The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme wine tasting[edit]

Extreme wine tasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable hobby. Claims notability in French media, but the two links provided seem to just be postings of the video on French websites as well as a YouTube link. Google searches have turned up little. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 23:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 15:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 15:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Um....can you say Neologism? Despite being in the wine industry, prior to this AfD I've never heard of the term. Not only does Google produce pitiful mirages of sources (mostly YouTube videos and references to youtube videos) but AbleGrape.com, a search engine that specializes in wine sources also produces absolutely nothing. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable references to be seen. In other words... extreme lack of verifiability. Steven Walling 00:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources - Whpq (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources, stub article, very opinionated, Never heard of term Airplanegod (talk) 16:45, 17 February 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. The nominator withdrew, the AFD was properly closed and then reopened 3 days after the fact. The proper thing to do in cases like this is to renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alma-0[edit]

Alma-0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This language doesn't meet the general notability guideline. It is an academic language, with only one cited-paper, according to the ACM digital library. Even then, one paper with 15 citations isn't enough to establish notability for an academic project, and it doesn't have any other coverage. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my reasoning here Throwaway85 (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may be that the single paper has "only" been cited 15 times, it has also been cited recently in a 2009 journal paper. Nevertheless, the current Alma-0 Wikipedia article should be improved by describing the features in more detail. --ShinNoNoir (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retract. I'm retracting this AfD for obvious reasons.... Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notice that the individual paper has not been cited 15 times, the website says that the citation count is the "cumulative total number of times all authored works by this author were cited by other works within ACM's bibliographic database". So, no, that paper written by the author is not enough. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the non-admin closure and added a "delete" !vote. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:32, 18 February 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 Speedy Keep per point #1 of that guideline (Nominator withdrew their nomination and no one else has !voted Delete). (Non-admin closure) Cybercobra (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joy (programming language)[edit]

Joy (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This language does not meet the general notability guideline. Here's what I found on a search:

• One paper by the author presented at EuroForth, which which has 3 citations according to Google Scholar and doesn't even appear in the ACM digital library
• Another paper with one citation, according to ACM
• An interview with the creator from "no stinking loops"
• something else from "no stinking loops"
• some blogs

Two extremely-poorly-cited papers don't establish notability from an academic standpoint, and two articles by "Stevan Apter of no stinking loops" isn't reliable and independent coverage from multiple sources. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint: Joy is notable for two reasons. First, Joy is itself the first attempt to establish any kind of theoretical basis for the success that stack-based languages have had in specific areas of computing; the most notable such success was Postscript, with Forth coming in a remote second. Second, Joy is an essential link in the evolution of stack-based programming languages from Forth and Postscript to the modern Factor language. Without the papers on von Thun's site (written using Joy as their notation) Factor would have looked very different.

Joy is a specific programming language which (fairly recently) broke new ground in a previously unstudied area of computer language syntax. That there are no researchers (in acadamia) working in this field does not mean the field does not exist; the field is notable for its extensive practical use and the fact that until von Thun (the author of Joy) wrote his research up on his website, there was no theoretical basis for all this practical common use. Will it ever be studied? That question is not something that should be decided as part of a discussion of whether to delete a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtanksleyjr (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my reasoning here Throwaway85 (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources presented by the nominator are more than enough for notability per WP:GNG. --Cyclopia^talk 11:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I'm a software developer and I'm going to argue for its notability in the area of programming languages as opposed to academic interest. I've never used Joy, and only played with Factor (which has Joy as one of its inspirations). I recall hearing about Joy years ago in some discussion on concatenative languages; it's thus been on my (randomly semi-informed programmer) radar for many years. Besides influencing Factor, it also influenced the Cat programming language (http://www.cat-language.com/). The wikipedia article on concatenative languages claims that Joy was the first language to call itself concatenative; I'd say that adds to the notability. This is an area of active interest among programming language designers (http://concatenative.org). I'd say Joy is an influential language in connecting concatenative languages like Forth to functional programming theory. Martijn Faassen (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the sources the nominator has identified are sufficient to establish marginal notability. Thparkth (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just finished reviewing the Cat (programming language) AfD and have recommended that Cat be merged into the Joy (programming language) article.  The Cat article has sources that are not currently in the Joy article and that support the notability of Joy.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retract. I'm retracting this AfD for obvious reasons.... Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:07, 15 February 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 only person arguing for deletion is the nominator. There appear to be some useful leads in the comments/keeps which might be worth following up and using to improve the article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kebab Norwegian[edit]

Kebab Norwegian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Looked over the provided link in the article (google scholar search) gave 10 results, and I noticed only one source to be somewhat relevant, although that source can't be trustworthy in that matter, as such definition should appear in other mainstream dictionaries. Others include such as this. Doesn't seem to have any weight, most likely it's just known amongst some norwegian street groups who refer to immigrants that are from these countries in such a way. Libelous article, and I have no doubt "kebab" here isn't used in a good sense. Let alone that it bears no encyclopedic value rather than an attack to a group of immigrants (I don't think Kurds, Arabs, Pashtuns, Persians, Punjabis, Turks are fancying this term being referred to them) and the article is just so short (and has 4 contributed edits, mainly by the creator of this article) which are minor per se, as being said - the article is very short). Maybe it will fit into some special related article, but definitely not as a separate one. On a sidenote: If the author haven't tried to apply this term as if it's an official term there, in Norway, I would take it as some mad joke. Userpd (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 15:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 15:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 15:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably have better luck googling for "kebabnorsk", as works on this topic seems to have been written mostly in Norwegian. Ters (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)Comment Searching kebabnorsk might help. ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a proof that it's an officially applied term / definition in Norway? Also, 58 hits per this keyword is low. Note, that in search result is included blogs / commentaries on sites where this word has been met. Userpd (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the article says, out of political correctness, linguists prefer to use more general terms. But the no.wikipedia article gave some additional info. There was a thesis by that name 15 years ago, by Stine Aasheim, which appears to be the source of the name. Here's an Aftenposten article on the phenomenon, referring to it, dated 18 March 2010. There is also the dictionary referred to in the article: Andreas Eilert Østby, Kebabnorsk ordbok, Gyldendal, 2005, ISBN 82-05-33910-4: OCLC listing. (No preview on GoogleBooks.) The no.wikipedia article lists the following additional sources: Another Aftenposten article, dated 26 January 2002; a blog posting/editorial by a journalist at forskning.no (an academic news site) dated 10 December 2010 (. . . and a link that's so blocked I can't even put it here in plain text and that in any case appears to be dead). I think that's enough for notability. I find it interesting that the no.wikipedia article claims the term was coined by analogy with kebabsvenska, which was used by speakers of the analogous Swedish argot in the 1990s - Aasheim's thesis doesn't appear to have been published so that may be hard to verify - yet the Swedish article it is wikilinked to makes no mention of anything like that and instead says it's the Norwegian equivalent of Rinkeby Swedish. However, whatever the unsettled academic status of the lingo, I believe the journalistic coverage plus the published dictionary and the blog post (and any other academic articles there may be - I haven't looked yet) are adequate to make it notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now referenced up the article and rewritten it a tad. I found more material. Aasheim's thesis, or a paper based on it, was published in the proceedings of a conference, and there has been TV coverage of the phenomenon and a film featuring teenagers speaking it. Plus one of the Google scholar hits discusses it in the context of ethnolects. So the article now demonstrates notability quite clearly. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Searching for the ISBN listed for the book given as a source at no:Kebabnorsk finds no such book, at least in the three catalogs I searched. One of the external links (kebabnorsk.co.cc) appears to be dead, leaving the two external sources noted by Yngvadottir as potential sources. I did find a citation for the thesis mentioned at no:Kebabnorsk, but it appears to be an unpublished MA thesis. Aasheim, Stine Cecilie. (1995). "Kebab-norsk" Fra-mandsprakleg paverknad pa ungdomsspraket i Oslo. M.A. thesis. Oslo. Cnilep (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must have type the ISBN incorrectly or something; Yngvadottir's link to WorldCat finds it just fine. Cnilep (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Yngvadottir above shows that there has been some academic coverage of this phenomenon, and mention in reliable sources, but not very much. As it is, I think this just about passes the notability guideline. I would say that I think calling it 'libellous', an 'attack on immigrants' and 'a mad joke', as the nominator did, isn't very helpful; I see no indication that this article wasn't created in good faith. If the name is objectionable, it could be moved to Norwegian multiethnolect or something similar, but this does seem to be the most widely-used name for it. Robofish (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable Sources?" He has provided only one: aftenposten.no, that doesn't point out notability, however, it has to appear on several mainstream sources. Which is not the case here. Newspapers write about a lot of things, and the second link in Yngvadottir's comment, links to a blog on this site, and as you know blogs aren't welcomed to be used as sources, unless it's written by a notable columnist / writer etc. Userpd (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the book on this subject published by Gyldendal? That is certainly a reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a search with A-tekst, a closed search tool for Norwegian newspapers, and got 203 hits. Looking through the first results I found several newspaper articles that could be used to source and expand this article. Examples include:
  • Blod og babes på Holmlia - Snakker kebabnorsk med venner... - Aftenposten Morgen - 22.12.2010 - p. 6
  • Kebabnorsk, bra for språket - Dagsavisen - 28.02.2005 - p. 22
  • Misliker kebabnorsk - Romerikes Blad - 17.12.2010 - p. 44
  • Kjærlighet på kebabnorsk - Dagsavisen - 22.10.2007 - p. 40

Rettetast (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question is there a less derogatory and/or more academic/encyclopedic term, like sv:förortssvenska? ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment Thanks for the search, Rettetast. I'll have a look and see whether they add usefully to what I've already put in the article, if you haven't already added them. I suspect the second citation may be identical to the one I got from the academic site blog. Regarding that, it's similar to a blog attached to the Chronicle of Higher Education - it's on an academic research news site. It's not a self-published blog. Regarding alternate terms, as the article notes, it's generally called that, although speakers have been saying in recent years that it's now being used more pejoratively. But that's still the most recognisable term for it; I can't see any justification for us being more polite than the news reports and renaming the article, although if no.wikipedia ever does, that would weigh heavily. One point I noticed is the wide span of time covered by the newspaper cites; this is still being discussed. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this has been the issue of innumerable public debate and has made its way into scientific research and has been the subject of several published research papers. For instance, [1] and [2] are both media coverage of scientific work on the language. There is also a dictionary published (ISBN 82-05-33910-4) by one of Norway's main publishing houses; this book alone should seal this discussion. On a more informal note, most Norwegians are familiar with the term kebabnorsk and know what it refers to; it is spoken by a significant portion of the population and is real, making it just as notable as any other dialect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenikk (talk • contribs) 21:20, 20 February 2011

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulfinch's Mythology[edit]

Bulfinch's Mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an unsourced, cobbled toghter glorified table of contents for a book. I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia isn't for glorified tables of contents. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Without the table of contents (which I've removed), it's an article on a notable book. DS (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, in that form it's a two line stub with no sources and no assertion of notability. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proper solution is to tag the article as needing more detail, some kind of link to a wikipedia noTOC policy, and then wait. deleting the whole thing is less good of a solution. there are dozens of secondary source commentaries on Bulfinch's mythology, im sure a fine article can be written about it based on them alone. Decora (talk)

as for 'no TOC' policy:

Articles with tables of contents:

• The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics
• The Joy Luck Club
• The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism

Articles full of trivia with no explanation of significance:

• List_of_The_Simpsons_episodes
• List_of_Naruto_characters
• List of AVN Award winners
• Jenna Jameson filmography

etc etc etc.

Decora (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable work by a notable author. I'm not certain that the brutal trimming was really called for here; marking it as an article under development might have been more reasonable. Risker (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "The Age of Fable, better known as Bulfinch's Mythology, written by Thomas Bulfinch (1796-1867) and first published in 1855, has long been a standard fixture in American homes, schools, and libraries. New editions still appear frequently." M. Cleary, "Miscuit Utile Dulci: Bulfinch's Mythology as a Pedagogical Prototype", The Classical World 78:591 (copy available at the author's website, here). This classic work is obviously notable, and there's plenty of resources available on which to base an article about this work and its long influence. [3][4]--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! What's more *** than someone whose Greek mythology is learned from Bulfinch? Someone who's never heard of Bulfinch! I agree that the current article is inane.--Wetman (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Age of Fable or Bulfinch's Mythology is notable as Hades, but neither a table of contents nor the stub, and definitely not deletion--do it any justice; I'm sure this can be fixed in a week, start here just to get a grasp of its significance. Point made, nominator, and yeah yeah, Wikipedia is not for cleanup, but now that we're all here, let's get suggestions on how to improve it. Mandsford 23:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn My bad entirely. I saw the version before the "brutal trimming" and clicked AfD before I did my customary search. I know better than to do that, and fully deserve the chewing out I received here. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:51, 12 February 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 both Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alsek Air Service[edit]

Alsek Air Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another tiny local Alaska village airline with no notability. What appear to be solid sources such as the Washington Post mention the existence of this airline but do not have even a single word of content beyond verifying its existence. Essential Air Service contracts do not confer automatic notability either, there are hundreds of such contracts in Alaska because there are hundreds of remote settlements off the road system. This is an "air taxi/flightseeing" operation, it does not even appear to operate scheduled flights. Previous AFD was argued into a "no consensus" result by users who were making up new notability criteria on the spot. As a result of that and other discussions a new guideline, or lack thereof, was established at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Notability. WP:CORP and WP:N are therefore the relevant guides, and this fails them both, all coverage is of a trivial or directory-style nature. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also nominating 40-Mile Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the exact same reasons. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - Neither company is operating airliners, they are using GA aircraft. No doubt they are performing useful service in Alaska, but neither is notable enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I note that int he prior AFD, much of those advocating keep assert inherent noability for airlines. I see no policy or guideline that indicate that airlines are inherently notable, especially small air services such as these. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 40-Mile Air, Neutral on Alsek Air Service. 40MA makes no assertion of notability and appears to be just like the multitude of other Alaskan charter air services - important to the community but "little airplanes on the tarmac, and they all look just the same". AAS, on the other hand, appears to have been a scheduled carrier. I'd like to see more, and more definitive refs to !vote "keep", but the scheduling, and DOT route assignment (surely something that doesn't happen too often?) make me hesitate on the call to "delete". I might note that the type of aircraft operate shouldn't have any bearing on the notability of the airline, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' - Actually, the DOT route assignment happens quite often. They were contracted to provide Essential Air Service, and if you check Essential Air Service#Alaska, you will see that this is something that is common. -- Whpq (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "type of aircraft operate shouldn't have any bearing on the notability of the airline" I agree with that, but I fail to see how scheduling has any bearing on it either. There is no policy or guideline that supports such an idea. In any event I looked at their website, and there are no schedules posted there. Essential air service mainly involves delivering the mail. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 15 February 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 consensus is that the article should be kept and moved to KITCO. However, KITCO redirects to Kitco India, so I am going to keep it there - if anyone feels strongly that it should be a KITCO with the redirect being from Kitco India to KITCO, then feel free to go to Requested moves PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kitco India[edit]

Kitco India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No pages link to it apart from a redirect and it has COI issues Aaabbccz Talk Contribs 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The nominator would do well to explain why the page should be deleted. None of the statements in their request are reasons for deletion. They are reasons for improvement. Pedro :  Chat  20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have searched for it in Google and all it seams to come up with is gold price. Aaabbccz Talk Contribs 20:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try searching Kerala Industrial ....i.e. this lot. Assuming they are the same (per the article) this is a redirect / merge and expand not a deletion. Pedro :  Chat  20:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 15:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see that there is no reasons for the page to delete as per the policies I know about of Wikipedia. Here is comment that he searched the net and got only http://kitco.com Why don't he go down the page and see the http://kitco.in link. The first one is bullion company and http://kitco.in is a public sector technical consultancy firm in India. I wrote the page not to promote the company, but to inform about the activities of the Government organisation. About the COI issue, I think it is far better for some one from the company (like me) to write about it so that the facts will be accurate. And I thought what Wikipedia care more about is accuracy. Jacob universe - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobkitco (talk • contribs) 09:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 15:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and move to KITCO (Canadian entity is at Kitco, I've sorted out the hatnotes). No valid reason for deletion of this article about a notable government body. May need some trimming and cleanup, but it's notable and sourced. PamD (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and move to KITCO, based upon PamD (talk)'s thoughtful suggestion above. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:30, 15 February 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) 07:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oba massacre[edit]

Oba massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

After scouring through Google, as well as Google Books, it appears that references to this alleged massacre are by and large found on websites related to the denial of the Armenian Genocide. The two sources cited in the article make this clear enough. The first one, whose title in Turkish translates to Armenian Issue, is an un-academic website whose sole objective is to refute the factual nature of the Armenian Genocide. Going against scholarly consensus, it alleges that the Armenian people massacred Turks during the World War I years; those massacres were consequently followed up by the deportation of the Armenian people from the Ottoman Empire. In much the same vein, this website and now this article puts forward the allegation that the Turks living in the village were subjected to massacres by the hands of the Armenians. But because of its dubious nature, and because scholars have recognized a pattern in which the actual perpetrators of the crime portray themselves as the victims and label the latter as the true culprits, it seems to me that this website cannot at all be regarded as a reliable source.

Indeed, the cited link here makes it clear that the monument built by the municipal authorities of Igdir was designed specifically "to give a similar answer to those declaring the 24th April as the genocide day and to the monuments erected in many places of the world for the genocide alleged to have been perpetrated against the Armenians." On the Igdir article, in the section devoted to the genocide monument, there are several sources which make it clear the monument was erected to commemorate the perpetrators themselves. That is, in order to give an absolve the Turkish state of any responsibility for the Armenian Genocide, they have decided to turn the tables on the victims. If anything, the general region of Igdir was where thousands of Armenians perished during the winter of 1918-19 and during the Turkish invasion of 1920, when it was part of the Republic of Armenia (see this contemporary article written by a journalist for National Geographic in 1919 for more).

All of which brings us back to Oba. There certainly was a village or town by the name near Igdir back in 1919 but very little information exists on it. The second source only speaks about a film crew from al Jazeera going to record a documentary on the event. While this is a slightly improved source, it still poses new questions regarding neutrality, even more so since it is coming from a Turkish newspaper which always refer to the Armenian Genocide as an alleged event. Al Jazeera in the past has also picked up on this denial line and I think, in this case, its sole presence here would be very problematic. If this article is to be maintained, we need to find sources written by third-party sources or authors who have a more or less dispassionate interest in the matter. This necessarily means that we exclude sources from the Ottoman Empire and its successor the modern Turkish Republic, since they are ideologically bent to deny that no Armenians died from any state-devised policy and, if anything, the Armenians were responsible for their own destruction and culpable of crimes committed agains the native Muslim peoples. A light skim through the Armenian Genocide and Denial of the Armenian Genocide articles are, therefore, necessary for understanding the situation and evaluating what sources are acceptable and those which are not.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can find more information in Turkish here [5].Al Jazerra also displayed pro-genocide programs about Armenian Genocide in the past. Therefore it can be considered as third-party source.--Abbatai 20:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs)

Yes, but given the sensitive subject matter and the Turkey's ideological arguments which negate and deny the Armenian Genocide, I think we are going to need something far more compelling. Contemporary sources would be nice, but the opinion of third-party or peer-reviewed scholars would be preferable.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Turkey oficially denies Armenian Genocide but that does not mean all turkish sources about this are unreliable.--Abbatai 21:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are no reliable independent sources. The government of Turkey's official line on the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians is that it never happened (even though the Armenian genocide is formally recognised by many nations and many scholars all over the world). If this massacre of 97 Turks happened then it needs to be backed up by independent sources outside of Turkey and the Turkish media and ideally by historians, who are not sponsored by the government of Turkey, who are experts in what happened in Asia Minor between 1915 and 1923. And no, that is not too much to ask. At the very least it should be backed up by scholarly references that are independent of Turkey and its sphere of influence.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nipsonamomhmata. - Fedayee (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nipsonamomhmata. ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 2 of the "references" are .gov.tr, which are clearly non-neutral sources. "www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr" is a anti-Armenian site, which is not neutral. The mention of Al-jazeera is rather odd since a search of said site results in nothing(along with the fact that the related link is undated). The "www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem", should we believe that Dr. Erol Kürkçüoğlu, is a neutral participant? Try googling his name and you will find he is a stauch denialist. Therefore, none of the "sources" presented are neutral. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepYour arguments are totally based on denial of Armenian Genocide. However according to many historians such as Taner Akcam and Guenter Lewy Muslim people were killed by Armenians in eastern Anatolia near Erzurum, Mus, Karz, Erzincan and Igdir. All Armenian or pro-Armenian users here just dramatize the topic with regard to Armenian genocide.--Abbatai 11:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs)

• • Comment No, that is not the case. My argument is based on the fact that no Turkish source (nor any source within the sphere of influence of Turkey) is independent or can be reliable when Turkey officially continues to deny the Armenian genocide (when many countries and multiple scholars recognise the genocide) i.e. I note an important conflict of interest which makes it essential that sources must be unquestionably independent.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 11:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read my previous post. We dont disscus Armenian genocide or its denial. Muslim population of anatolia also killed by Dashnaks it is a well known fact.--Abbatai 11:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs)
• (provisional) Delete - Since I cannot read Turkish, I am making some assumptions about some of the sources to reach my conclusion. If these assumptions are wrong, my opinion may need to change. All articles need reliable sources. A reliable source, among other things, is a source with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If, as users such as Kansas Bear above imply, all of the sources in this article are associated with Armenian Genocide denial, it is safe to say that they do NOT have a reputation for accuracy around these issues, and the sources cannot be used to support an article. I do not believe that this is true of any Turkish source at all, but it sounds like this is true of all the Turkish sources provided. Without reliable sources with such a reputation to base the article on, it has no place on Wikipedia. gnfnrf (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there significant discussion of this as an alleged instance of Turkish genocide during the period? If so, I think that there might be an argument for preserving some treatment of this topic in Wikipedia, albeit with proper acknowledgement of the controversy. This article might work, if it had links to and discussion of the status of the alleged event within the scholarly community, if it situated of allegations within the broader context of Turkey's denial policy and the controversial counter-claims of genocide. If, on the other hand, this alleged case is rarely alleged and/or presented by only one or several scholars, then I'll say Delete. Similarly, if it proves impossible to properly situate the article's claims within the context as I describe above, I'm against keeping the article. If, however, this is a recurring claim with significant and ongoing treatment in scholarly and popular media, even if only in Turkish media, that itself is sufficient for notability and I'd say Keep. Notability doesn't require that the contents of the article are dictated by the point of view of the notable treatment; the contents are dictated by reliable sources. Avram (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are no known significant massacres of Turks during this period. At least none that can be described as "genocide". However, it is well documented, by genocide scholars, that Turkey has committed a number of genocides against its non-muslim population which Turkey denies ever happened and has never apologised for despite extensive international recognition.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm familiar with the topic. My point is that even controversial or non-factual claims can themselves be notable, particularly if they play a significant role in the controversy. My question is whether the Oba event plays a major role in Turkish historiography of the period-- it needn't be wholly factual or non-contested to have a place in Wikipedia, if it plays a sufficiently large role in the controversy. And by no means does this mean that this article need not recognize the controversial nature of the claims, nor indeed the motivation for certain scholars to speak of this event (assuming, of course, that this nuanced and careful treatment can be supported by appropriate reliable sources). The existence of an article such as this should not be interpreted as a denial of the Armenian genocide, per se. Avram (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you are saying is reasonable. If this event can be supported by appropriate reliable sources (outside the sphere of influence of Turkey) then it deserves to be kept. The event is not interpreted as a denial of the Armenian Genocide, Greek Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, or the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and subsequent ethnic and cultural cleansing even though all of these recognised and well-referenced events are denied by the Republic of Turkey. The only reason these events are mentioned is to put this article in to context.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 21:08, 19 February 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) 23:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia's IE 2 Contracts[edit]

Georgia's IE 2 Contracts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There are no sources in this article;Fails WP:GNG with a lack of secondary sources. Ingadres (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, also article is a mess. Aaabbccz (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly it just needs a good editor to sort it out. Aaabbccz Tell me something 19:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No references, minimal context into the big picture. —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I understand enough of the article to know that without seriously major work, it's not going to make the grade. But what does "Brooks Coleman carried Governor Sonny Perdue's water[clarification needed] on HB 1209" actually mean? Possibly people in Georgia might know. (I do know what 'clarification needed' means, and presumably I'm not the only one who doesn't understand Georgian.) Abandoned by its creator, an SPA and brought here by a determined new account (not an SPA), its history consists of creation, maintenance edits and attempts at getting it deleted. I suggest we bow to the inevitable and get rid. If we don't, every piece of legislation in every state of the Union may end up with an article. (Not forgetting every piece of legislation in the States of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Provinces of the Dominion of Canada. the Welsh Assembly, the Parliament of Scotland, and anywhere else with states and a use of English.) Peridon (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's pretty rare that I have honest difficulty figuring out what an article is about enough to classify the deletion debate. While I'm not generally a fan it, this looks like a case for the Etch-a-sketch solution; shake vigorously and restart if there is enough verifiable material to warrant it. --Danger (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 06:26, 14 February 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 consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Young Israel Shomrai Emunah[edit]

Young Israel Shomrai Emunah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG with a lack of secondary sources. TM 18:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article lists two secondary sources and internet searches reveal far more.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article listed two links about the rabbi, not this.--TM 06:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A reasonable number of sources independent of the subject with non trivial coverage. Passes WP:GNG. Could use some work, though. Sailsbystars (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is non trivial coverage, please demonstrate it. As for claims of notability, here is the gist of the article. A rabbi established a congregation. It grew and they bought a new building. He died and was replaced by another rabbi. I do not see anything terribly notable in that.--TM 14:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The sources do in fact demonstrate this topic passes WP:GNG. As to the charge that the coverage is trivial, examples of "trivial" are defined by WP:GNG as a "directory listing" or a "one sentence mention." The coverage, even admitted by the nom in the last response, is far beyond either of those.--Oakshade (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was recapping the text of the article. None of the sources provided give that information. There is no significant coverage of the congregation. All of the coverage shown thus far concerns the rabbi and notability is not inherited. If you have sources which demonstrate in-depth, significant and non-trivial coverage, by all means please show it.--TM 18:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all of the original research and uncited narrative on the page. Of the two "sources", both of which were obituaries for the distinguished rabbi, only one even mention the congregation and that was in reference to the location of his burial. These !votes reek of thinly veiled WP:ILIKEIT's.--TM 03:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TM: Please note, it's a synagogue, there are no Earth-shattering things that go on there, but that does not mean it is not notable, and as such there is sufficient material now in the article to justify it. It is the largest Orthodox synagogue in the area, it's founding and guiding rabbi of 57 years oversaw it's growth and was a notable religious leader (all synagogues are led by rabbis), it is the hub for Orthodox life in the Greater Washington area, it is noted in both the local Jewish press and by important news media, it functions in conjunction with other important Jewish organizations and provides important services and functions to the thousands of Orthodox Jews that surround it. All of this has now been cited and noted in the expanded article and you are therefore kindly requested to withdraw your nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because the article has been upgraded with 25 WP:RS. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: The nominator is kindly requested to withdraw his nomination because the article has now been thoroughly upgraded with all required sources and references as per WP:ORG. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a one-paragraph mention in National Council of Young Israel#Affiliated synagogues, which is already populated with two other synagogues. The only notable point in the whole article which deserves mention is that it is "the first Orthodox synagogue established in Montgomery County". Otherwise the article seems more like original research and self-promotion than anything. Of course the local newspapers would mention the synagogue, but the only national coverage is by the National Council of Young Israel, of which the synagogue is an affiliate. And some of the references don't even "say" what the article claims, such as the list of synagogues cited to prove that it is "recognized as a key synagogue in the Silver Spring, Maryland area". There are notable, historic synagogues and then there are neighborhood shuls. I am not in favor of giving a page to every synagogue out there. Yoninah (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yoninah: I disagree with you. Perhaps some synagogue articles lack information but this one now has plenty. In this case it's an independent synagogue, with a strong Haredi involvement that goes beyond the NCYI Modern Orthodox type, as the article conveys. IZAK (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Is there a relevant guideline for notability of buildings or churches? Also, a comment - there are more high quality sources available, and I will see about getting them inserted. The sources inserted over night are not of high quality. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are almost all trivial sources. Izak, if we followed your guide to notability, essentially every church, synagogue, mosque and temple in the world would be notable because they are all "hubs" for some groups religious life. I will not withdraw my nomination and instead I would point that this still fails GNG's 'Significant coverage' barrier. Is there an article specifically about the synagogue in independent media? In my mind, religious buildings and organizations are not inherently notable. If they are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or have had a long history or pass WP:GNG, then I see an argument for notability. However, this synagogue has no significant coverage and stills fails GNG despite the large number of trivial 'sources' provided.--TM 13:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there TM: Um, how can it be "historic" if it's not 100 years old yet? Do only 100 year old buildings get noted and by then they are often empty shells devoid of meaning functioning as museums? So your argument is weak. First of all kindly note that WP:NOTPAPER and there is no limit to what can be included in an encyclopedia with basic referencing. You cannot do better than the citations I added from The Washington Examiner; The Washington Post in at least four different articles, there are more, I stopped searching Google by the 20th page out of over 21,000 hits for ""Young Israel Shomrai Emunah", the Washington Jewish Week a few times and these all meet the requirements of WP:NEWSORG @ WP:IRS, as well as other Jewish news outlets, and the additional links are to organizations that validates the extent of the synagogue's serious connections and wide network. Your deprecating comments above would sound absurd if applied to any soccer or sports team article where the central idea is always the same: "A team is put together, they elect a captain, they have a home ground, they kick around some balls, they lose some games and win others, sometimes a trophy. It's always the same. The end." That's what sports looks like to an outsider and it is easy to make light of a house of worship that is notable in its own rights and should be judged on its merits, and in this case there are now more than enough good WP:RS, with some others to back up the information as well, that makes this an informative and encyclopedic article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article demonstrates that YISE performs the basic functions that nearly every religious institution performs across the entire world. It is located in a major metro hub, so ofcourse there is going to be basic, WP:LOCAL coverage. However, it is all WP:TRIVIAL. If you can find sources which actually cover the congregation independently and in-depth, then I will review the nomination but otherwise, the keeps make no reference to the trivial nature of the coverage and your argument is quite weak as well.--TM 04:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TM, take a look at the disambig page St. Patrick's Cathedral, it's questionable if each and every one of those articles is valid the way you would require it of them (some are just red links asking to be created). Even if there was only one St. Patrick's Cathedral (New York) and one Masjid al-Haram mosque in Mecca, it would be absurd to expect that every mosque, church or synagogue or any kind of religious house of worship needs to exist on that kind of grand scale to deserve a WP article. Unfortunately, most times synagogues become "notable" for tragic reasons such as happened on Kristallnacht when the Nazis burned down over 1,600 synagogues, or when there are random acts of vandalism and arson, but that should not be a reason to wait to make important synagogues subjects of WP articles. You also overlook that America is a young country, and therefore synagogues tend to be new and unfamiliar to outsiders. The fact that major news outlets such as The Washington Post, The Washington Examiner and the Washington Jewish Week who do report on that area where the synagogue is located and that they make frequent ongoing annual references to this synagogue should be good enough for anyone concerned about the requisite WP citations and sources, otherwise it looks like overkill to demand more as if this was "Solomon's Temple." Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Izak, there is no need for bringing up Kristallnacht or other events for seemingly dramatic effect. For the last time, I will restate my argument clearly: YISE is a normal religious institution that does not have a unique history, which is why the only mentions of the synagogue come in passing or in relation to something else notable. Your previous arguments fall under it does no harm, it is valuable, it is prominent in its neighborhood, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and even someone notable worked there. I highly advise you to reread your arguments and compare them to the arguments to avoid at deletion discussions.--TM 15:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TM: Just to remind you, synagogues are not "notable" because they appear on a "National Register of Historic Places" which is absurd, their importance comes from their significance to Jews and Judaism, so let's not lose touch with reality just because this is a WP forum. My arguments are sound. The synagogue would be notable just on the grounds of the WP:N of its recently demised longest serving rabbi, who could easily get a WP:BIO of his own and no doubt will, but for now his information bolsters this article. I do not defend the inclusion of articles about every synagogue on WP, but I do take note of those that are very important. It takes some experience to know this, that is why it would have been more helpful had you sought out some input from veteran experienced Judaic editors at WP:JUDAISM first. It is significant (regardless of your continued deprecations) that it's mentioned in mainstream media in whatever way, especially when the synagogue, its founding rabbi and a number of its congregants get cited in major newspapers. It also happens to be it's the most important Orthodox synagogue in the Greater Washington area and is the spiritual home to hundreds of key US government officials, that will get noted. IZAK (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Adequate reliable and verifiable sources about the subject meet the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Yoavd (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE--TM 15:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the sources do not appear to be anything more than casual references to local events taking place there. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 17:34, 18 February 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) 23:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Construction Specialties, Inc.[edit]

Construction Specialties, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

NN company Aaabbccz (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although it asserts to be an international company, the only sources in the article are primary. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like a bit of disguised spam to me. It's not easy to show notability for a business (or person) operating in this sort of area, even though without them the architects and builders would be out on a limb. (Just as without some farmer somewhere growing spuds, the five star restaurant wouldn't be able to serve Duck Parmentier.) A difficulty in researching this company is that while they are 'Construction Specialties, Inc', there are many other companies with that in their names too, like Anchor Construction Specialties. It would seem that title has been speedied previously http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NawlinWiki/Archive_50&diff=405003017&oldid=404995342 The re-creation was by an SPA, the rest of the edits by another SPA. This always makes me think that this is designed to give an impression of numbers and general interest in the article. As opposed to it being probably one person from the company gaming the system - or trying to. I could be wrong. I suppose I could... Peridon (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 06:17, 14 February 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. The consensus is that this is a neologism. Should it ever be used more commonly, other than the website of the same name, then it can be recreated PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diversism[edit]

Diversism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Article about a new word, which seems to be used in two distinct senses:

• "A Young Cultural and Architectural Theory in the early maturing stages" linked to a body called "The British Biological Architecture Administration" which the article claims is "an Executive Branch agency of the British government." (The BBAA website does not actually make that claim, which seems to me highly improbable, though it displays the Government's lion-and-unicorn crest)
• a new religion founded by one Joseph Andrew Nelson who "is currently investing in a small church in Virginia where he will share his beliefs and ideas".

Only sources cited are the BBAA site and "www.diversism.com". Both these websites brought me warning flags from Zonealarm: "This website is suspicious. Leave now unless you know this site is safe," possibly because they were only set up on 20 Nov 2010 and 9 Feb 2011 respectively.

Per WP:NEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term... Neologisms... for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia."

A search finds links back to the BBAA, and various other people using the word in various ways, but no secondary sources, nor any indication that any specific use is solidly enough established to satisfy WP:NEO and be the basis of a Wikipedia article. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's conceivable that the term may eventually gain some traction, but at present it's the work of a single individual whose ideas haven't gained notice in the press, architectural or otherwise. The websites seem to relate to a competition, and are clearly not a branch of the UK/HM government, lion and unicorn not withstanding. As such sources are circular in nature, or nonexistent. The article doesn't provide any actual insight into the principles associated with the term, just a series of general declarations that could apply to any field. The comparison with Modernism is completely specious. Acroterion _(talk) 20:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 12 February 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) 23:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC) But she is a very nice woman.[reply]

Holly Pike[edit]

Holly Pike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG as a necessary article. Aaaccc (talk), 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree this should be deleted, sadly the article is written better then some politicians that should have articles but hers is not needed. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very slender findings on GS. Acting principal, so would not pass WP:Prof#C6 even if stature of establishment were confirmed. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Neither interim admin nor unsuccessful politician makes for notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 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 nominator has withdrawn so there's no arguments for deletion aside from one !voter. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure (programming language)[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)).

Pure (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This language fails to meet the general notability guideline. As sources, I found:

• the projects website, which obviously doesn't count
• one hit on Hacker News, which is user-generated content and therefore unacceptable for establishing notability
• a "book" (actually just a pdf on the website) that has been cited twice, according to Google Scholar. http://wiki.pure-lang.googlecode.com/hg/docs/pure-intro/pure-intro.pdf
• An academic-looking pdf on linuxaudio.org, which has been cited 0 times (http://lac.linuxaudio.org/2009/cdm/Saturday/19_Graef/19.pdf)

Not good enough for establishing notability. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Disclaimer: I'm the designer of that language and the primary developer, but I didn't create this article, although I'm among its editors.

The "academic-looking pdf" is actually a refereed article from the Linux Audio Conference 2009 proceedings. It's true that Pure is a relatively new and experimental language, but as a PL researcher you know very well that these projects just take time to mature to a point where you can write a bunch of papers about them. In fact, I have academic papers in the pipeline for two more conferences this year, and I also got an invitation from the organizers of the "Emerging Languages" track at OSCON 2011 to give a presentation about Pure (alas, I don't have the time to go this year, but it's already on my list for next year). Apparently, the LLVM team also thinks that Pure is quite notable, otherwise they wouldn't mention it on their project website and in their release notes, and in fact the LLVM Wikipedia article also links to this one.

More generally, I think that judging programming languages and other complex pieces of software by academic publications alone is a bit short-sighted. At least, the criteria being applied here warrant further discussion, and I'm not sure that individual AfDs are the right place to do this. One of WP's strong points over dead tree encyclopedia is its wide spectrum of up-to-date information. If you remove everything from the PL section which hasn't gone through the test of time yet, then WP's PL section will soon look pretty deserted, and WP will be poorer for it. Ag (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yeah, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I'm glad there is some good work done with respect to this language, but we can't speculate. If your articles get into good conferences and end up getting cited, then we'd have a good case for keeping this article. But right now this is not the case, and there is no evidence that it ever will be the case. LLVM is notable, but notability is not inheritable.

I am not judging PLs by only academic publications. If they have other coverage, then that is obviously admissible. This language does not have other coverage, that I could find. If there is other independent coverage, why don't you link it here? As for the "test of time" argument, if that's what's necessary to find reliable sources, then so be it -- Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Finally, I am of the opinion that my AfDs will improve Wikipedia's quality, because our lists and categories won't be full of stubs that intrinsically can't be expanded beyond superficial discussion of syntax and language features. More information is not necessarily better. (This is offtopic for AfD though, if you want to talk about it, why don't we on my talk page or something?) Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“I'm glad there is some good work done with respect to this language, but we can't speculate”, you are just enforcing rules instead of keeping the quality of Wikipedia in mind. Pure (programming language) is not a stub, but it is referenced e.g. by Term rewriting and this reference is very useful. Btw WP:BALL does not affect the Pure-articel. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may improve the quality of the List-of-programming-languages article, but Wikipedia's main-purpose is not a short list of programming languages, and this task could be done better by sorting the programming languages. (see also Category:Living people, that is a mess, too, but of course nobody starts to remove people) At the other hand you are impairing the quality of information about metaprogramming, term rewriting etc. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not judging PLs by only academic publications." But that's what it all boils down to. Because, let's face it, communication on new and experimental languages takes place on the web these days. "LLVM is notable, but notability is not inheritable." I didn't claim that. I simply mentioned the LLVM website as a source lending credibility to Pure. "I am of the opinion that my AfDs will improve Wikipedia's quality." I understand that, I just think that you're wrong. You're not just targeting useless stubs, you're killing valuable content, too, IMHO. But I agree that this is a discussion to be had elsewhere. Ag (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I totally agree with Ag, this article really provides usefull information, is not an orphan, the language implements unique concepts, the Wikipedia would be worse without this programming language. And the references from other articles are certainly no spam, but useful, too. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Chricho's logic. Pure implements unique concepts and inhabits an interesting cultural context, bringing together a number of important emerging technologies with modern computer science techniques. Wikipedia is better off for documenting this. Morgan Sutherland (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of reliable sources. Tiderolls 22:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiderolls, can you please elaborate? There are two peer-reviewed papers (one by a third party), and the website of the LLVM project (one of the highest-profile projects in compiler technology today, involving both Apple and various universities). Aren't these reliable sources for you? Do you have any reason to doubt the facts reported in this article? Ag (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this for gosh sake. Pure is both currently under active development, as witnessed by it's active mailing list, and moreover represents an importance advance as far as efforts to obtain (1) scripting languages that reflect the modern functional style for domain specific (music synthesis) application areas; (2) an important example of the application of the LLVM compiler infrastructure; and last but not least (3) a term-rewriting scripting language that allows fast compilation. There is nothing else out there like it. As a computer scientist, I find efforts to delete this wikipedia page disgraceful. Popularity is not an appropriate measure of uniqueness or quality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.244.170 (talk • contribs)

• Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, single AfD may be appropriate, but deletion sprees cause collateral damage. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.
  • http://llvm.org/ProjectsWithLLVM/#pure. This language itself notable for it's features among other LLVM-based languages.
  • Paper where I've originally found Pure: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1863538. 178.234.110.106 (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You cannot arbitrarily remove accurate information about a useful, actively developed programming language. Languages like this need exposure to get people involved in their use and development. An encyclopaedia exists to store and disseminate information, not to lose it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.234.127 (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We have a useful, adequately sourced article, but one which is not notable according to the current guidelines. I am against deleting the article, as it is destroys value and doesn't support maintainability of the encyclopedia, since the article's contents are not problematic in any way. We should either (i) keep the article as it is, as a de facto recognition that the notability guidelines for PLs are broken, or (ii) merge the article into a larger article (with redirect), perhaps Term-rewriting programming languages in parallel to the current Category:Term-rewriting programming languages. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are at least two sourced articles - the "academic-looking pdf" and the book http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1863538 which references the language. Both are peer reviewed sources. I've never used the language myself, but it looks to be one of the most interesting new languages. It is also distributed with Debian Linux. Perhaps the person wanted the page removed can explain what he thinks Wikipedia will gain from its removal. Does he have any vested interest in programming languages? He seems to be trying to get a number of languages removed from Wikipedia. I see nothing to be gained, and a lot to be lost by his actions Drkirkby (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is included in major repositories of different GNU/Linux-distributions, including Fedora and openSuSE. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I suggest ignoring the WP:GNG in this case as that guideline doesn't work well in the field of programming languages (and somewhat in the case of software generally). Given the paper etc. mentioned above, I thus opt for Keep. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with the above comment, and I think this is a perfect use case for WP:IAR. Blind application of the WP:GNG rule is working against Wikipedia in the PL field. Pure, Alice, Nemerle and similar small languages are important, programmers know about them even if they are not in production use, these languages fill gaps between various approaches and paradigms, so they can't be ignored by Wikipedia even if there is not enough media coverage, because otherwise Wikipedia can't provide a full picture to a curious reader. Merge can also be considered, but I'm afraid it's impossible to make a readable page that merges several very different languages, and it's not clear how to merge them - either to term-rewriting languages, or functional languages, or macro languages - there is no single category that fits a language better than another. The best approach would be having separate pages for each language, and references from all categories (the way it is now). Disclaimer: I'm not a stakeholder of any of these languages, I'm a C++ programmer. Enerjazzer (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retract. I'm retracting this AfD for obvious reasons.... Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, as there has been 1 other Delete vote, this AfD can't be unilaterally withdrawn anymore. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Another secondary source. This is an article in the German iX magazine: Michael Riepe. Rein ins Vergnügen : Pure – eine einfache funktionale Sprache. iX 12/2009, p. 147. Online at: http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/Rein-ins-Vergnuegen-856225.html (in German). Ag (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that iX is a professional IT magazine, published (in paper form) by Heise, see iX (magazine). Ag (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh Would need more sources, but it has enough to write a short article. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:14, 18 February 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. The consensus is that this article should be deleted. The argument is that there is no independent work about this language, or evidence that anyone other than the creator. Should it be cited in independent academic works, or evidence found that it is being taught by anyone other than the creator (or his representatives), or that it has been written about by anyone other than the creator, then it can be recreated PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zonnon[edit]

Zonnon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This language fails to meet the general notability guideline. I count 3 academic papers about the language in the ACM digital library, but they are all by the language creator, and they have each been cited 0 times. On Google, there are a couple of blogs or forum posts, but nothing even close to what is necessary to establish notablity. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retract. I'm retracting this AfD for obvious reasons.... Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator has withdrawn his request for deletion. To prevent this discussion from being closed as "nomination withdrawn", I will take over this nomination. Cunard (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable secondary sources supplied that establish notability or support the claims in the article. SQGibbon (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless WP:GNG-compliant sources are provided. (as always, WP:SECONDARY sources, etc) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• SpeedyKeep  I think that this AfD should have been closed as SpeedyKeep upon withdrawal by the nominator.  It appears that the language is being taught in two classes in Russia, and that a 110-page book has been written about the language (in Russian) within the last couple of years.  That is plenty to support the SpeedyKeep.  I think that this article has had its time for AfD review.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we confirm whether the classes are taught by the author of the software, and whether the book was also written by him? Notability is better shown via independent sources, and if all the coverage has been created by the person who wrote the language..... --Enric Naval (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We, as Wikipedia, have taken the time to consider this AfD, and the process went to a stopping point.  My mentioning of content is to document that there is no basis for ignoring the result of this process and suddenly re-opening the examination.  Wikipedia is both a work in progress, and there is no deadline.  There are many other AfDs taking place at WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 20, etc., that need attention.  I think that to pursue this AfD at this point is to advocate for an admin deletion that would be at a minimum controversial and questionable.  See also, Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Answer my questions instead of suddenly invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The article cites several sources, among them an article published by Zonnon's creators. A Google News Archive search returns no nontrivial coverage about Zonnon. This is the same with a Google Books search, which returns sources such as this entry, which was written by Zonnon's creators. Likewise, a Google Scholar search returns several results which are not primary. This topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Article subject lacks reliable sources. Cannot find any GHits or GNEWS of substance. Fails to establish notability. ttonyb (talk) 21:25, 21 February 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. The main argument for keeping this article appears to be "someone has nominated a lot of articles for deletion", which as far as I am aware is not a valid reason for keeping this article. The sources provided have been refuted by the 'delete's as being authored by the creator of the language, and so not independent. The ones which are not written by him are disputed as useable as they are not about Y but about peephole optimisation. However, I would like to commend Throwaway85 for finding the sources, as I feel that this is more effective in argument than just saying "someone shouldn't nominate lots of articles for deletion', especially when at least one of those people used the precise-same-wording in their opposes for all of them! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y (programming language)[edit]

Y (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This language fails to meet the general notability guideline. The one source I could find was the author's original publication on the language in '81, which according to the ACM digital library has 10 citations. For a paper from 30 years ago, 10 citations is an awfully low number, so I don't think one could use an academic argument for this source establishing notability. Regardless, one source doesn't count as multiple instances of independent coverage. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, deleting information en masse is never a good idea. If the article really shouldn't be here, I'm sure someone else will nom it. CM should probably chill out on the spree. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see provided source below. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, esp. as it relates to peephole optimization, and has a historical context within that purpose. It would make sense to incorporate it within the peephole optimization article with a redirect leading to that, but I do not have the time to do the editing atm. Until someone does, it should be a keep. Nodekeeper (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlike all the other articles that have been nominated by Christopher, because as it is now this microstub is useless. If reborn, it should be mentioned in the article on peephole optimization. --bala^biot 09:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles start out as "useless microstubs". That's not an argument for deletion. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retract. I'm retracting this AfD for obvious reasons.... Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Absolutely no reliable secondary (or any other kind) sources supplied to establish notability or support any of the claims made in the article. SQGibbon (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No demonstrated notability or outside sources. Also at least 2 of the 3 keeps are simply "keep because deletion in general is bad."--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Source Dedicated paper on Y published by ACM. Authoritative, peer-reviewed, independent source, in addition to the source included in the article, satisfies WP:N. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's an independent source and not written by the creator of the language? Also the other source used in the article is just a listing and uses this paper you've linked to as its source. So that's really only one source as a directory listing isn't generally considered a good source. SQGibbon (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The paper may (or may not) have been written by the creator of the language, but it's been published by the ACM (the preeminent organization in the field) in a peer-reviewed journal. It is thus an independent source. You are correct that the source listed is basically a very limited and poor reference to the paper I listed, so I'll attempt to round up a few more. The ACM paper alone is sufficient to write a detailed and descriptive article; regardless, I'll endeavour to find more sources to strengthen its case for inclusion. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The paper is written by the creator of the language, which means it cannot be used to prove the existance of reliable secondary sources (per the GNG). --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it can. You click the google scholar link at the top, click the first link, and click the "cited by" tab. Boom: tons of secondary sources. Rather than assume secondary sources don't exist and base your vote on that assumption, why not simply check first? Throwaway85 (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Secondary sources: object optimization in Y, peephole optimization in Y, more peephole optimiztion in Y, analysis of instruction set complexity and performance in Y... the list goes on. It would be nice if those claiming that no secondary sources exist made at least a nominal effort to ascertain the truth of that statement before loudly declaring it to be so. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The source listed immediately previous is written by the creator of the language, which makes it a primary source. The language still fails the general notability guidelines which call for reliable secondary sources. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no coverage by sources that are independent of the subject? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just listed 4 of them directly above you, and there's plenty more on google scholar.

• • • All those four sources are authored by the author of the software, they are not independent. And they are all proceeding papers, not papers in journals. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: So far, the only argument for deletion seems to be that there are a lack of secondary sources. I believe I've shown that not to be true. Between the original paper describing Y and the 20 or so citations thereof, using Y for a variety of optimization studies, there's plenty of material available to write a good article on Y. Most of the delete votes, at their heart, seem to be motivated by the fact that Y is no longer in widespread use in academia. The feeling seems to be that, as a "dead" language, it isn't notable. That's simply not what notability means on Wikipedia. We have sources, we can write a good article, so we should do so. To the closing admin, unless one of the people proposing deletion can come up with an argument that doesn't rest upon the lack of sources, their arguments should be discarded as being unsound Throwaway85 (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more sources: a few mentions here, here (might be the same as a paper I posted earlier, looks familiar), here (again, might be a repeat, hard to keep track).

These other papers you list here not authored by him, but they seem to be about peephole optimization. This would warrant at most its inclusion in Peephole optimization. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The papers themselves mention the use of Y, if not particular aspects of the programming language. The spec is enough to describe syntax and semantics, as well as defining features of the language, as it is the definitive source on those aspects. The papers mentioning the use of the language in various types of optimization research are sufficient to write authoritatively on its uses. While, in general, we don't rely on primary sources for an overview of the subject, the spec is more than sufficient for this purpose, as it defines particular noteworthy aspects of the language. In the same way, the writings of a philosopher are themselves sufficient to describe a particular theory, while references to that theory are necessary to determine if it is noteworthy. I believe the secondary sources I have found, as well as the others out there, are sufficient to establish Y as notable, without needing to be relied upon to describe the language itself. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Ubernostrum very wise words.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comment is not very helpful. Could you please address the reasons for deletion instead of complaining about deletion sprees? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Also note that Ubernostrum simply copy/pasted the same comment in all the nominations of programming languages that were made by monsanto. Throwaway85 has at least attempted to provide sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 20 February 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) 23:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Marine Software Engineering[edit]

Marine Software Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Deleted as uncontroversial and undeleted by request. The term is defined by the Marine Software Engineering Cluster of Excellence, the subject of another AfD, and does not meet the general notability guideline. Article is unreferenced. I was unable to locate independent, secondary sources. Single mentions in Google Books and Google Scholar are in name only. Google News results are all to "Marine Software Engineering Cluster of Excellence." Pnm (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this could honestly go to speedy deletion and I don't think any sane person would argue. It makes no real claim to notability, is unreferenced, and is extremely spammy. Thanks, but no thanks. l'aquatique[talk] 17:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  

Marine Software Engineering is used by a fast growing open source community in the marine sector. The article is being improved by the whole community and already meets clearly the requirements in the general notability guideline. Being a personal user I am surprised on how this community driven initiative is treated. If anyone thinks the article is spammy I would suggest that the person improves the article. Teakboy42 (talk) — Teakboy42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. There are no references, and the tone is that of an advertisment. It seems likely that it was created by a person with a conflict of interest. Even if sources were found, it would need a full rewrite by someone else. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: not sure what to make of this... diff. I'm not sure G7 qualifies as the article is rather old and has had many editors. Any thoughts? l'aquatique[talk] 05:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since the article's creation, there have been significant content changes (as opposed to wikignome activity) so I don't think an author requested speedy deletion is appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm inclined to agree. The more I think about this, the problem I see (beyond the spammy-tone) is that it has a hugely broad title but is entirely from the perspective of one single not-terribly-notable Maltese organization. I find it hard to believe that MARSEC-XL has the market cornered on marine software. If we're going to have an article about this subject, it's going to have to be a lot broader l'aquatique[talk] 19:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can find no reliable sources covering this discipline -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too little content, no external referencing, too promotional in tone. Is marine software engineering doing anything distinctive from software engineering for high-reliability systems in general? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There may well be a a viable topic with Maritime software [6], [7], [8] are sort of about it. However, the article we have here is not about marine software engineering, but is really an extension of MARSEC-XL. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't regard any of those three refs as really supporting marine software engineering as a separate discipline. One is about surveillance, which is more about radar processing and avionics, the other two are an outgrowth of marine engineering, already well established in its own right.

It's likely that marine software engineering is a discipline (and if it is, it would be a notable one), but if we're to have an article that is a pathetically self-evident tautology and no more, then we have to demonstrate this effectively. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - completely unreferenced and not a recognized type of software engineering. --B (talk) 20:13, 18 February 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. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airport chair[edit]

Airport chair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I cannot find any sources specifically covering the seating in airports. Ironholds (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is virtually incomprehensible, with statements such as "If you sit down in few and poor conditions,people will eyebrows. This means not only in public, very short stay, but also means that many attractive and valuable outdoor activities will be killed out." This subject may well be notable enough to warrant an article, but it would be better to delete this entire article and start from scratch. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above recommendation is no longer applicable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sort of interesting essay, but whether it's homework or a Wikipedia article, citations and sources are indispensible. I'm old enough to remember when some airports had chairs that had TV sets on the arm that would give you an hour of local programming for a set number of quarters, remember to cite it to "Mandsford said so" if you put it in an article. All kidding aside, I agree with Ironholds that there's nothing specifically about seating in airports, though I'm sure that train stations, bus stations, airports, and most waiting rooms have some considerations for mass seating. Mandsford 23:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an airport chair is a fibreglass or plastic molded round thing from the 60's in garish colors, connected together bench-like, perhaps with a TV on an arm. 184.144.164.14 (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep The first draft was quite incoherent but I found no difficulty in finding sources for this topic. As I have rewritten the article from these, the above opinions are now obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, while I've got no actual access to any of those books (did you find them online? If so, include the URL) I do notice they're all entries from single pages. Exactly how much coverage did each book provide? Ironholds (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a pretty weighty claim on the above votes. If they want to change their opinion they can (I can see one already has).--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A few facts on airport design that, while somewhat interesting, are in no way connected enough or establish enough notability to deserve their own article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Airport terminal and merge content relevant to that article (e.g. fire safety paragraph). --Pnm (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Airport terminal. I'll AGF on the Colonel's sources, but I think it would be best to make this a section in the broader article rather than a stand alone article. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^prattle 17:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this basket of sentences. This article in no way represents an encyclopedia article. Yes, we all know that airports have chairs, and I'm sure we can find sources which can corroborate that fact. Airports have a lot of other things too, but we don't have articles on them either. Airport lights, Airport grass, Airport escalators, Airport dust, Airport carpet. Just because sources exist doesn't mean that something is notable. It may be appropriate to merge/redirect to Airport terminal or Chair, but even that seems tenuous at best. SnottyWong ^prattle 17:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommended a redirect for Airport chair because I thought it was necessary to preserve attribution in case of a merge. If there's another way to do that, or I'm misinformed, by all means it should be merged and deleted. --Pnm (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A lot of work done to this.[9] People often complain about uncomfortable airport chairs.[10] That surely a serious concern in airport design. Dream Focus 01:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People also complain about sitting next to crying infants, tight legroom, in-flight movies being dumb, etc. I really don't see how people complaining makes something encyclopedic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not at all the same article that was nominated, thanks to Colonel Warden's work. As a followup to the discussion above, I think it's fair to say that all changes in design are a response to the complaints of society. Mandsford 02:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is well documented and interesting. Perhaps it could be merged into Airport terminal, but I am content with a separate article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Airport terminal. Nothing notable about seating at airports. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Wall Street Journal saw the topic as worthy of a stand-alone article [11]. This article already does that one better by including sourced material about the personal space and fire safety issues. Novickas (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article has been improved, topic was always notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 06:01, 28 February 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinnu Senthilkumar[edit]

Chinnu Senthilkumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Probably self-promotion by Senthilk80 (talk · contribs). I don't see how this meets WP:ANYBIO. bender235 (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The ref for the young scientist award does not mention his name. It points to a Anna university webpage which states the award was given to the that particular centre. --Sodabottle (talk) 14:25, 15 February 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) 23:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Ungania[edit]

Giorgio Ungania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

nn puffpiece with COI issues Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not for publishing your CV. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of evidence of passing either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 19 February 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) 23:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Piecowye[edit]

James Piecowye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

interesting guy, but nothing that suggests notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am not certain how "interesting" he is, but User:Jamespiecowye is interested in using Wikipedia for his publishing his CV. Problems with WP:GNG. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't even see that! Change mine to extra-crunchy delete.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of evidence of passing either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 19 February 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. Closing as "keep" because there is a consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG and the fact that one of the "delete" !voters is conceding that she may barely pass WP:NTENNIS. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Putintseva[edit]

Yulia Putintseva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails Tennis notabilty as per here KnowIG (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails notability criteria for tennis players. Junior player, who hasn't won a Grand Slam and wasn't in the top 3 of the rankings. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep she is currently in the top 10 [12]? She was at the finals of the US Open in 2010. So keep.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason to keep. She fails notablity as she hasn't won a gs and has not been ranked in the top 3 of juniors KnowIG (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as indicated by the nominator, she fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:TENNIS/N 3rd criteria since she has competed in the main draw in one of the major professional tournaments: WTA International (2010 BGL Luxembourg Open – Singles) Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 16:38, 27 January 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, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, she may technically pass WP:TENNIS/N even if just barely. However the Luxembourg tournament is certainly not the world's most important one and she lost in the first round. Since that seems to be her only participation in a senior tournament she's not really notable yet. She may well become so in the future but at the moment this isn't really someone who is guaranteed to have sustained long-term notability. Travelbird (talk) 09:03, 30 January 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, -- Cirt (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. After reevaluating this and taking another look at the topic, it does indeed appear to pass WP:NOTE - that is, has been the subject of significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources that are verifiable. This includes archived news articles, as well as more recent coverage - in multiple different languages. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notwithstanding the "scholarly" debate above about whether she is important, multiple reliable secondary sources that are verifiable have seen fit to provide significant coverage about the subject. What would become of a Wikipedia that put its article inclusion decision making above the decisions by reliable sources? Wikipedia would become nothing more than just another website on the web. Cirt has it right. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:03, 20 February 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 content somewhere. There's a consensus that this should be merged but no consensus for a target. What to merge and where is a subject for the article's talkpage so there's nothing more that can be done here. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Party[edit]

Inner Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unlike, Ingsoc, which has considerable scholarship focusing on it, the idea of Inner Party in relationship to Orwell, is usually in mention of themes in Orwell's works. As far as I can tell from a google Scholar search, the term does not have larger repurcussions on scholarship except in the context of terms related to Orwell, and studies of the social structure of 1984. A merge might be appropriate, but it certainly doesn't warrant it's own page. Sadads (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with Nineteen Eighty-Four or upper class. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this, outer party, and proles to Political Structures in Nineteen Eighty-Four or something like that. If REALLY desired and someone wants to do the legwork, it'd also be reasonable to merge those plus others into a larger milieu article. Still, having said that, the nom is self-defeating because multiple RS dealing with this in "context of terms related to Orwell, and studies of the social structure of 1984" is sufficient notability for keeping. Still, no reason to have three stubs on differing political ranks in the same novel, no matter how important that novel. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to merge along with the other political fiction stubs of from Nineteen Eighty-Four (the parties and the ministries) per Jclemens. I think that most these terms are not notable enough (WP:N) for stand-alone articles, and factually, most of them are unsourced (or only based on the primary source) and shouldn't be kept (or merged). But politics in the novel are a notable topic with the potential to become a Feature Article one day, so the current text should be saved for the time being to build a basis. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:46, 16 February 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 without prejudice. Nominator's rationale is sound but I really think we need more then one view to call this a "consensus" so I'll treat this as an uncontested PROD and restore in on request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Man Murray[edit]

Old Man Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article appears to fail WP:WEB. Current sourcing consists of no reliable sources, and a whole bunch of primary sources, forum threads, and people's forum profiles. A search online and on Highbeam Research yielded nothing in the way of non-trivial reliable sources to demonstrate sufficient notability to retain the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:02, 29 January 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) 15:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 29 January 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) 01:33, 5 February 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, Davewild (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. All references are self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 19 February 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Villaça[edit]

Pablo Villaça (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable writer. The references are all self-referential. Does not meet basic WP:BIO or WP:RS requirements. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I admit I can't read Portuguese, but my impression is that none of the hits at Google News [13] appear to be significant coverage ABOUT him. Thus, non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 19 February 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) 23:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto santofimio hernandez[edit]

Alberto santofimio hernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Reads like a CV instead of an encyclopedia article. Falls far from the basic requirements of WP:BIO. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A former commercial atttache and now chicken-exporter hardly meets the criteria of WP:BIO. LordVetinari (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

</noinclude>

• Delete, nonnotable businessman. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't appear to be fit for Wiki. Japanese knotweed (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - concur with all above objections. Acabashi (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 15 February 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) 23:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Markdukas[edit]

Hank Markdukas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable minor fictitious character. (PROD was removed by IP editor with no explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a fictional character with no treatment in reliable sources. I considered a redirect to the film, I Love You, Man, but the character is so minor that he doesn't even rate a mention in that article. A perusal of the full cast at IMDB shows this character appearing squeezed between the characters "Wedding Photographer" and "Wedding Band Member #1". -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apparently a very minor character in one film. The claim that he has a cult following is unsourced, and even if it was sourced this should be a redirect to the film's article and still not be a stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:52, 16 February 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) 13:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nerva (artist)[edit]

Nerva (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested Prod, following which the biography now carries basic references. However there is no indication that the subject meets the notability guidelines for artists. AllyD (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes the general notability guideline with significant coverage in the independent reliable sources referenced in our article and the Estonian Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are these? The en article has 2 webpages (2003 and 2005) from the same Latvian website, possibly connected with a newspaper, or not, with an interview & a short story. That's not enough by a long stretch. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the link provided in those citations you will see that the source is Postimees, Estonia's highest circulation newspaper, and, as I said above, there are plenty more such reliable sources referenced in the Estonian Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:PROMO by single-purpose account User:Flasher T. --bender235 (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no assertion of notability; just local exhibitions. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no assertion of notability; just misc. exhibitions; no awards; missing significant coverage in the independent reliable sources referenced; etc. feydey (talk) 12:53, 23 February 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 Reintroduction. While there is certainly no consensus for deletion below, neither are there any rationales presented that the topic of "rewilding" is at all different from that described at Reintroduction or elsewhere. Because of this, Rewilding (Carnivores) likely should not have its own page, but can be covered with a few additions at Reintroduction. A merger should be discussed at Talk:Reintroduction, but is not required. lifebaka++ 18:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewilding (Carnivores)[edit]

Rewilding (Carnivores) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article does not by itself appear to be a notable topic. It did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion because it contains mergeable content, which might go to several other articles: Rewilding (conservation biology), Reintroduction, Save China's Tigers, and Translocation (wildlife conservation). Reviewing the Rewilding (conservation biology) article and its citations and searching for the term "rewilding" on Google Books, it is apparent that by far the most widespread use of the term "rewilding" is with the meaning indicated in the Rewilding (conservation biology) article, applying to the managed alteration of an entire ecosystem. The meaning promoted by the creator of the Rewilding (Carnivores) article, User:China's Tiger, referring to animals bred in captivity being released into the wild, appears to be primarily used by one organization, the Save China's Tigers project. Any prominence of this use of the term in general Google searches or elsewhere on Wikipedia seem to result from vigorous promotional efforts on the part of that project, which have included User:China's Tiger introducing substantial mention of the project and many links to the organization's web site in many Wikipedia articles such as the main Tiger article. See also the talk page statement by another user who has contributed to several related conservation topics, Caroline Fraser, Ph.D.. ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One thing I should point out is that this article has been rewritten considerably in the course of editing disputes since its creation, so what you may be seeing in looking at it now may be quite dissimilar to the original article introduced by its creator. I actually think that content from various historical versions is worth saving and merging, it just doesn't appear to me (in a cursory review of the Google Books instances of the term "rewilding" and its use within a few other scoped searches, made as a non-expert in conservation) that this sense of the term "rewilding" is used outside of the Save China's Tigers project and its affiliates (and perhaps in some news outlets reporting on the organization or its press releases.) That assessment is entirely in English; perhaps if the original Chinese term that this meaning is derived from is widely used it would be appropriate to have an article on that term, I'm not sure. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree that it would make sense to delete the topic Rewilding (Carnivores). In attempting to edit the topic to bring it in line with accepted definitions of the term "rewilding," I realized that much of the material--which covers the rehabilitation and reintroduction efforts which can accompany major rewilding projects or can be undertaken on their own, as a means of preventing extinction --was covered already in Rehabilitation, Reintroduction, and various topics describing individual species (Gray wolf, black-footed ferret, etc.) Caroline Fraser, Ph.D. comment added 19:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In an attempt to increase community involvement in this discussion I have placed ((Afdnotice2)) on the articles Rewilding (conservation biology), Reintroduction, Save China's Tigers, and Translocation (wildlife conservation) and notified by talk page two users involved in the previous speedy deletion discussion, Kinu and Stephen. I refrained from notifying the user who made the speedy deletion nomination, which would be a prejudicial action on my part as the AfD nominator. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think it would be best to keep this article and peacefully discuss merging at article talk pages.Biophys (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say that reintroduction of carnivores (e.g. wolfs) is indeed different from reintroduction of other species in certain aspects, although I am not an expert. There is definitely a content overlap and promotion problems, but I do not see this article as a terrible POV fork that deserves an outright deletion. There are also some behavior issues around, but I am not at liberty to discuss them.Biophys (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this AfD nomination has nothing to do with WP:POV (if only because POV would not be a reason to delete an article, it would be a reason to change the article's contents.) The reason that I have nominated this article for deletion is that it does not appear to fulfill WP:Notability, and hence shouldn't be its own article, but should at most be a sub-section of Rewilding (conservation biology). Any discussion of the article creator's motives is only mentioned here to recommend to Wikipedians examination of whether or not the reason to create this article was to document a real topic in conservation biology that is independent of Rewilding (conservation biology), Reintroduction, and Translocation (wildlife conservation). --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This could be written as a good separate sub-article if it was focused on the role of carnivores in ecosystems and on the history of exterminating carnivores, which ultimately led to the importance of their re-introduction. It is not properly written right now, but this is not a reason for deletion. Biophys (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that the article "could be written..." in a certain way, do you mean that you think that the subject fulfills WP:Notability and is a genuine, real, discrete topic outside of the confines of Wikipedia, in conservation biology in general as opposed to just within the community of people working with the Save China's Tiger's project? If that is not what you mean - if you think that Rewilding (Carnivores) does not fulfill WP:Notability but you are making a separate argument unrelated to Wikipedia policy in opposition to deleting it, you need to clearly say so. Anything at all could be massaged and sculpted into a passable-looking article but that is a completely separate issue from whether or not a particular topic meets the standards that the Wikipedia community has set out for whether or not a topic is deserving of its own article - what we have chosen to call "notability".

Did you notice that one of the other accounts participating in this AfD, User:LeoGard which was also coordinating with User:China's Tiger to insert text and links about the Save China's Tigers project into various articles around Wikipedia, has now been indefinitely banned as a suspected sockpuppet of User:China's Tiger? --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
• Keep Rewilding of Tigers is not an isolated example of restoring carnivores to ecosystems. Rewilding of "animals bred in captivity being released into the wild..." is a means used by many rewilding projects other than the Save China's Tigers project, as the article's edit history shows. The content of the article should be a merge between the original version of the article by China's Tigers and the edits since then

A prevalence of material by the original author of the article is to be expected; the edit history reflects a continuing whittling away of CT's material, not systematic inclusion of CT's material by CT. There is insufficient evidence here to prove 'promotion of material' (let alone "vigorous promotional efforts...which have included China's Tiger..."). There is, however, considerable evidence of 'deletion of material'. WP:AGF should prevent speculation on motivation or vested interests behind either the singular restoration or the continued deletions.

(I note that AGF and 'special interest' rules such as WP:COI are utterly incompatible; WP is here engaged in habitual cherrypicking of rationales to suit editors. It is the content that editors add that should be critiqued, revised or deleted; their motivations can never be the subject of anything other than speculation, as AGF quite rightly points out. I would also accept a version of WP:AGF that allowed for reasoned arguments with evidence being presented in support of assertions about editors, as COI actually does (if one reads between the lines sufficiently); sadly, the norm for the use of COI is to quote it, with subsequent voters dittoing hard, every time there is a similarity between usernames and article title, without any evidence from the article of an actual problem.)

Having said that, CT's version was so gutted that I can sympathize with his restoration. What he failed to notice is that good material had also been added.

China's Tigers' original version and the one instance in which he restored his version may rightly be criticized as not containing sufficient evidence of the rewilding of carnivores as a notable procedure, via examples, but many examples were added in the intervening two weeks.

The added material shows examples of rewilding by restoring carnivores: the Grey wolf, Blackfooted ferret, European lynx, White-Tailed Eagle, and Osprey carnivores. A few non-carnivores are also listed; these may be appropriate to include, given an appropriate reason, such as having been bred in captivity and then released or as successful examples of restoration projects, etc.

Anarchangel (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the deletions you are talking about were done by Caroline Fraser, Ph.D., someone who appears to be a relatively new member of the Wikipedia community attracted here by User:China's Tiger's activities, who is probably unfamiliar with many WP policies. Unless, that is, you are referring to the occasion when I deleted (or corrected, rather) the claim that User:China's Tiger inserted into the Tiger article stating that one of the founders of the Save China's Tigers coined the phrase "rewilding" in 2003.

(A claim which, though that user accepted the corrected version in Tiger, he or she then repeated upon creation of the Rewilding (Carnivores) article. So note that this claim was first inserted into Rewilding (conservation biology) and corrected there by Caroline Fraser, Ph.D. with citations, then inserted into Tiger and corrected by me with those same citations, and then an entirely new article was created to make that claim in.)

As far as your characterization that this is Wikipedia carrying out some sort of cherrypicking, I would note that this is the first or perhaps second time I have ever made an AfD nomination, so at the very least this is unrelated to any ongoing Wikipedia activity or project. I simply happened across some of the other stuff that User:China's Tiger had been doing and started watching related pages. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my assertion that the recovery by wilding of the Grey wolf, Blackfooted ferret, European lynx, White-Tailed Eagle, and Osprey carnivores, and the citations of these restoration projects, show that there is ample proof of notability for this subject. I stand by my characterization of the nomination as dwelling unnecessarily on China Tiger's mistakes, rather than the article and its potential, and all the more so now, I'm afraid.

However, when I spoke of 'cherrypicking', I was not speaking of you. Sorry for any misunderstanding. I was referring to the way that WP:COI and WP:AGF are diametrically opposed in their perception of Ad hominem criticism, and for anyone to have created COI while AGF existed must have required at the very least a negligent attitude to consistency. I can't think of a single good reason for invoking COI; all the possible scenarios argue against it. For example, C's T bad edits, not the old ones that I knew and spoke of, but the new ones as you have described them, are so obviously bad edits that anyone trying to correct them can easily justify doing so, without requiring recourse to COI, let alone unproven COI. In the event of a 'tie' between material being acceptable or not, COI simply clouds the issue with Ad Hominem. And putting these two scenarios aside, there still is the certainty that accusing someone of COI automatically 'outs' them, invading their privacy. There are stupid things about some WP rules, and many many bad applications of WP rules, but that rule is not only unnecessary but harmful. And so to cherrypicking: AGF understands that ad hominem is an argument that is beside the point. COI, on the other hand, charges boldly into the fray to do battle with the evil propagandists, based solely on the assumption that they are acting on a vested interest, and the additional assumption that this will automatically make them write a bad article, whether either of those things are actually true or not. Anarchangel (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly agree that there are many stupid things about some WP rules. I personally understand the spirit behind AGF but I think it's so hard to articulate well that it should basically never be mentioned outside of the project page about it.

The reason why I spoke specifically about User:China's Tiger's general behavior was in hopes that people looking at this issue would very closely examine that user's previous behavior and activities, but you're probably correct that I presented it poorly. I think that WP:COI is poorly worded in some ways to the point that it doesn't actually match up very well with the standard English meaning of the phrase "conflict of interest" very well, which is why I did not refer to it. (I also don't object to people with a standard-English "conflict of interest" editing Wikipedia as long as they play by the rules, which User:China's Tiger does not seem to be doing.)

(But I'll also note that while I agree that it's not kosher to engage in ad hominem rhetorical logical fallacy, I don't really have much problem in general with criticizing users themselves or their behavior, which is not the same thing. I recognize that I'm at odds with much of the Wikipedia community on this, though.)

Also - in case you haven't looked at the article recently, note that during this AfD User:China's Tiger has gone in, removed all the cited material about Blackfooted ferrets, etc., and restored the claim that someone from the Save China's Tigers project coined the term "rewilding". --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CT's later edit I know of. In fact, I mentioned it myself, in this discussion, although I took care to phrase it differently. He restored his version. He did not merge subsequent material. I have seen far worse, often. Anarchangel (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite noble of you to be so reserved in your criticism, but now that it's certain that CT is either a sockmaster or engaging in meatpuppetry I don't think that we need to tip-toe around any of these issues any longer.

Just, for future reference, sometimes at least when someone is harsher in their criticism than you would be it's because there is evidence that your own investigation of a matter has not uncovered yet. Please be more reserved in making recommendations in AfDs or elsewhere when you haven't looked into an issue thoroughly. If you wanted to make a statement concerning Wikipedia policies that weren't even mentioned in the AfD nomination a comment would have been more appropriate than your "keep" recommendation here.

(Unless, that is, you are still of the opinion that this topic fulfills WP:Notability or is otherwise a genuine topic in conservation biology independent of Rewilding (conservation biology), Reintroduction, and Translocation (wildlife conservation). If you're going to make such an argument please include evidence about secondary or tertiary sources similar to my comments about Google Books above - ideally, sources that actually contain the word "rewild" and use it in this sense, independent of the Save China's Tigers project, and in a manner indicating why this unusual terminology usage should be more than a footnote in Rewilding (conservation biology), Reintroduction, or Translocation (wildlife conservation). Also, if you disagree with WP:Notability itself, it's really more appropriate to go discuss that on its project page rather than make a WP:POINT about it here in this AfD.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 08:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not required[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Administrators:

It is unfortunate indeed that an individual has successfully orchestrated a lengthy campaign to repeatedly alter Wikipedia’s page on ‘Rewilding’ and that it is now being considered for deletion.

It does not take a doctorate in literature to do a search on ‘Rewilding’ and realize that the word has 3 significant past and current usages, that are well expressed on the Wikipedia’s existing Rewilding disambiguation page:

Rewilding may refer to:

· Rewilding (species), the rehabilitation process of animals, especially predators into the wild

· Rewilding (conservation biology), the return of habitats to a natural state

· Rewilding (anarchism), the reversal of human "domestication"

These three usages have major and obvious distinctions evidenced by rewilding’s usage in conservation biology (or ecology). For instance, the controversial ‘Pleistocene Rewilding’ proposal where large areas of North American wilderness would see the introduction of elephants, camels, zebras, lions and cheetahs as a part of large-scale (regional) act of ecological ‘restoration’. This is substantively different from its meaning in reference to the rewilding of endangered species.

I would like to recapitulate the history of our attempt to introduce the rewilding (species) concept to Wikipedia readers substantiated by the Discussion and History pages. We initiated the Rewilding page because many people were interested in the concept of rewilding captive carnivores. Ms. Fraser, who has repeatedly deleted and altered our entries in a diligent attempt to expunge any usage other than its conservation biology usage, has also deleted links to pages on Save China’s Tigers website which elaborated on the rewilding process of tigers as ”properly belong under rubric of wildlife rehabilitation and reintroduction”. In recognition of this usurpation of the page’s original intent, we created a new page: Rewilding - species, (later changed to Rewilding - carnivore), to reflect a distinct and prevalent contemporary usage of the word. Again, this new page was repeatedly altered by Ms. Fraser, contesting the word’s usage in anything other than her narrow (conservation biology) definition and inviting us to get our own page!

I believe that Wikipedia prides itself in expressing all aspects of a subject or word, including its vernacular, alternative and contemporary usage and is not confined to a word’s sometimes esoteric or elitist academic expression. I am not an etymologist, but I would venture to guess that ‘rewilded’ is a composite of the prefix ‘re’ (again), and ‘wild’ - clearly an obvious modern colloquial usage to express the concept “made wild again”. Further, the process of rewilding species has been going on for some time such as Billy Arjan Singh’s reintroducing of captive-bred tigers and leopards in India in 1978 for which he was recognized by the conservation community.

Besides the rewilding of South China tigers by Save China’s Tigers, the process, and the term ‘rewilding’, is being used for a number of species conservation projects including: cheetahs (Cheetah Conservation Fund, Madhya Pradesh State, India, Sir Baniyas Island Carnivore Project), leopards (De Wildt Cheetah and Wildlife Trust, WVI's Amur Leopard Project, giant pandas (China Panda Breeding Technology Committee), cougars (Cougar Rewilding Foundation), hyenas and other species. Rewilding is increasingly being accepted in the conservation community as a potential tool in endangered species recovery.

In citing a first use in the press, Ms. Fraser credits Jennifer Footes article in Newsweek in 1990, but chose to omit the actual quote which I include here: “Militants vow not just to end pollution but to take back and "rewild" one third of the United States.” - Jennifer Foote, "Trying to Take Back the Planet," Newsweek, February 5, 1990 – a usage clearly having a social/political context. Wikipedia also suggests a different first use: “The word ReWilding was first coined by Animá teacher and author Jesse Wolf Hardin under the pen name Lone Wolf Circles in 1986, and was meant to refer to personal rewilding (primal awareness, meeting one's needs, acting not out of obedience but personal responsibility) as well as wilderness restoration”. Neither of these uses reflect a usage associated with a process of species recovery.

We do not dispute the position on use of the word by Michael Soule to describe landscape-scale ecological restoration and we support its inclusion in that context. On her website, under the title “What is Rewilding” Ms. Fraser says: “Rewilding aims to save species by restoring habitats, reviving migration corridors, and brokering peace between people and predators.” However, the reality of the contemporary use of ‘rewilding’ has seen a change to reflect real-world conservation efforts to save specific endangered species (usually carnivores) that DOES NOT necessarily include corridors, or large-scale ecological restoration characteristics described by Soule, nor the social, anarchistic meaning.

Does this make the ‘species’ usage of the word less significant, credible or relevant to Wikipedia? Like the statistician who drowned in the lake that averaged 4” deep, Ms. Fraser needs to take a broader, more encompassing view of meanings than those used in her subjective world.

In her presumptively entitled “Reason for creating this page” comment on the Rewilding (species) discussion page, Ms. Fraser says: “…as far as rewilding goes, this one group cannot define the term for the rest of the world, merely as a means of advertising their own interests.” We agree, nor should an individual who is actively promoting her book “Rewilding the World” or her website by the same name.

We encourage the administrators of Wikipedia to set aside this subjective squabbling and retain three distinct usages of the word ‘rewilding’ and discourage attempts at ownership for any individual’s vested interests.

China's Tiger (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:China's Tiger has recently reverted the article to an earlier version closer to the original by that user. I have just searched through the references and it appears that the only sources used for the article that contain the word "rewilded" at all are the sources related to the Save China's Tigers project, five of which are links to web pages hosted at the project's web site; i.e. all of the sources mentioning other instances of reintroduction, relocation, or translocation of captive carnivores to natural habitats use those words and not the word "rewilding".

Another note is that according to some of the source links an individual affiliated with the project is currently marketing a book entitled Rewilded that was released several months ago. Currently the book's Amazon page, Amazon author's page, and an image of the book's back cover do not mention the proceeds of the book being donated to the project or any philanthropic organization. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

To: Struthious_Bandersnatch Please note that this version of the article is just a start, it is still far from the final product. Other signifcant projects such as a recent orphaned lions rewilding project in South Africa, and Billy Arjan Singh's Tigress rewilding project will also be included. Sections such as "controversies" and "expert support" will also be added as the article continue to be improved on and edited upon. China's Tiger (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 3:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge

An examination of the page leads me to believe that the article is a thinly-disguised advertisement for Save China's Tigers. The term "rewilding" as used in this particular article is fairly synonymous with "reintroduction" or "rehabilitating" when it comes to preparing and placing non-wild carnivores back into the wild. The information found within the article when it comes to "rewilding" is found in various other articles on the synonymous subject. There is no need to duplicate it here, and in fact can be confusing with different bits of relevant information spread across different articles instead of concentrated into a single page. Efforts by Save China's Tiger, while extremely worthwhile, can be relocated (or perhaps "rewilded") back to Save China's Tigers own wiki page. Lighthope (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• doubtful about deletion Dear All,

In my opinion, there is no need to delete the particular article in discussion here. Rewilding is a term with many different definition, and "branches". Within Conservation Biology itself, rewilding has many meanings. In recent years, there have been an uprising of "rewilding" projects, in which captive carnivores is presented with natural environment and game items for them to regain their hunting and survival instincts because research has shown that if no such rewilding process is implemented, chances of death of the particular carnivore will be much higher.

So yes, the more modern definition of rewilding is the rehabilitation of captive carnivores, to allow them to regain their survival potential before being released in the wild. And with that said, they must be "Captive-bred" or "hand-reared". There are so many examples and instances of this happening, such as John Varty's Tiger Canyons project whereby two captive bred tigers from bowmanville zoo are rewilded, Billy Arjan Singh's project etc.

A recent lion rewilding project also clearly indicats that there is a Difference between rewilding of carnivores/species and that of landscape(conservation biology). Read this article about Re-wilding of captive bred lions:http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/lion-reintroduction.html#cr

Examples of this type of new "re-wilding" method is pretty ample out there, and Save China's Tigers may be right in that they are the first official rewilding programme. I believe as more people contribute to the article, including myself, it would be more detailed and less bias than it is right now.

Deletion should be the last resort taken, Wikipedia should be more open about its article policies and allow time for these new stud articles to be given a chance to expand before suggestions about deletion come into play.

Just my 2 cents worth, Cheers.

LeoGard (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, to your knowledge is the usage described in Rewilding (Carnivores) part of conservation biology? Because if it is, it belongs in the Rewilding (conservation biology) article. I personally am totally in favor of a small section about it in that article (Small because really, it does not by any means appear to be a very common usage of the term and text about it containing tons of links to the Save China's Tigers web site, as appears in so many articles around Wikipedia, should not dominate that article. By the way, do you know what search engine optimization is?) if community consensus supports it, because it does get some hits in Google Books, it just doesn't appear to be an independent topic.

What I am not so hot about is User:China's Tiger first inserting into Rewilding (conservation biology) the claim that someone from his or her organization coined the term "rewilding" and getting corrected there by Caroline Fraser, Ph.D. with citations, then inserting the same claim into Tiger and getting corrected by me with those same citations, and then creating an entirely new article to make that claim in. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 04:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, LeoGard, it's really interesting that User:China's Tiger and you have both edited the completely non-tiger-related page How to Train Your Dragon (film). In fact, China's Tiger added the two sections Dragon Species and then Trivia and then when another user deleted them it seems that you added them back twice. You guys must be really good friends. Too bad you didn't mention that.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/China's Tiger

I don't know whether you're really a "volunteer" for the Save China's Tigers project or not but you've probably done a good job potentially damaging their reputation. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The account LeoGard, which was participating in this AfD above and which coordinated with the User:China's Tiger account in inserting text about the Save China's Tigers project and links to the project's web site into several Wikipedia articles, has now been indefinitely banned as a suspected sockpuppet of User:China's Tiger. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:25, 23 February 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.   -- Lear's Fool 10:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geelong Fine Art School[edit]

Geelong Fine Art School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

this is not a public school but rather a private college, a rather tiny one given its shopfront. 2 gnews hits [14] and only in the local newspaper and no wider coverage outside Geelong means it's not notable. LibStar (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Calling the Geelong Advertiser a "local newspaper" is a little misleading considering it is the major newspaper to a city of over 160,000 people. I would think that if the school received significant coverage in the Advertiser then it would pass the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it still is only 2 hits. so even the Advertiser does not significantly cover it. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No RS, no ghits. An 'artist run school' with 'no marking system' doesn't sound like it'll ever have any notability. Szzuk (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and User:Szzuk. Whatever the size of the town, it still makes The Geelong Advertiser a local newspaper, just as much as the UK's Birmingham Post and the Worcester Evening News - all cities of the same size or larger. Kudpung (talk) 01:23, 18 February 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 Halal. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halal Cooking[edit]

Halal Cooking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article largely duplicates information found in Halal and Dhabihah, which are also the only two references given aside from a blog. Topic is also covered at Islamic dietary laws. Seems to be unnecessary duplication (triplication?). Katherine (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-unique-to-Wikipedia information, Merge correctly sourced, unique-to-Wikipedia information into suitable articles, such as Halal. There may be information there which is correctly sourced and unique, which shouldn't be lost. 123Hedgehog456 13:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to either Halal or Islamic dietary laws. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Yvonne's halal kitchen, that's a nice touch. This is actually a serious, distinct topic for those of us scouring the aisles and squinting at labels. -Aquib (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Halal. There is no properly sourced information here - it cites a Wordpress blog and two Wikipedia articles! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 26 February 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Ice (Revis album)[edit]

Fire and Ice (Revis album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The group has confirmed that Fire and Ice was only a working title and that the track listing is no longer fixed Ts4079 (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All we have to do is rename the article and delete the "confirmed songs" section. The history of the album still applies. Sergecross73 msg me 19:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay, I went and updated the page. The article name has been changed, and the tracklist is off. I realize it isn't the best article in the world now, but it should not be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I am satisfied by the renaming of the article and am happy for the Article for Deletion tag to be removed.Ts4079 (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close; nominator has withdrawn. Chubbles (talk) 19:56, 18 February 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 Speedy delete by Lear's Fool as G3. Non-admin closure to this AfD. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1847 China Japan Gold Traders Stamp[edit]

1847 China Japan Gold Traders Stamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an internet-based hoax that has no basis in historically possible fact or is supported by any verifiable source. Speedy as a hoax removed, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - admin declining the speedy changed their mind based on the evidence and deleted the article just at the same time as I progressed to AfD. Thanks Fæ (talk) 07:49, 12 February 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 Operation Compass. If a proper reference can be found the information can be merged from the history. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vittorio Revetra[edit]

Vittorio Revetra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A Lieutenant-Colonel in the Italian Air Force during WWII. His claim to fame is that he spotted tracks of British vehicles, reported it to command, which didn't do anything about it, and therefore the British caught the Italians by surprise. In the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the Privates who spotted the Japanese planes on radar are not notable, but the higher up, Kermit Tyler, who screwed up is notable. Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All hits in Google books (including for Italian books) for this name are only brief mentions of the incident where he spotted the British advance, with no details on Revetra beyond his rank and position at the time. As such notability is not established. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable under the General Notability Guideline. Of course there is no reason why this information cannot be included in the relevant article on the battle itself (with an inline citation of course), it just doesn't meet the guidelines for a stand alone article. Anotherclown (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Delete: insufficient coverage to establish notability for a separate biographical article. Per Anotherclown, though, there would be no issues with including the subject's name in the article related to the incident (provided it is referenced). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect to, and mention in, Operation Compass per Bahamut seems like a workable solution so long as it is referenced and doesn't breach WP:UNDUE. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Operation Compass. Seems like another instance where the person isn't notable, but the event is. Redirects are cheap, and it is plausible (if less than likely) that the name could be a search term. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - per the reasoning given above by Bahamut0013. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Operation Compass. Notable enough incident to be mentioned within the context of that article. Edward321 (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm a little fuzzy as to the nom's reasoning. He seems to be saying that Revetra (a lieutenant-colonel who the article claims commanded the Italian fighter force in Libya) is non-notable because he didn't screw up, but that Tyler (a lieutenant, three ranks his junior) is notable because he did! That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. If Revetra really was commander of the Italian fighter force in Libya then that would seem to make him pretty notable. I agree that since the article isn't currently referenced we don't know one way or the other, but if a reliable reference is given that he held that position then I would vote keep. We would certainly keep an article on a British or American officer who held such a position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you misread. Reverta relayed the information and a General disregarded the information. In Pearl Harbor's case, Lieutenant Kermit Tyler disregard the information, plus it has the added factor of the brand new radar. Rank doesn't matter, who/why of the screw up does. Bgwhite (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't misread. I don't actually think Tyler is particularly notable. However, I suspect that he would be kept in an Afd simply because he was an American who played a part in an incident which everybody has heard of rather than an Italian who played a part (probably a much more significant part, in actual fact) in a part of the war which very few have heard of. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Now definitely keep. It appears that Revetra was commander of the Italian Air Force Expeditionary Corps in Africa.[15] That's definitely notable. Poor article, could do with much expansion, but obviously a notable individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've linked to a forum post that mentions he is a General and overall commander. All the books say he was a Lieutenant-Colonel and not the overall commander. A search for "General Revetra" and "Generale Revetra" on Google only mentions your linked forum. Can't find anything for just a plain Colonel either. Can't find anything beyond rank and position, but that certainly doesn't mean the info isn't out there. Can you see if something else is out there? Bgwhite (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've looked and I can't find anything on the internet. I think we need an Italian-reader to have a look at Italian print sources. My instinct is still to keep, however, since it does appear that Revetra held a senior position in the air force in Africa. Of course, if he was a general officer (or was later promoted to general officer rank) then under WP:SOLDIER he is intrinsically notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A single posting on a very non-RS forum doesn't compell me to believe this air force command is even plausible, much less verifiable. An AfD must judge the article as it is, and not with a wild hypothesis of what it could be if certain unlikely conditions check out. If it's redirected and further information comes to light, it would be a simple matter to fix (or for that matter, to undelete it if that was the result). bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:58, 19 February 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 anyone would like access to the deleted content (for a merge to Howard C. Reiche School or any other article), please let me know.   -- Lear's Fool 10:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howard C. Reiche[edit]

Howard C. Reiche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Claim to fame is an elementary school in Maine named after him and a National Ski Patrol member, eight years after the founding of the ski patrol. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Update I've nominated Howard C. Reiche School for AfD per MelanieN suggestion. Discussion is found here. Bgwhite (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Howard C. Reiche School (though there is a possible notability issue with that article). Notability is not inherited, and being a ski patroller doesn't make you notable either. Ravendrop 07:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, and the elementary school should be deleted also. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the elementary school per your suggestion. Bgwhite (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable, the elementary school itself should be merged/redirected (so voted there). OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:26, 19 February 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.