starting to be a headache for GMA-7?" (in Filipino). GMA News Online. April 30, 2007. Retrieved August 11, 2011.
Rito Asilo (April 22, 2007). "Dingdong denies rumored wedding plans". Manila Bulletin. Retrieved August 11, 2011.
"Jennylyn Mercado wants a grand wedding". Manila Bulletin. June 9, 2007. Retrieved August 11, 2011.
"Regine-Ogie movie confirmed". Manila Bulletin. July 25, 2007. Retrieved August 11, 2011.
Edgar Cruz (July 10, 2007). "Angel maps out plans". The Daily Tribune. Retrieved August 11, 2011.

Keep and if it's 100% necessary to remove all edits from the banned user, clean up as well. Don't like the idea of having to delete a notable article because of the editor. Sounds like an ass-backwards policy if it exists. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations in Kuwait[edit]

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

There are no railway stations in Kuwait. There's been plenty of "planned" infrastructure in the Gulf which never came to fruition; we should not treat one of these abandoned schemes as though it had actually been built. bobrayner (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kuwait's part in the Gulf Railway might merit an article at some point, and the project is certainly ongoing. However no stations have been finalised so this article is crystal ballery.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Geological history of Earth. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earth evolution[edit]

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

Incoherent article; WP:SYN; WP:NEOLOGISM Curb Chain (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Geological history of Earth. --Lambiam 13:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy - this is at best a first draft of a work in progress which may have potential, but far too early and undeveloped. A redirect to existing geologic history should be left. Vsmith (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So then you do not actually mean Delete, but Redirect to Geological history of Earth? --Lambiam 13:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean what I said. Delete the article and then if someone feels it necessary leave (or create) a redirect. Vsmith (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this article is also the creator of Category:Earth_evolution.Curb Chain (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge"/Delete Right now it's a nice sourceless start on a fork of another article. I say "merge' but there's no sourced material to move over. North8000 (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicates existing articles. -- 202.124.72.108 (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to existing article that covers virtually all the same ground. Mikenorton (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Geological history of Earth as a content fork. Carrite (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already been speedy deleted. Procedural close (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barra and Vatersay Potato Competition[edit]

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

I couldn't find any reliable sources showing notability. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 06:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense. The author has been creating this article and variants of it for over a month, all have been speedy deleted. They appear to be borderline gibberish, promoting in pretty offensive terms, a non-existent "competition". It looks like a persistent attempt to perpetrate a hoax on Wikipedia. I would suggest not only action to remove this and related articles, but also consideration of blocking this quite disruptive user. Palltrast (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L. Joseph Bajek[edit]

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

Résumé like article. Gnews = no info. Ghits = no third-party sites for this specific person jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been updated with links and references since it was nominated for deletion. I think it now meets the criteria for publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billuconn11 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article still lacks secondary sources. The three sources currently cited are the subject's LinkedIn profile, a state society he is president of, and the national society. There's no evidence of coverage by, say, magazines or newspapers. Even with sources, I'm not convinced that being president of the Colorado Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society meets WP:BIO. —C.Fred (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. It's just brief bio type information, so not much would be lost. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is all too promotional, and the references don't bear out that this person is a "community leader" we at Wikipedia should take notice of. Possibly related are two other AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Mercaldo and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquinas Consulting. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see anything on a Yahoo! search.SwisterTwister talk 02:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambient Electronic Records[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this record label meets the criteria of WP:N, WP:CORP, or WP:MUSIC. Google search does not bring up substantial coverage in reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambient Electronic is a sole owned record label run by me 1 person. The reason the label does not come up on google is because it is registered with the domain ambientrecords.songwritingworld.com Ambient records is connected to Songwriting World which is a free songwriting education website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DOLFINESQUE (talk • contribs) 03:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked through your listings for Electronic Record Labels and many of the labels are self run operations such as my own which are not populare or known by many. The nature of a record label is defined by what it does not its size. Ambiant Records sells Ambient Electronic music and for this reason should stay on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DOLFINESQUE (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as selling a specific genre of music does not pass the criteria as outlined by the nom. ArcAngel (talk) ) 05:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable company with no significant claim of importance. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, does not even have claims/ text relating to notability. No offense DOLFINESQUE, good luck in your good venture. But criteria for an article in Wikipedia is meeting wp:notability requirements. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Steele, Author[edit]

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

Gnews has nothing. Ghits is only bookseller websites and social media. Fails WP:BIO. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator's reasoning. There are no other sources that I could find, except for the one that the creator inserted, but still this is not a very notable biography. Articles should have several sources to indicate an individual's notability, which this one unfortunately doesn't. – Tinton5 (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator--Gelobet sei (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments in favor of keeping the article seem to be based on a misunderstanding of WP:POLITICIAN. Sources found subsequently have not demonstrated notability. I will honor requests to userfy the content. causa sui (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hiram Burnett Jr.[edit]

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

Declined prod, subject fails POLITICIAN and seems to not be notable in the general sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before hacking around on here you should learn how to do basic research. The information as to whether CHB Jr was a City Councilor was on the City Council site. Pikes Place Market is Seattle's major tourist attraction. http://www.seattle.gov/CityArchives/Facts/councilchron.htm RichardBond (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN and any shortcomings in the current version of the article should be addressed though normal editing, rather than deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksRichardBond (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that CIty Council membership or serving as "Acting Mayor" meets politician. As for cleanup, by all means go for it, it just doesn't look like it's worth the time to me (or I would have done it). I'd be happy to be wrong. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He could not have been Acting Mayor if he were not senior City Councilor. He won an election in his district then won an election among other councilors. RichardBond (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle#Government_and_politics Nuujinn, I do not know where you are located but you would not have made an error like that if you were living in Seattle.RichardBond (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

City Council membership in a major metropolitan city does meet the standard for WP:POLITICIAN. It's point #2. Keep and cleanup. Meelar (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not automatically, as I read the policy: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. (note 7: Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists....) So #2 says that a council member is likely to meet the criterion, but the criterion itself is significant press coverage. The Pike Place Market site is neither a reliable source nor is it significant coverage. The seattle gov site is just a list of council members, so again, no significant coverage. The Goldblatt text is not about the subject, it is about his son, and notability is not transferred to relatives. RichardBond, instead of claiming that what I would know about the subject if I were from Seattle (and I point out that what we know isn't relevant anyway), or making snarky comments about what I should do, I would suggest that you find some significant coverage in reliable sources. I took a crack at it twice in Google news archives, and no joy, but it's a common name and I didn't spend a lot of time with it since I see nothing in the article that suggests the subject is notable. As I said, I'd be glad to be proven wrong, and I don't have a personal stake in this particular debate, but until I see some sources, I'll be !voting:

Delete, per rant above, --Nuujinn (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 03:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nuujinn is absolutely correct. Being a city council member of a major metropolitan area does not mean automatic notability. Additionally just being known in a local area (Seattle in this case) does not have/ rarely has any bearing. To Richard, I could conceivably talk about multiple people that were on the city council in Madison, but that doesn't mean I'd use it against you if you didn't/haven't heard of them. It's a major metropolitan area here, but I don't honestly think an editor in say Thailand would give a flying rats patootie. Also I would just add that for civility that accusing an editor of "hacking" around isn't necessarily the best way to about looking for support. Just MHO. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way I feel about it is that it is as you might feel if someone editing in Thailand were trying to remove a profile about a historic notable figure in Madison.RichardBond (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re Hi Richard. I adjusted your post position as I assume it was a reply to my above comment. Oh I certainly would feel slighted (perhaps even personally) if the person from Thailand were to say they were basing their deletion of the person from Madison's article on the basis that they had not heard of the Madisonian. However if the deletion voter were basing their decision upon what they feel is a lack of RS due to the inability to find these sources and how they interpret WP:POLITICIAN (of a point thereof), as is the case here, then I would want to address those issues by providing the sources I'm seeing and my own interpretation of WP:POLITICIAN. I AGF with myself that I would not see that as a personal matter. I hope I would not imply that their viable concerns are simply a product of geography. That's all I was trying to get at. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my "Keep" recommendation because I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources, and other editors have also failed in their searches. My strong suspicion is that he is notable, but that the newspapers and books that covered him over 100 years ago haven't yet been digitized by Google. Accordingly, we should wait until those sources can be found to have an article about him. Otherwise, it is pretty much all original research and our credibility as an encyclopedia is more important than keeping this particular article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find reliable third party resources mentioning him in any notable way. I agree with Cullen that it is possible that it may stand to reason there are sources, (perhahps ISBNs?) that would do the trick, but I'm not finding them. And for the record Richard the link you provided to elections in 2004 and such does absolutely nothing to establish Charles Hiram Burnett Jr. or even city councils members. Please do not take this as a personal criticism. I am personally assuming that the link was meant to point to something else. As with Nuujinn I would like to be wrong. LOL contrary to my AFD history I am actually an inclusionist by personality so I would greatly like to see us find better info and make this a real article. However for this particular AFD I have to vote nay. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if anyone in the Seattle area could take a trip to a local library to see about newspaper coverage or books published around the time he served in office. Paper endures nicely. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Seattle City website has a list of every city councilor and Charles H. Burnett is on it. I will take a look at the url and see what the reason is you could not find it. http://www.seattle.gov/council/ Search on Charles Burnett. One thing that does not help is his having the same name as his father. His father was City Treasurer. There is also an unrelated movie director. RichardBond (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I see a reference to him as Chairman of the annual conference of the American Poultry Association I do not think it helps much. I will keep lookingRichardBond (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6a1XAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mvMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6507,57881&dq=charles-h-burnett+seattle&hl=en Verification of Seattle City Councilorship.RichardBond (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx Richard for the links. I am not sure either why I was not finding that url. I would like to point out though that while I do now see a source for him being on the council, IMO this does not confer automatic notability per WP:POLITICIAN. I'm looking at the other links you have up and as time permits (a bit swamped here :{ ) I'll try to find better ones myself. My main concern is I would really like to see this article survive. To do so I am just an adherent to to trying to build as strong a foundation (starting point) as possible. And of course upholding Wiki policy. And we should try and be a bit more strict in these areas with political articles and especially those that are BLPS. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the subject died in 1941, so this isn't a BLP. But I agree in regard to sourcing, we really need to have significant coverage, and I still do not see any of that. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha good call!! Lol don't know why I was saying BLP. Must've been thinking of another thing at the time. As for more sources Richard said he would try to find some more and I'm inclined to give him some time to do so. Especially if he had to go to a local library and find more local news coverage that we cannot do ourselves. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage userification, and you two can work on it as you find sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akshardham (New Jersey)[edit]

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

Originally tagged for speedy G7 (author request), but there are two non-negligible contributions from IPs, which we can't verify that they were used by the author. Planned Hindu temple, slated to be quite large, but it appears that the project has been abandoned. Neutral. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like this place does not exist as this point and is not overly notable even if completed. either way (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only references found are facebook, the one small paper listed and an enews that is just a copy of this article. We are not a crystal ball. If the temple is actually built than maybe there will be enough reliable sources that cover it. Until then there is no notability being proven. As an addition such phrases like "This will be a honor for USA to have such a megnificent Mandir(temple) build on American land." are completely un encyclopedic. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The monument has not received approval by the government of the state of New Jersey to be built. I created this article anticipating construction would start earlier and a greater number of media sources would be released. However, with a lack of references and with no indication whether or not the monument will actually be built, the article should be deleted. It can be recreated later if construction begins and a greater number of sources are available ^The Wo rld 16:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. causa sui (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHOQOL-DIS[edit]

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

Ephemeral project, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another EU research project and article written in grant-application language rather than English: The aim of the project: to develop an instrument to measure quality of life in people with intellectual and physical disabilities. The name of the new measure - WHOQOL-DIS. Project is supported by World Health Organization (WHO). New attitudes to disabilities (ADS) questionnaire will be developed as well based on unique WHO methodology of simultaneous intercultural approach. No sources to show that anything they have developed has been adopted by anyone. There is an offsite project dedicated to the insertion of articles about these projects without any guidance as to which, if any, are actual encyclopedia subjects. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I commented earlier against one of these projects (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISTAG) that they might be rolled-up into a list under Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. It is a bit disturbing to find that this may be a systematic use of English Wikipedia as a project index repository. Perhaps the University of Leipzig brigade might be asked to change tack? ("Ask what you can do for Wikipedia, not what Wikipedia can do for you") AllyD (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Writing of this sort does not mean the subject is not caqpable of supporting an article, not even that the existing text could not be rapidly rewritten, just as any other form of sub-standard English. I don't think it's reasonable to use that alone for judging an article. The question is, is there any actual substance there? I'm not really inclined to investigate in detail. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence this research project has been the subject of coverage that would meet the requirements of the WP:GNG. — Satori Son 01:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I see 19 hits in Google Scholar, including four articles directly on the topic of WHOQOL-DIS, and several others that reference those primary articles. On the other hand, the coverage in Google-Web is pretty thin. This is borderline notability. The key sources include:

Using the WHOQOL-DIS to Measure Quality of Life in Persons with Physical Disabilities Caused by Neurodegenerative Disorders -
Specific Quality of Life Assessment Instrument for People with Disabilities: The WHOQOL‐DIS Module
Development of the WHOQOL disabilities module
The response scale for the intellectual disability module of the WHOQOL: 5‐point or 3‐point?

Even though these are only four sources, they are academic journals, which weigh more heavily than casual books, newspapers, or magazines, which are routinely used to support notability. Based on these sources, I'd lean towards Keep. As DGG says above: work is needed to improve the article, but based on these four sources, there is plenty of material to do so. --Noleander (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could have a look at my -immature- notes here. I don't think these sources establish notability, per analogy with WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 03:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but weak) I agree with Noleander above and found the same references. While they are few/weak enough to make this a "gray" area of sorts, it is enough to keep. Or at the least enough for MO to believe that more and better sources will emerge with a bit o' time. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article is 2 years old and yet has ZERO real references. No in-line citations, and the "references" section is just "for further reading" stuff, at least 4 of the 5 refer to their own materials. But it's a stub on a project that probably could meet wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that your arguments more sound like "delete" than "keep", even if only weakly. No references have come forward in 2 years, why would they come now? --Crusio (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re Actually we have just said we found some references. It is not our job to add these references to the article. That's why they are brought up here and not on the article talk page or added to the article directly. I myself simply have little/no interest in the subject and subsequently have little/no expertise in it. References have not been added in 2 years. That is not to say they have not been seen/found. It's just a matter of someone coming along who cares enough about the article to incorporate them. Of course we can always discuss the few sources found too. It's no problemo! tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, the sourcing is not just weak, it doesn't sustain notability, only establishes this is not a hoax. Also, europrojectcruft.--Cerejota (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Xavier_University_–_Ateneo_de_Cagayan#Organizations and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Crusader (publication)[edit]

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

Student newspaper. No evidence that it is notable outside its university. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is mentioned in Xavier University – Ateneo de Cagayan, which is probably more than enough. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any independent, secondary sources that discuss this journal in any significant way. All Google hits are either the journal's own website, or WP itself, or Facebook. Nothing in Google books, either, which normally would be "so what" except that this journal is 76 (!) years old, so some book would have discussed the journal by now if it were notable. --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 03:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not intended but once again came up with the same results as Noleander. Its existence has been around for more than enough time that if it was truly "notable" than it would/should be easy to find other secondary sources. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 20:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G-MAN[edit]

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

A graphic novel. No attempt made to show that it is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article was created after it was refused as a submission on articles for creation: [30]. Creator of the article is also working on the page of the author Chris_Giarrusso, which is currently tagged as ProD. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There do exist sources to suggest notability, such as [31], [32] and [33]. It certainly needs improvement and citation of reliable sources - it needs improvement, not deletion. ItsZippy (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. Sources found thus far do not even remotely meet the reliable sources requirement of the WP:GNG. — Satori Son 01:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics_and_animation-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 03:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pet ItsZippy's references to attempt to establish notability through coverage from multiple independent sources and several more reference I found through a very quick google search. A review from The Detroit News, small write up and a few others[34][35] at Comic Book Resources, and last an article written by News & Record (Greensboro) Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's an evenly balanced split difference of opinion about whether the coverage in reliable sources is sufficient for WP:POLITICAN and WP:GNG. Both sides raise reasonable arguments. No consensus is the appropriate result. Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Mansfield[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable subject. City council member who does not meet the notability requirements of the WP:GNG. Also see WP:BIO#Politicians, which states, "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."(Footnote #7) This is clearly not the case here. — Satori Son 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:POLITICIAN as a city council member of a major metropolitan city, Indianapolis. A Google News Archive of her name plus "Indianapolis" shows hundreds of article in reliable sources that discuss her. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at many of those sources (I'm pretty sure), and they only appear to mention her. Have you found an in-depth, featured article where she is the subject of the story? Multiple ones? Also, simply being a city council member does not mean she automatically meets the WP:GNG, it simply means we presume that she likely does unless research shows otherwise. Thanks. — Satori Son 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I'm not seeing those "hundreds" of Google News hits that you saw. Am I typing something wrong? In the search field Im using "Angela Mansfield" Indianapolis and I get zero hits in Google News. --Noleander (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A normal Google News search just returns recent results, maybe within the past few weeks. A Google News Archive search will go back over 100 years. Use the tool at the top of this AfD debate, but then you can change the search keywords to disambiguate and refine the search. Adjusting the keywords can allow you to zero in quite a bit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The WP:Politician notability guideline does not automatically endow notability on councilmembers of major cities: in addition it requires that they "have received significant press coverage". There are zero hits for "Angela Mansfield" indianapolis in either Google News or Google Books. There are some in Google Web, but they seem all rather incidental ... as Satori Son says above, the articles dont focus on her. --Noleander (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline says that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." It also says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Our notability guideline for people says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". This Google search shows 136 news stories that mention Angela Mansfield of Indianapolis. Admittedly, many are brief mentions, but the sheer number of times she has been discussed in reliable sources over the years convinces me that she is notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that "many are brief mentions", I'm saying that all of them I have found are. May I please ask you again: Have you found any articles in reliable source that contain anything other than a trivial mention? I have been unable to do so (but I certainly have made mistakes before). If you could provide links to such, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. — Satori Son 14:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 03:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I too would like some links for these articles as Satori asks for. I too cannot find these in depth or even less than passing mentions. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind other editors that our notability guideline for people says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". That is exactly the case with Angela Mansfield.

Mansfield's notability began at least as far back as 2002 as an official of the Indiana state budget agency here, here and here. As a city council member in 2005, Mansfield favored stricter controls on smoking here, here, here and here. She was endorsed for re-election in 2007 by the city's major newspaper here. The early vote count indicated that she had lost here. However, she won a narrow re-election victory here and here in a vote that involved charges of vote count irregularities here. In 2009, she's discussed in connection with redistricting here. In 2010, she criticized lack of accountability in the sale of water and sewer systems to private investors here. Also in 2010, she filed an ethics complaint against another council member here, and that council member promptly resigned. She also returned to advocacy of smoking bans in 2010 here.

Some but not all of of these stories are hidden behind pay walls, but I can assure other editors that my personal Google searches verify that every one of them discusses her in the context I've described. Simply use the Google News Archive tool, and add Indianapolis to the search, plus a variety of other relevant search terms such as smoking, redistricting, budget, election, and so on, to duplicate my results. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Just to clarify, and no disrespect intended, your google results don't necessarily mean a whole lot. I have to be able to see such. And for additional clarification look at the section you yourself quoted- "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Notice the word may. That being said while IMHO it is squeaking by, I have to agree that that is enough to just meet notability because it is third party and reliable. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

further comment Also thank you Cullen for providing the info links. Very helpful and made it possible to make a relatively informed decision. again tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and your comments are most gracious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (barely) there is in my opinion just enough coverage at present to meet third party standards in verifiable reliable sources to meet notability. I would add though that more sources and quality are added to the article, but then again isn't that what we all want? tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xangati[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Strange one here. This has been previously nominated at AfD for spam and notability issues, but that nomination was withdrawn after the nominator announced that he was satisfied with sources that had been added. I don't think they cut the mustard.

The tone is still advertising and deliberately uninformative sales patter:

....a U.S. information technology company, provides infrastructure performance management solutions that deliver real-time visibility for virtualization initiatives.
...comprehensive approach to IPM delivers continuous tracking of performance and dependencies of all the critical components comprising the IT infrastructure, including servers, network, storage, applications, end devices, and their end users in real time and scalable to millions. Xangati presents this information for both the virtual and physical infrastructures in a single dashboard.

The business notability guideline is not satisfied by the present sources. The "Wall Street Select" reference is a press release. (Hint: the first management solution to provide live, to-the-second visibility into all communications across both the virtual and physical worlds means this isn't an independent source.) It was announced to be a finalist in a minor trade award that doesn't appear to be for anything specific (recognized for outstanding achievement in innovation, performance and value). Another is a routine announcement of financing. The two independent writeups are in techie newsletters hosted at Network World without wide readership outside of IT departments. I see little better. User:Xangati steve is the original author. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable. as per by nom, refs are mostly press releases. those that aren't are from content farm style PR publications like network world, and are clearly puff pieces. also, some of the refs support merely trivial statements, e.g. that the company is located in cupertino, whereas other, much more weirdly spammy sentences, are not referenced at all. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 03:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding reliable third party references. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is several years old and has little useful content, and is basically unsourced promotional type writing. Content appears to be written with only 2 goals: promotional, and to try to keep it in Wikipedia; nothing with the readers in mind. Wp:notability is a possibility, but there's no real content to be lost if it gets deleted pending possible rewrite that has content and establishes notability. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the notability through reliable sources is lacking. Courcelles 20:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CustomerXPs Software[edit]

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

Article re-created after speedy deletion. Another advertisement for a non-notable business providing real-time intelligent Customer Experience Management solutions that are focused on delivering a multidisciplinary approach encompassing varied fields, such as, computer science, artificial intelligence, probability and statistics, psychology and behavior analysis. Full of text that won't clean up, it's rosy but meaningless:

A customer experience management solution which brings human like tacit, actionable and contextual conversational intelligence to every customer interactions at various touch point (tellers, branch managers, relationship managers, call centre agents, direct channels etc.) of the bank, in real-time. It brings the collective real-time intelligence of the customer, cross pollinated from multiple backend systems is always available on tap to maximize value from each customer interaction.
Both these products are distinguished in their capability to bring real-time actionable intelligence refactoring real-time data resulting in relevance and context, previously untapped by enterprise solutions.

Referenced only to blog entries, routine announcements of financing, and a directory listing for the founder. I find nothing better. Recommend protection against re-creation. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:36, 28 July 2011 (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 Software-related deletion discussions.

Delete per lack of solid sources. On a Yahoo! search, I only found two articles: here and here, and the Google search showed same links. SwisterTwister talk 01:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"'Modify"' This article is about a hybrid technology in Predictive analytics. This topic real Time intelligence has been discussed by many analytics companies including SAS, Tibco etc. The concept and technology is not new but the approach and solution is interesting. This article can be modified to be more of a information stuff about real time intelligence and the growing importance of Customer Experience in Banking domain. The information is more than useful in terms of their application and tools used for it.

All the sources cited are reliable and the many of the major media has wrote about them, [EconomicTimes], [Businessworld], [VCcircle], [TimesofIndia] etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suman365 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable business Bentogoa (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as un-salvageable advertising. If the article is actually supposed to be about a particular technology then any content regarding that subject should be added elsewhere. Several Times (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertising, created by a now-blocked SPA, primarily edited by a different SPA. Dialectric (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Modified This article has been modified with information from all reliable sources, which are cited in the article. The major sources are from:The Economic Times The Times of India Business World The wall Street Journal (Live Mint)The Financial Express India Infoline DARE Magazine

This article is eligible to stay as all the sources cited in this article are the reliable and top media houses in India Jitheshcxps (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Note: I have relisted this AfD in good faith post the claimed additions of additional sources by a commenting editor. If no comments are forthcoming to keep the article, the article may be deleted still, irrespective of the addition of sources, as consensus till now is clearly for deleting the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 03:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Routine business page announcements like announcements of financing generally do not count much for notability, nor do trade-related blogs or interviews with company personnel. That last article, in the Economic Times, is dated to May 2011 and calls this business a "raw startup". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Wp:notability potential is unclear. But it has little or content worth worrying about keeping while such evidence is developed. Once the pure PR/ advertising /sales material is taken out there will be like one sentence left. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article This company is listed as a NASSCOM member here. The article seems to address basic information only and not sure what north8000 is referring to since media houses cited are well known and reliable.59.97.58.38 (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Secrets of the NLE[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)

The only source here is the author of the book itself, Google reveals no reliable third party sources. Article itself is written in a blatantly promotional tone, and only contains about three lines of useful information (the rest is a chapter list, printing details, and a features list that looks like it was taken right out of a commercial). Sven Manguard Wha? 02:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No published reviews and, in fact, a near-total lack of web hits, therefore not notable.Novangelis (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Raymie (t • c) 17:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 09:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is non-biased and does not include contents of the book to avoid copyright issues--Skylarkzoe (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC) — Skylarkzoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep complete enough for a book. does not sound promoting but please add how book was conceptualized--Herjee (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Herjee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: books like these are rare and not so often in the Philippines which i think would explain lack of internet resources--Czixang gb (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Czixang gb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Cveticanin[edit]

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

Looks like a hoax. Most of the sources mentioned in the article don't mention the name "Cveticanin" at all. (One not checked as Serbian is unreadable for me) The one source that does mention his name (Google Books), come up with a rank as major (English) or Hhauptmann (German). That is quite a bit lower ranking then Fieldmarshall...

The style of the text is also that of an automated translator. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know enough about the applicable standard of notability or about Balkan history, but one of the Google searches listed at the end of the article as sources does indeed show him as a Hauptmann (several times) or a Major (once). However, there are half a dozen mentions of his actions being decisive, and one of the books that comes up there contains the following: "Dank der energischen Thätigkeit des mit der Organisation des Serezaner-Corps betrauten Hauptmannes Cveticanin ging die Einsetzung aller . . ." and "Zum Commandanten des ,Serezaner-Corps' wurde Hauptmann Emanuel . . ." - both p. 221. In other words he did such a good job organizing the "Serezan Corps," he was promoted to its commander. How much help is that toward establishing notability?--Yngvadottir (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Austrian State Archives document listed in the sources (http://oesta.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=23130) gives his rank as Feldmarschallleutnant. While this was not a field marshal (it is often mis-translated as such, incidentally, for obvious reasons), it was equivalent to lieutenant-general. He was thus clearly a general officer and therefore worthy of an article. I grant it's poorly written, but that's not a reason for deletion. Oh, and his name was actually Emanuel Cvjetićanin. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for speedy close as keep At finding the correct name (Emanuel Cvjetićanin instead of Emanuel Cveticanin) and the correct rank (Major General/Feldmarschalleutnant instead of Field Marshal) it is clear that the subject of this article is not a hoax but clearly notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy close as keep as per Night of the Big Wind's second submission. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Mojo[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article. Original author requested deletion, but due to intervening edits it no longer fits Criterion G7. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for reliable sources yielded little more than gossip about Angela Jolie supposedly putting a hex on Brad Pitt. This band is not notable, and mentioning the notable bands they've been opening acts for, just emphasizes their non-notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen above and author request, unless some massive evidence of notability were to suddenly emerge. DBaK (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someoen wants to merge into a broader article, come talk to me Courcelles 00:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National RD&D Organisation for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Programme[edit]

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

Short stub with unclear notability. No reliable sources to establish notability. During last three years there was no substantial progress to improve this stub. Beagel (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I know that interwiki existence is not enough to provide a good context for an article deletion, but here it is obvious if this subject is notable and exists, why isn't it featured within Korean Wikipedia? Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is not much for this stub, but I would merge some of these other articles into something like South Korean energy programs or South Korea energy law. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is probably covering something of high importance, but as of yet there are no reliable resources that can be found to support an entry in Wikipedia, at least that I can find in English. If someone knowledgeable in Korean were to look, it might become more apparent, however this is not known. The only source I was able to find (that was not a repeat from the same agency in a different location) was from the "International Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development" which published "Hydrogen and fuel cells" here. I don't think this lone source, is sufficient to base an article upon, especially considering the sources in the article no longer appear to work correctly. Lord Arador (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matouš Ruml[edit]

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

I feel that this subject does not satisfy the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER, the one reference supplied does not establish notability Jezhotwells (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Matouš Ruml is a notable young theatre and TV actor and his performances were noted by multiple reliable and independent sources. I found an interview at the official website of the Czech Television, a review of his performance in a theatre adaptation of the book/film Closely Watched Trains (published by the Czech Radio), another review of his performance in the play Romeo and Juliet (the magazine Sedmička is a supplement of the widely read Czech newspaper Mladá fronta DNES), two articles published by deník.cz (a regional newspaper published in Bohemia and Moravia). Aside from his theatre work, he has been involved in various TV productions. Letiště (TV Prima), Comeback (TV Nova) and Život na zámku (Czech Television) are well known TV series in the Czech Republic (source: TV Nova, official website). In my opinion it is enough to meet our notability requirements. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment': But all we have so far in the article is one reference to a promotional interview on the web site of a Czech TV show which contains passing mentions that he has studied acting and done some theatre work. The list of theatre credits given gives nio indications of whether the roles undertaken were significant in many cases and includes theatre school roles which are not professional and thus count for little. If all of this other sources exist then they should be added to the article with corresponding text translated for clarity. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe County Detectives (Pennsylvania)[edit]

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

A division of the Monroe County District Attorney's Office in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. It is a division of a county law enforcement agency that doesn't have an article. Law enforcement agencies are not notable by default. Joe Chill (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no reason for deletion. A genuine division.. no problems.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that it is a genuine division, but it is not a notable division. Joe Chill (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. Neutrality^talk 17:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I can chime in, I'm obviously pretty new here, so my apologies if the article doesn't fit the notable requriements. I read through the various requirements for articles, and thought that it fit. The existence of articles on other law enforcement agencies reinforced that belief. County detective units are unique among law enforcement agencies in that, while it is a division of the District Attorney's Office, it is the only division vested with police powers. The prosecutorial arm of the D.A.'s Office, doesn't enjoy the same authority and obviously has vastly different duties, so I thought that this unit should have it's own article as opposed to being a part of a larger article on the entire D.A.'s Office.Bravo27835 (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable organization, fails WP:ORG. There is no inherent notability for every subdivision of a county office. Wikipedia is not a directory of local government units, like one sees in the front of the local phone book. Edison (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not changed my stance on this article. it has sufficiently shown that the subject is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable government office. I wouldn't even think an article on the Monroe County District Attorney's Office or Monroe County government would meet the notability criteria; the county's population is too small to justify it, and there are little or no third-party references that treat the subject in detail. Information about local and county government can be covered in the Monroe County, Pennsylvania article - Two or three sourced paragraphs would be sufficient. Neutrality^talk 17:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Defend WP:GNG tooth and nail. Odds are if we delete enough of these, someone will do like with high schools and force us to include every little sub-unit of every little PD in the world - oh what fun!. Also, what Neutrality said.--Cerejota (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keep !votes are either citing procedural considerations alleging that the nominator failed to cite a specific policy in the nom, which is irrelevant to whether the article should be kept, or saying "it's notable". I'd also like to ask everyone to Keep Calm and Carry On. AFD's are not this big a deal. causa sui (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzors[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable range of Transformers toys - only reference which actually discusses them is a Transformers site. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional_elements-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY CLOSE AND KEEP - The nominator outright lied about the sources, it had three sources, two of which are third party magazines. If he can't be expected to read the article before nominating it, this nomination should be closed. Mathewignash (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AGF a bit here, eh? The magazine cites don't have quotes from them, and appear to be offline. I agree that the nom statement appears to be inaccurate, but calling it intentional falsehood is a bit ABF when the addition of a single strategically placed word ("online" before reference) would make it accurate. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the word "discusses". Since those other two sources are only sourcing the sentence that the subject exists, I assumed that they were catalogue-type listings. Listing or mentioning a product is not discussing it. If they do actually discuss the subject significantly, it'd be useful if that was expanded upon. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, are you recommending deletion on the supposition that the source doesn't say something? That's a little weak, and very non-AGF. There are sources cited; if you have some reason to believe they are not adequate, do a little research. If we start assuming that every non-online source is suspect, WP is in big trouble. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those type of sources are generally listings. If they aren't, and especially if they're offline, they need to be quoted if actual "discussion" is to be seen. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable and sourced. Maybe it needs more sources, but that alone is not a rationale for deletion. Roodog2k (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No dog in this fight, but as far as I can tell, the principle the lister is using is not part of WP:DEL#REASON in any perceptible way. Not directly quoting the sources in not a requirement, and could even be an instance of WP:COPYVIO. -Sangrolu (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is easy to find detailed sourcing for this topic such as The Transformers Beast Wars Sourcebook, Dictionary of toys and games in American popular culture and Television cartoon shows: an illustrated encyclopedia. The nominator is clearly failing to follow our deletion guidelines. All of these Transformers topics have an obvious parent topic to which they could be merged as a reasonable alternative to deletion and so none of them should be brought here. Warden (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is utter nonsense, fan sites and toy product guides are not sufficiently independent of the source or reliable enough to establish notability. There are dozens, perhaps a hundred by now, of these awful transformers articles that have been deleted because of the very poor sourcing that you are trying to prop up here. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The same useless fancruft sourced to the same useless toy guidebooks, fan-created websites, and one-off namedrops in best/worst of list. We don't keep articles because golly-gee there might be legitimate sources out there. Given the overwhelming number of article sin this genre that have been deleted in the last year, it is safe to say that there is nothing out there to justify articles on those minor characters and toy concepts. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again Tarc can't be bothered to keep his facts straight. He claims this article is sourced by "toy guidebooks, fan-created websites, and one-off namedrops", but the sources are as follows - 1. A magazine article which reviewed the fuzor toys, which gave detailed information about the Fuzor. 2. A magazine article covering ideas for Christmas presents that suggested the Fuzor toys, and 3. A web site article that did two paragraphs about Fuzor figures and how strange they are. NOT ONE toy guidebook, NOT ONE fan-created web site, NO one-off name drops. This constant dishonesty is starting to be a pattern for Tarc, who seems to display a bias-based incompetance on the subject. I believe all his opinions on the subject of Transformers should be taken with a gain of salt, at the very least. He cannot be trusted. Mathewignash (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing said there contradicts my statement, this is just the proverbial lipstick and pigs. These toys either receive trivial coverage in real sources, or coverage in unreliable sources. Sooner or later, people just have to come to grips with the fact that the Wikipedia is not a repository for the fictional histories of toys. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:::*Yes, actually it is a repository of information that people find relevant, whether you are ignorant of the topic of not. You really have no idea what an encylopedia is, do you? --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — 172.162.154.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

An encyclopedia is not a vacuum cleaner, sucking in every scrap in existence that it comes across. We make determinations on what passes or guidelines and policy pages and what does not. Tarc (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The sourcing is inadequate. Two off-line articles that only verify the existence of these toys, and a website of dubious reliability. This is exactly the kind of dodgy sourcing that has seen so many other non-notable Transformers fancruft blurbs rightly deleted. Also strongly protest Mathewignash calling people liars for not sharing his high opinion of these poor sources. Reyk _YO! 03:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are pretty invalid. Topless robot has been checked for being reliable before and found to be reliable, and there is no requirement that the text of an article be available online to be a valid source. Mathewignash (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think they're pretty valid. Did you read the bit about them only seeming to verify the existence of the toys? Reyk _YO! 20:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to adequate sourcing concerning a notable subject, at least in the viewpoint of all honest editors. --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — 172.162.154.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - This editor seems to a banned or blocked user whose opinion probably should be ignored in this debate. Mathewignash (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are currently no sources provided that discuss the subject, so I doubt the WP:NOTABILITY of this toy line like so many other (now deleted) Tranformers-related articles. The rest seems in violation of WP:NOTCATALOG. A short mention in a list should be sufficient. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sources. Third party sources need to be able to WP:verify notability, not just verify existence. Per Sgeureka, Wikipedia is not a toy catalog. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-admin closure.) Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maximal (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional group of characters. PROD removed after two "sources" added, but these sources only appear to source the plot summary of the show the group appeared in. If they actually discuss the characters, then that needs to be stated.

Also, I'm a little confused how the sources come from Page 871 of a 528 page book and from Page 321 of a 316 page book. I'm not saying the editor made these up but it needs to be clear what these sources are because the article has nothing else to pass notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google books comes up with different page numbers than amazon.uk. For instance, the Television Encycloedia has 1038 pages. http://books.google.com/books?id=q4UjAQAAIAAJ&q=Television+cartoon+shows:+an+illustrated+encyclopedia,+1949+through+2003&dq=Television+cartoon+shows:+an+illustrated+encyclopedia,+1949+through+2003&hl=en&ei=KUk7TprhL42BsgKM8pHrAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA Maybe it's a different edition? Mathewignash (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional_elements-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thr article is properly sourced in several 3rd party books. It's linked to by numerous articles on Wikipedia, so it's useful as a link, and i don't see how the nominator thinks deleting it would help wikipedia in any way. Mathewignash (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The usual Transformers fancruft, weakly attempted sourcing made to toy encyclopedia and guides and fan books doesn't cut it. There are Wikia pages for this stuff...we keep the truly notable ones...Megatron, Optimus, etc...they get the rest. It is tiring to have the same arguments over the same fucking nonsense over and over and over and over. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

**The above vote carries no weight at all. It is just a textbook example of WP:ITSCRUFT, not to mention the obvious immaturity of someone who has it out for the GB and Trans community. --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — 172.162.154.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - This editor is a blocked sock puppeteer whose opinion should probably be ignored in this debate. Mathewignash (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sorry, but my argument doesn't rest on the fact that it is cruft, but rather that it fails notability guidelines due to poor sourcing. Tarc (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I don't understand the logic here, a lot of Transformers articles got deleted/redirected to "List of Maximals", so Maximal was important then, but a simple article explaining what a Maximal exactly is "non notable"? That's like having a list of Star Trek characters, but failing to say what Star Trek is! Mathewignash (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep", This article is describing a prominent faction in two very popular television shows and multiple toy lines that ran for several years, are significant to the history of one of the largest toy/television franchises of all time (fast becoming one of the most successful film franchises as well) and are significant to television in general as one of the first wildly successful computer-animated programs. Yes, there's a Transformers Wiki, but if Wikipedia had a policy against duplicating any information that can be found elsewhere then any articles with citations would be deleted instantly instead of it being the other way around. In addition, this is a small page that gives supplementary information on a topic many people (the Transformers fandom is huge and historically significant) find interesting. This is NOT a massive description of every character and their entire backstory. For THAT, you can go to the Transformers wiki because that level of detail WOULD go beyond what Wikipedia is for. Describing a faction in a massive franchise and listing the members thereof does not. Now, from a simple formatting perspective, it also makes sense to give this it's own page. The articles that link to this and the Predacon page (which is far larger) are already VERY LARGE articles. This information is needed, but placing this fictional-universe-significant but not real-world-significant information in the main articles would unnecessarily lengthen them for people uninterested in the fiction. This seems to be a simple case of "Why do people like things I don't like?", which is not grounds for deletion. You've given no good reason for a lack of notability that hasn't been adressed. Transformers is not the only fictional series with articles describing it's factions and it is certainly not the smallest or least notable. If you suggested merging this article with the "autobot" page, that would be more acceptable, but proposing deletion of notable information that can't be found elsewhere on the encyclopedia is ridiculous.99.49.4.226 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This anon IP entry carries no weight at all as none of this even remotely addresses notability concerns raised with this material. We don't keep articles because fans think they are useful. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His points are completely valid though. There are a total of FOUR major factions in the Transformers stories. Autobot, Decepticons, Maximals and Predacons. All are equally notable. Deleting one is, without trying to be insulting, stupid. Mathewignash (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His points are utter nonsense. When determining notability of fictional material, we don't care about the nerdcruft of what factions are the important ones in-universe. (Please make special note of the in there). You are either unaware of or purposefully ignore our notaiblity guidelines and our need for sucvh to be reliably sourced and it is getting quite tiring to explain this to you in every damn AfD. Tarc (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Then stop commenting in Afds... --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — 172.162.154.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ - Blocked sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maybe not a paragon of great editing, but the group described in the article were protagonists in several television series and merchandising ranges. Wouldn't that put them on par with the notability of fictional groupings such as Syndicate (The X-Files), Dharma Initiative or the Bookhouse Boys? I'll admit that I do have an inclusionist view on things, but I don't believe that because an article contains a lot of cruft, its subject is inherently cruft in and of itself. There's a notable subject to be discussed in there, just so happens that it hasn't been done right yet. Deletion wouldn't solve the actual problem, it'd be cutting off a hand because your nails are dirty. GRAPPLE X 20:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another largely invalid vote that rests on "they're important in-universe" and WP:OTHERCRAP. The Dharma stuff is extensively covered by outside reliable sources; an article for that is a no-brainer. X-Files is debatable, lots of sources but mostly in-house. Finally, I am a rabid Twin Peaks fan and even I didn't know there was a separate article for the Bookhouse Boys, that's a little ridiculous and should be deleted or redirected promptly. We need reliable sources independent of the subject to justify an article. Tarc (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your attitude to this at all. Yes, articles need reliable sources. However, deleting those without them included simply acts as a barrier towards adding them in future. Articles needing additional sources should be maintenance tagged as such, not culled with the mindset of "not sourced, can't keep it". And I take issue with you deciding my vote is invalid just because you don't agree with my reasoning. GRAPPLE X 21:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care what you think about my attitude; I argue based on established editing policy and guideline, while you rely on variations of "I like it" and vague hand-waving at "oh, there must be sources out there somewhere". These are not acceptable arguments to make at an AfD. If you can't source something, then it does not get an article. Simple as that. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realise I had to start hauling citations along with me just to be able to register a valid vote, but five minutes with Google has turned up a brief summary of the reception toward the relevant shows, an official 'sourcebook', an overview of the series with reference to the group (and the mention of a DVD featurette which I assume would include production details), and a third-party retrospective. No, I'm not going to track these down, pay for them, and use them for the article. Someone who edits it regularly can if they so choose. Does my vote get to be 'valid' yet? GRAPPLE X 01:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not lie Tarc. Grapple said "were protagonists in several television series and merchandising ranges" and you say he's arguing that "they're important in-universe" The television series and merchandizing range are REAL WORLD, not "in fiction". Your lies will NOT be allowed to stand. Mathewignash (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calling people liars, as you've done here and at another AfD, for disagreeing with you is not acceptable. Neither is canvassing for keep votes. Reyk _YO! 22:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how it's inappropriate if it's the truth, Tarc is trying to change the subject to get his way. Grapple commented on "real world" facts and Tarc yelled at him for making "in fiction" remarks. That's a flat out lie in order to try to discount his comments. As for "canvasing", I was neutral in my point of view, and merely informed him that a similar nomination to the one he already voiced his opinion was going on. Mathewignash (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't contact any of the other participants in the discussion, or people who have commented in others. You singled out the Colonel because you know he'll vote "keep". Reyk _YO! 04:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathewignash is calling a spade a spade. Because no valid reason exists for deletion, Tarc will just say anything to try to get his/her way, rather than, you know, actually contribute something useful to improve this or any article. No, s/he is more interested in name-calling, swearing, haranguing everyone who disagrees with him/her. --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) - Blocked sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE - You may notice the two additional sources added from wired.com and usatoday. Mathewignash (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your feel for what it means for something to be "reliably sourced" is off the mark. Wired rattled off a list of bad Transformers, noting that one is a Maximal with the line "The Beast Wars series recast Autobots and Decepticons as the more organic Maximals and Predacons." That is it. The USA Today link mentions the word "Maximal" twice in the course of an interview about Beat Wars. You can't just google the term and pluck out every casual mention and declare "yep, reliably sourced!" Tarc (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion of reliable is what's off the mark. They are entirely reliable sources third party sources. Length source doesn't make it unreliable. 01:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we're at the point where you have a very simple but quite serious problem with competence. We need reliable sources that actually discuss the subject matter, i.e. a source about the Maximals. Not a tech magazine that uses the word once to talk about an example of a bad Transformer within a list of 12 bad Transfrmers. Not an interview in a newspaper where the interviewee mentions the name when talking about Beast Wars. Do you understand this? Tarc (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone here is demonstrating "Bias-based incompetence" it's you with your constant belittling attacks on a whole subject, and your constant personal attacks on other editors. [[36]] BTW, it would be nice if you let editors post opinions on the deletion review without remarking that every one that disagrees with you should be ignored. Mathewignash (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I take it the answer to my last question there is a resounding "no" ? The Wikipedia has thresholds to meet for reliability and sourcing, They are not black and white or set in stone,m there is always allowance for wiggle room, but no common sense interpretation of our guidelines alows for this tripe to exist in the Wikipedia. Mathewignash, how many AfDs have you been on the losing end of? How many of these discussions wind up exactly the same, as you being frustrated and simply refusing to listen to people who show you how these toys do not meet pour guidelines? Honestly, we could cut and paste these back-and-forths from anyone of the last 100-odd Transformers AfDs. What exactly are you trying to accomplish by making an argument here that has failed 100 times before? Tarc (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to make any actual coherent argument... --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) - Blocked sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They must be pretty coherent if I've been able to see to it that dozens upon dozens of this junk has been deleted over the last year, eh? BTW, what account has you edited under previous to this IP? Tarc (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably A Nobody. Reyk _YO! 04:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because if this information is hidden from public view, well, then the Decepticons will have won... --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — 172.162.154.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Blocked sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was torn on this at first, because I felt that simply having few sources would mean that this shouldn't have a stand-alone article, and would be better off being merged. However, in reviewing the WP:Notability guideline, I found this, under WP:SPIP, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Considering the level of attention this series and also specifically these Maximals have gotten, it is certainly not a trivial thing, but quite extensive from what I can tell. Not all notability is conferred by the same means. We won't always have scholarly papers or extensive news stories, but clearly this has received enough attention that it clearly is notable. -- Avanu (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is close to the line, but I believe the issue is that the article is written in in-universe style. If rewritten in the sense of impact on the real world, I believe the concept would pass it. The point is that these are the main characters of a reasonably successful series: Beast Wars, Beast Wars II, Beast Wars Neo, Beast Wars: The Gathering. I think we should have articles on them the same way we have articles on the main characters of other reasonably successful series, such as television shows, books, or games. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There plainly isn't enough independent, third-party coverage of the subject for a standalone article at this time. No prejudice on an eventual re-split if and when Wikipedia's coverage of Transformers ever begins to focus on real-world impact and not just lists of toys and cartoon appearances (good luck with that: Autobot is hardly better than this article right now). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per extensive coverage in the sources. Interesting article that will be useful to fans and students of popular culture. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the series, all Maximals are considered to be distinct descendants of their Autobot forebears. Although no indication is made of what precisely this entails, it still makes them quite unique in the Transformers universe. Moreover, between Beast Wars and Beast Machines, these characters lasted for 5 seasons, which is only a few episodes shy of the original series. Since the lead protagonists in the original series have maintained their own page, why not these?--Factchk (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep, considering this is all the Maximals we're talking about. Seriously, I find it doubtful that this is could be non-notable... NotARealWord (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Really, this is a main faction in several Transformers series, like the article Autobot. Even if every single article about an individual Maximal were to be deleted, the article about Maximals in general should stay. JIP | Talk 17:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Fullstop[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, fails criteria for WP:BAND Yunshui (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What if we count the first two external links as sources? (The third is dead.) Two questions:

Is the Urban World article a reliable source? There's no indication of who wrote it or when, and its fannish tone raises my eyebrow. I'm not familiar with UK music media, and I can't find anything at the noticeboard.
If it is reliable, is it, together with the Rago interview, enough for WP:BAND criterion #1? It seems that, in the past, mentions in two sources have not been considered "multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" and editors have had some leeway in this area.

Can someone who's been through more WP:BAND-driven AfDs comment? Thanks. Lagrange613 (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands_and_musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:INDY. No evidence of notability at present. Also, the article was mostly written by the WP:SPA Burkecad (talk · contribs); I smell probable WP:COI and/or WP:AUTOBIO here. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources on Google and Yahoo that could support a biography. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W. Christopher Winter[edit]

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

Autobiography by User:Wcwinter. Sources listed in the article mention him (more or less), but I'm not enough of an expert on the field to judge on his notability per WP:PROF. bender235 (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources on Google and Yahoo that could support the biography. SwisterTwister talk 00:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient citations at Google Scholar to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. There is some popular coverage of his report on the effect of jet-lag on sports performance, including this significant mention in Scientific American. But I don't think that one report qualifies him as notable; it's almost a case of WP:ONEEVENT. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TdhGIS[edit]

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

This is an article about a very new software program. While it gets a fair number of google hits of various shareware directories, there are absolutely no independent sources about the software, so it fails the general notability guideline. MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an independent reference in the article. The Softpedia review can be accessed from the External Links heading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timhirrel (talk • contribs) 18:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Softpedia is a directory site that takes submissions from software vendors for content. - MrOllie (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, and nothing usable for establishing notability in a Google search. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per lack of any notable sources on Google and Yahoo aside from this company's website. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A second external reference from V1 Magazine has been added. About V1 Magazine: MISSION We are dedicated to providing information that supports economical technologies and processes that promote sustainable environments. Building upon a foundation of design principles and infrastructure disciplines, and tempered with the understanding of processes, Vector1 Media pursues visualization, modeling, spatial analysis, GIS, simulation and sensor technologies for holistic management planning and decision making. Our goal is to realize the principle of sustainable living through successful and sustainable economic development using these technologies and applications. People are an integral aspect of infrastructure development and geographic analysis tools will connect residents to infrastructure. Vector1 Media will push for the adoption of integrated spatially-based systems and knowledge where advances can be achieved with high-impact returns on investment and improved quality of life.

Softpedia does an important level of screening to ensure the software is safe. They also perform usability testing as demonstrated by their original screenshots and description of the program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timhirrel (talk • contribs) 18:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why the byline on the V1 Magazine post says 'Written by TdhGIS'? - MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted the program for editorial review. They chose what to print and where. It appears they chose to print text taken from the TdhGIS website. The use of such material in journalism is common place and generally accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.30.60 (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I should have logged in before saving the preceding text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timhirrel (talk • contribs) 17:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japan hydrogen fuel cell project[edit]

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

Short stub with unclear notability. Ephemeral project. No independent sources about this project. During last three years there was no attempt to improve this stub. Beagel (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; doesn't appear to be notable. Might be worth a passing mention in some other article. bobrayner (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geier Indians[edit]

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

Not a notable group. Only the referenced website refers to them, and even that refers to them as essentially unknown. The material was inadvisedly recreated from a prior version of Geier. Fences&Windows 18:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 18:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 18:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 18:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a previous version of Geier which was a ragbag of content was enthusiastically pruned in Nov 2010 to make it into a properly formatted dab page: a certain amount of sourced content was deleted in this process (probably un-noticed by the creator and main editor of the page, who has not edited much recently), including the matter which now forms this article. It has a reliable source, which itself cites 4 sources. I do not have access to those sources, but this group looks notable enough to merit a short WP article. PamD (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment have expanded article slightly. PamD (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is just a stub, but the topic has sources and is encyclopedic. North8000 (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - essentially per North8000. We don't delete encyclopedic content that has outside references simply because they're "essentially unknown." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article on historical topic has more than one good source. --LadyofShalott 18:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L. A. Ramdas[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:PROF. Few papers with few citations as per GScholar. The phenomenon of Ramdas Layer not notable - only used by one author and not in a highly cited paper. — Finemann (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Week~~ Keep with a GS h index of 9. Much of the work was done before the internet and web citations would not be expected. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Regardless of whether this person is notable, this article makes no claim to this person's notability. The references are just about this person's work and not about this person himself. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the article. Ramdas is a well-known scientist, and I made this page after listening to convection researcher who was working on some atmospheric effects and he mentioned Ramdas Layer, which I then looked up. It is a rather well-known phenomenon in atmospheric convection circles today, and generated considerable surprise when Ramdas discovered it, leading others to verify it, some of which I have cited. I am not at all a domain expert however, and if we can get someone they can add much more to it. I am not sure what user:Bluerasberry means - most biographies on wikipedia focus on the person's work and that is what makes for notability. I created the article from cursory reading of some of the papers, and could not find anything about his personal life etc. if that's what Bluerasberry means. But the article cites several well-respected publications that cite his work, and like xxanthippe says, google scholar is not so reliable for work from an older period. To my mind, the article serves to broaden Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage and belongs. mukerjee (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mukerjee is correct about articles on researchers being about their work. user:Bluerasberry should read WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Convert to Ramdas layer article? That seems clearly notable and has no article. North8000 (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible alternative idea but I remain in favor of keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Made a major discovery in his field. GS h index is totally irrelevant for people of his period. We might also need an article on the discovery DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a Fellow of (the predecessor of) the Indian National Science Academy arguably satisfies WP:PROF#C3. Also, there are examples of detailed biographical coverage, like the one here[37], so likely passes WP:BIO as well. Nsk92 (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, he received the Padma Shri award - the 4th highest civilian award in India. Nsk92 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nigar Talibova[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article could definitely use an expansion to elaborate on subject's notability, but the GNews link above turns up over a decade's worth of hits. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 23:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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