< 12 February	14 February >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neverblue[edit]

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

Internet marketing company, I don't see any reason why it would be notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After a search for reliable sources, all I can say is, "My god, it's full of press releases." -- Whpq (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable found on a google search Enfcer (talk) 05:47, 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 result was keep. General consensus indicates that the subject meets the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. Page is currently indef. semi-protected and PC-protected. In addition, the current revision differs largely from the tagged (for AfD) version; as a result, WP:HARM likely no longer applies. (non-admin closure) Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Fox Piven[edit]

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

Dr. Piven is an academic. She has also been the target of Glenn Beck, who really, really dislikes her academic work. This is making Dr. Piven's life rather unpleasant. There's a discussion at ANI about our article about her. A representative of Dr. Piven's has been trying, on her behalf, to blank the article down to a CV. Her discussion of her reasons is at User talk:Fannielou. She's currently blocked for making legal threats, so while she is sorting that out, I'm bringing this article to the community's attention. Does Dr. Piven's work as a scholar meet WP:ACADEMIC? Or, alternately, does the fact that Glenn Beck has targeted her make her someone who meets Wikipedia's notability criteria? Should the article be kept with details about the Beck controversy, stubbed as per her request, or deleted entirely? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just based on the Glenn Beck obsession. This makes her newsworthy in the sense that people who either listen to Beck, or read about Beck's attacks on her (and there is plenty of non-Beck mainstream coverage of the latter), will want to go to a neutral source like Wikipedia and read about her. We have a lot of things that Wikipedia is not for, but this is something that Wikipedia *is* for. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Looks like she passes for WP:ACADEMIC (not to mention her extensive bibliography and awards won) well before the very recent circus that has been going on. –MuZemike 23:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on BLP principle of "do no harm" (consider death threats being received by subject, etc), plus request by subject. No opinion about WP:ACADEMIC or GNG, which I don't see as particularly relevant to this situation. It doesn't bother me if there are notable people in the world who aren't the subject of WP articles if there are other convincing reasons to not have the article. If we really feel we have to document the obsessions of Glenn Beck, we can put the info about his Piven crusade into the article about Beck himself. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First and foremost, do no harm. This poor woman is in an extremely unfortunate situation, and has requested her information be removed. Dayewalker (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly keep The Subject is some one I admire greatly, I think her flame war with GB should be kept to minimum and smacks of WP:RECENTISM and extremely WP:UNDUE for a career of her length. American Sociological Association Career Award for the Practice of Sociology is no small achievement and throws her way over the line of WP:ACADEMIC to simply delete. While do no harm is our principal the simplest thing is to abide by WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE remove portions of the article that violate them. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though I sympathize with anyone on the receiving end of Glenn Beck's obsessions, I am old enough to remember Frances Fox Piven's work going back at least 43 years. Simply stated, she is a notable figure in history. This article should be kept not based just on her work as an academic, but primarily as a prominent social and political activist of what used to be called the "New Left". A Google News search shows that she has received in-depth coverage in reliable sources consistently, year after year, decade after decade, since at least 1967. Wikipedia is not censored, but at the same time, we have to comply with policy on biographies of living people. The article should be kept but protected, and undue coverage of Beck's unhealthy fascination with her should be trimmed way back. Cullen328 (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-although I feel for the subject, she definitely seem notable enough for inclusion here, but it definitely needs to have an eye kept on it where BLP violations are concerned and due weight given to her tiff with Beck.. He iro 01:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable academic, Beck controversy received significant coverage in NYTimes within the last month. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Publisher's blurb[1] states, "Frances Fox Piven is Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, CUNY", so she meets guideline 5 of WP:ACADEMIC. Her work makes her WP:N. The positions she has taken make her a lightning rod, and, unfortunately, that lightning has struck in the form of Glenn Beck. Some of her positions have been taken out of context: her subtle description about nonviolent protestors using violence, for example. The death threats are troubling, but the tiff with Beck does not seem notable, WP is not a diary for talking heads, and the whole controversy surrounding Beck should be removed. I would keep the article, but delete other information that is not relevant such as her religion. Although she wants her marital status suppressed, a marriage to coauthor Cloward would be relevant. Glrx (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable for both academic work and now (very regrettably) in the wider public sphere. I believe a properly-handled BLP serves a positive purpose rather than causing harm, providing a purely factual counter to the muck elsewhere on the web. Rostz (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:ACADEMIC and probably meets WP:GNG for her activism alone, without considering her academic standing. The article definitely needs watching for BLP issues, but it shouldn't be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep / snow keep. Piven clearly merits an article; the issue here is essentially giving due weight to a recent campaign of harassment by a prominent shock jock; I'm thinking about one sentence, though if coverage of her work is much expanded (to at least 1 good-sized para per decade), two might be OK. Rd232 ^talk 02:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately for the subject, she seems to meet WP:GNG. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is notable in her own right as an academic and columnist, and secondarily so due to focus by Glenn Beck. I sympathize with her and her wish not to be here but this is an encyclopedia and I am sure we strike a balance between our need to inform and the BLP concerns. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems renowned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cautiously weigh in as the person who represents Piven and her wishes that this entry be deleted. My more extended comments can be found somewhere in this confusing matrix of Wikipedialand. There are factual errors even here in the discussion among you all that suggest your lack of knowledge about the subject will make it difficult for you to police the entry properly. For example, the two best known works of Piven and Cloward were written before they were married in the early 1980s, so the argument that her marital status should remain is not persuasive - you obviously don't know when she married Cloward, so how does it bear on her authorship with him? Respectfully - Piven was well into her thirties at the time of the rise of the New Left and scholars of the movement do not consider her a member of it. In fact, while the New Left on college campuses turned from civil rights to opposition to the Vietnam War, Piven was on the faculty of the Columbia School of Social Work engaged with the welfare rights movement and issues of community organizing. Another inaccuracy in this discussion - how do you know Beck dislikes her academic work, it's not clear he isn't just a performer in a role. In fact, he has never demonstrated any familiarity at all with her considerable body of scholarly books and articles. He has used her in the fairy tale he and his handlers have created to scare the crap out of people. To my knowledge, and I follow this stuff closely, he has never once referred to any of her scholarly work - he has read parts of one or two articles she has written for The Nation, and that's it. My point is, if you well-meaning and diligent people can't get the facts straight, how can you be trusted to ensure neutrality? Allowing a grossly incomplete record to stand as something else destroys whatever neutrality you think you're policing. These are frank and pointed statements on my part which some, I'm sure, will find offensive. I hope that is not the case, but this is a troubling matter, and I stand by arguments I make elsewhere that your need to inform, whoever you all are, if that is your rationale, should never outweigh a living person's wishes to be excused from your community, especially when Wikipedia itself has served as a reaffirming source for some of the distortions about Piven. Lori Minnite. Lorraine Minnite 06:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fannielou (talk • contribs)

Since you seem to know all of this stuff about her, would you know where the correct information you refer to would be contained in a reliable, citable source? Or even better more than one source. You can post links to this information on the talk page of the article for editors to peruse in researching the article. Instead of merely criticizing our competence so far, help us make the article better and more accurate. He iro 06:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Consider for a moment the potential for using a well-written, well-sourced and neutral Wikipedia entry as a tool against the ludicrously misguided Beck campaign. You don't need to write it (WP:COI issues would arise anyway), but by providing good sources on the article talk page, others might surprisingly quickly achieve this result. Rd232 ^talk 09:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we have been unable to take care of the article and as per wp:do no harm and the subjects wishes imo we have lost any perceived right we might of thought we had to host an article about the person. The more we continue to allow the living subjects of our articles to be negatively portrayed through our articles the more WP:OPTOUT should be considered a right and not a request. Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OPTOUT was a failed proposal, and would not be applicable in any case ("If the subject of a Wikipedia biography does not meet our 'Public Figure' criteria ..."). Rostz (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per User:Off2riorob, Unless this article is indefinitely protected it should just be deleted. The current practice of repeating every controversy about a person, that a 3rd party manages to get repeated in newspaper, on that persons article is outrageous. It simply give a manipulator of the media the ability to spread trash across wikipedia. John lilburne (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the policy seems to support keeping, this is one of those rare occasions when we should ignore all rules in favor of basic human decency. Piven has been the subject of a concentrated hate campaign that has resulted in death threats. If the AFD fails, and we absolutely must have an article on her, the Beck crap should be trimmed down to maybe three sentences (Beck repeatedly criticized her, she received death threats as a result, she responded in Guardian's Comment is Free). One good source to use might be Campaign and election reform: a reference handbook (2008) by Utter and Strickland; there's a good bio of Piven in this book starting on page 181. Unfortunately not all of this section is available on Google Books. *** Crotalus *** 16:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article and edit it within the constraints and expectations of our encyclopedia. We might as well shut this whole place down if we need to delete an article everytime someone outside wikipedia takes an interest. My suggestion on the content is that the article be pared down to something resembling a CV and a small section on the recent issues with Glenn Beck's insane fixation be written. Keep in mind that the presence of absence of a wikipedia article will not influence the threats Ms. Piven is getting from nut-jobs. Where the article is wrong or overly focused on recent events, it should be fixed, but we can't win by giving up. Protonk (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the notion that an article on Professor Piven could be deleted is preposterous -- Protonk is right, it would be more plausible to shut the whole thing down. Since the delete voters are not even attempting to argue that she is not notable (and she quite obviously is, per several criteria of WP:ACADEMIC as well as other standards -- she was PRESIDENT OF ASA, ffs), I would say this one can be closed as snow keep. I'm tempted to comment further on the delete votes but probably could not do so within the bounds of WP:CIVIL. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refer the user to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). The Wikimedia Foundation may wish to delete the article or place it under WP:OFFICE. If they make no such determination, then Keep, but permanently s-protect or even fully protect it for a time to allow a neutral and well-sourced article to be created. There is plenty of pre-Beck notability, though obviously Beck's attacks should not dominate the article (nor even be referenced beyond at most one neutrally-worded sentence). --B (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to delete. I cannot reconcile the idea that we should do no wrong with a !vote to keep this article. If Wikipedia is not capable of maintaining vandalism-free and bias-free articles concerning living persons, which we are not as evidenced by the failure to fully implement not just pending changes, but also other features of Flagged revisions to ensure that only peer reviewed BLPs are published, then we should not be publishing biographies where the subject requests removal. Too many biographies are written under the theory that "if it's sourced, it's appropriate", which is utterly silly. So unless this biography can be written under strict controls (which is not the Wikipedia way of doing things), it should be deleted. I remind the closing admin that per WP:DPAFD, "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." --B (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am entirely supportive of the idea that BLPs should be maintained properly, and this one is now permanently on my watchlist. But DPAFD does not apply -- she is a very public figure, and it cannot be said with any plausibility that she shuns publicity. Quite the contrary: for several decades now she has written for the wider public (not just for other academics). Permanent semi-protection will help; if that is insufficient, then implement pending changes on this one per IAR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject preferences and the difficulty of maintaining a proper balance of topics in a BLP would be valid considerations in a borderline case, but this is not a borderline case. Giving Beck and his followers the power to shut subjects such as this one out of Wikipedia would itself be a violation of WP:NPOV. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per article subject's request. While she is fairly notable, I believe she is not so notable that it is unreasonable to delete the article, as she has apparently asked. While this would not be my decision otherwise, I think it's merited in this case. If it is kept, I recommend permanent semiprotection, or even full protection in the stubbed form advocated by the subject, in this case. I also ask that those voting "keep" watchlist the page, in order to continually revert the WP:SPAs parroting Glenn Beck on her biography. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With a GS h index of around 30, a Distinguished Professorship, many honors and collections of her papers by a university she passes WP:Prof by many miles. Often, when such clear passes are brought to AfD, there is some grumbling about time being wasted, but there are extra issues involved here. The current version of the BLP seems NPOV, I suggest it be fully protected for a year to give the kooks time to move on to something else. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Seems that the subject conspicuously passes about 3 criteria in WP:PROF. There are articles on far more controversial individuals that are maintained perfectly well – admin tools are in place to do so. Fannielou is arguing the article's content above, not the subject's notability. If this article is deleted, it will not be for notability reasons, but rather (as David Eppstein observed) for reasons related to POV. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The proper response to protect a clearly notable person who has been unfairly attacked by the media is to make sure the article is accurate, with proper emphasis on both the underlying notability and the media controversy. She may be more well known to the general public because of the attacks on her, but in terms of overall importance, her academic work remains and should remain the emphasis, but this is an editing question and can be discussed either at the article or the BLP noticeboard. . There are two things that would be definitely wrong: one is to have an article on her which is negatively focussed, and the other is to omit her based on the public attacks. We do no harm if we have a proper article. We very much harm her and all others subjected to GB's attacks if we respond by deleting their articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Still thinking about this one. In the meantime, material such as "Criticism and threats" within an earlier version is much less about FFP than about the psychopathology of a section of the US mass media. -- Hoary (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion essentially can only be closed as keeping or deleting the article. Wikipedia is restricted by Wikipedia:Five pillars from deleting this article for many of the reasons stated above. Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has the ultimate authority over all Wikimedia projects, including the authority to delete the article irrespective of the outcome of this AfD discussion. In the mean time, Wikipedia has numerous checks in place that work towards an article meeting content policy, including working towards presenting each point of view accurately and in context. A primary one is Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. Wikipedian edits made in response to Open-source Ticket Request System ("OTRS") requests by the Volunteer Response Team are given priority (e.g., enforced) over non OTRS actions. Any serious issues you have with the article should be file via the OTRS system. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. - No idea why this is even up at AfD. Carrite (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When a national news commentator directly attacks a professor, that professor is clearly noteworthy, and the incident is clearly worthy of mention. Ray^Talk 23:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - putting the recent criticism from Glenn Beck et al aside, there are considerable reasons to think she's notable. I'm sympathetic to the subject of a biography's wishes to see it deleted, but only where it's a borderline case; this one isn't. (Indeed, it's worth noting we've had an article on her since December 2006, long before Beck knew she existed.) I would say that the article should be cut down to focus on her academic and social work, with as little mention as possible given to the recent unpleasantness; if vandalism and POV editors are a continued problem, pending changes and semi- or full-protection should be applied to keep this article in a fit state. Robofish (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's been established that subjects of Wikipedia articles such as Sally Boazman and Jim Hawkins do not get to veto content in, of the existence of, articles about themselves. The responsibility of the Wikipedia community is to ensure that WP:BLP is adhered to, and articles are written in such a way that they meet WP:NPOV. The mechanism for correction of errors has been described above, and that mechanism should be used where appropriate to do so. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (And despite some laughable "keep" rationales and thoughtful, substantive "delete" rationales above.) FFP is not a public figure in the sense that she's not a celeb; the public doesn't care where she shops for clothes or takes a vacation. However, she is a public figure in being widely read and widely cited. (Certainly I read of her work before Wikipedia existed.) Yes, witchhunts are back in style in the US and she's the object of one. But this says little about her; and, if it is to go anywhere, it should go into the article on the witchfinder general. Her article should have as much protection as is needed, and for as long as is needed, to defend it against the gullible and unthinking. -- Hoary (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepShe has been a public intellectual and one of the most visible American sociologists since the 1970s. Her books and writings have won many awards. Notability is not a serious question. The article simply needs adherence to the living-person biographies, and its talk page needs civility. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 17:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPiven and her theories have been written about and critiqued extensively, not only as noted in the above comments. Piven and her work has been referenced and criticized in The American Spectator, the National Review, Wall Street Journal as well as author Stanley Kurtz's books. Pivens scholastic efforts and the relevant criticisms seem a pretty clear case of notability. -- 10stone5 (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is obviously notable enough to have a bio on Wikipedia. She is also part of a current controversy. To delete the article would be to allow a heckler's veto. If this article didn't exist, it would be necessary to create it.Bellczar (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss in Sri Lanka[edit]

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

the number of Swiss, 400, is very small. whilst the number itself is not a reason for lack of notability unless these 400 Swiss expats/migrants do something notable then it's not worth having a stand alone article. could not find anything specific [2] LibStar (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the outcome of the deletion discussion at White Argentine. No evidence that "Swiss in Sri Lanka" are a notably distinct and unique cultural group separate from Swiss generally or Sri Lankans generally. Barring extensive coverage of the notability of this subgroup, the topic would be better covered in articles such as "Immigration to Sri Lanka" or "Demographics of Sri Lanka". - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 03:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 03:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 03:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "distinct and unique" has nothing to do with notability, and the reasons for deleting White Argentine were WP:OR issues specific to that article. However as LibStar points out, there's no evidence that this tiny community has any non-trivial coverage. News about Swiss diplomats organising talks between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government does not confer notability on the Swiss expatriate community of Sri Lanka. cab (call) 03:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Argentine was decided on the basis that, though there may BE "White Argentines", and some people may BE "White Argentines", there was no evidence of "White Argentines" as a topic of discussion in reliable sources, or of it being a term with a distinct, identifiable and well-known meaning used by any notable group. That's the case here - no evidence that "Swiss in Sri Lanka" are discussed in reliable sources separately from "Swiss" or "Sri Lankans" generally. But we're agreed that either way it's a delete here, so that may all be besides the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DustFormsWords (talk • contribs) 04:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there's no indication that this small group of people (presumably mostly diplomats and aid workers) have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. There more of these articles I see, the more I think that people are just combining pairs of nationalities and host countries to come up with them. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a small group and isnt really notable, so I might as well merge it into Immigration to Sri Lanka, after I make it.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Ahmetyal 19:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy deleted per G12 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XMLmosaic[edit]

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

This programming language fails to meet the general notability guideline. No coverage. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss Nominator is on a spree, tagging many languages for deletion. While well-intentioned, this is a mistake. Rather than simply delete nascent, yet informative articles, we should be discussing this as a community. It may be true that these articles fail GNG, but that doesn't mean we should delete them. The goal here is to build an informative resource, not slavishly follow policy. If the policy is wrong, let's fix it. In the meantime, we need to stop this silliness. Nominator believes he's "cleaning up" Wikipedia, but the existence of these articles is a boon, not a bane. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because nothing good ever comes of this type of spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of cited source http://xmlmosaic.codeplex.com/ --Pnm (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Nodd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A rock band with no label, no chart-reaching releases, and no significant coverage fails WP:BAND. JaGa^talk 22:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The previous AFD closed as no consensus based on notability being established with some very shakey sources being put forward by those advocating keep. The only improvement on the sourcing since then has been the removal of a reference to a Botswana band that happens to have the same name. The sourcing consists of a local arts and entertainment weekly (Play Philly) which appears to have gone offline as the link no longer works; something which isn't even a reference for what I assume is an appearance at Skellerpalooza; Penn State's college newspaper which is not a reliable source; and a website that offers song sample which I cannot connect to, but song samples do not represent coverage. I've looked again for any additional coverage and could find none. -- Whpq (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for most of the reasons I nominated it the first time. The one differencence is it is no longer unsourced but as stated at the previous afd "Myspace is not reliable. The collegian paper is a student paper, therefore not reliable also. Others are just minor mentioning of the group's name." Nothing new has turned up. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Consensus seems fairly clear that this fails WP:NOT#NEWS. While User:Anarchangel has helpfully provided a long list of sources, sources on their own do not defeat NOT#NEWS objections - and as User:Chris Neville-Smith has indicated, WP:PERSISTENCE is not met by them. Ironholds (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caia Park Riots[edit]

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

I'm nominating this because Wikipedia is not the news. These riots certainly happened, but the article doesn't demonstrate that they had any lasting impact on the town of Wrexham, nor any political impact of note. Szzuk (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed a case of NOTNEWS. No indication this has any lasting impact and there are literally tens of thousands of demonstrations around the world each year. 22:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be quite trivial. Nyttend (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Normally we consider news events on enduring notability. These riots continued to get coverage after the event, but it was mostly routine things such as trials and sentencing of the offenders, and most of the coverage was local. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Were there 16 local sources? Perhaps 4 reporting once a day for four days? At any rate, it got 15 national news stories. Next time, try searching for search terms related to the news story, rather than just the title of the article.

BBC Newsnight - Jun 26, 2003

This story on its own gives the story credibility for assessing notability right away, as Newsnight is specifically listed in WP:INDEPTH "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK)."

The Guardian - Jun 24, 2003

BBC News UK - Jun 24, 2003

BBC News - Jun 24, 2003

Telegraph.co.uk - Jun 25, 2003

BBC News - Jun 25, 2003 UK

BBC News - Jun 26, 2003

Daily Post North Wales - Jun 26, 2003

The Guardian - Jun 26, 2003

The Guardian - Jun 24, 2003

BBC News - Jun 24, 2003

ic Liverpool - Jun 24, 2003

BBC News - Jun 24, 2003

BBC News - Jun 25, 2003

Sky News - Jun 24, 2003

There were only two news stories related to the title as it stands, which you can view by hitting the 'News' button above.

And one for "Wrexham riots"

Kuwait News Agency

Anarchangel (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is WP:PERSISTENCE. All of these news reports were reported at the time, and yes, it got the attention of national news outlets, but it was the coverage after the event that was thin on the ground. (Incidentally, a lot of stories on the BBC News site are in the local news sections. It's debatable as to whether URLs starting news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_east/ cont as national coverage.) It was the coverage afterwards that was mostly local/routine in scope. I can see the arguments in favour of keeping, but my opinion is that's not quite enough. Should this article be kept, this needs properly citing, otherwise it's going to be an easy target for stirrers of racial tension. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete Ironholds (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutron bomb in popular culture[edit]

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

Completely unsourced trivia list that just happens to be a standalone article. If this were an article section rather than a complete article, this would be removed as original research without anyone's even batting an eye. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia -- Whpq (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Collections of information don't get much more indiscriminate than this. Deor (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia used to abound with ipc articles. Ironically, it was part of the maturing process as Wikipedia went from something nobody took seriously to being the most consulted reference service on the internet. Crap like this actually used to be part of our article on the neutron bomb itself, and that was true of many articles in the "Simpsons days" (i.e., the article about the Gettysburg Address might include a mention that "Lisa starts reciting the address and Bart says 'fourscore can eat my shorts'"). The rationale back then was that we "had to" have ipc articles to protect the serious articles. Nowadays, nobody would think of putting stuff like this in an article about the neutron bomb. Mandsford 17:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:IPC, articles like this do serve to keep such content out of main encyclopedia articles, contra Mandsford, everything here can be primarily sourced, etc. The alternative is to merge back into Neutron bomb, per WP:ATD, but I really don't think that's a better outcome. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am mostly joking when I say, you can't have this article, it is mine, and I am not telling you where I put it. Go ahead, call it crap again, I dare you. Anarchangel (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped taking dares after Schwartz dared me to stick my tongue to the flagpole and then the bell rang and now I relive it every 2 hours on Christmas Eve...

The result was KEEP. Renaming suggestions should be discussed on the talk page. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Executions in Iran, 2011[edit]

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

Simply some statistics from a particular year, should already be covered in Capital punishment in Iran, Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran or maybe 2009–2010 Iranian election protests. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable topic, supported by verifiable and reliable sources on this particular phenomenon. Still building article with notable incidents, international reactions. Passes muster regardless. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to something like "Post-2009–2010 Iranian election protests Executions in Iran", while limiting the article's scope to politically-related executions that have been carried out by the regime in the aftermath of the 2009–2010 Iranian election protests. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's an improvement, but that info would probably best be put in the applicable section (which is kind of weak right now) at 2009–2010_Iranian_election_protests.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that change does not make sense since the topic as covered in the media is executions in Iran in 2011. The topic suggested by Kurdo could be integrated into the current article about the Iranian election protests or be a separate one. Not all of these executions are related to the protests. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect after merger to 2011 in Iran The information is best separated by year. Not all of the executions are going to be related to the election protests, and no execution of a notable individual needs to be an article separate from that person's page. If 2011 turns out to be a repeat of 1979 or 1981, maybe it can be brought back out. As a redirect, it (and similar "Executions in ____" titles) is logical. Mandsford 00:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why the subject should just be merged. It's covered in its own right as a notable topic. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update The article has been renamed to 2011 executions in Iran. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, there won't be 2,011 executions in Iran this year... Mandsford 22:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Smacks of a pointy politicalized hit piece. Why Iran? Existing article Capital punishment in Iran more than adequately documents the essential subject matter. Carrite (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why Iran? Because the Iranian regime is regularly characterized as the leading global executioner after China and this year, as the article shows, Iran is on pace to execute more people than in recent memory. The Iranian opposition, the UN human rights head, foreign dignitaries and others have highlighted this worrisome trend in notable sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:36, 13 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, T. Canens (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pace Carrite, the material in this article is not "adequately documented" in Capital punishment in Iran, and the cited sources establish that the topic of Iranian executions in 2011 is by itself notable. --Lambiam 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. AfD listed for almost 3 weeks, trending to keep based on meeting WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Parolin[edit]

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

Normally I'm the first to be concerned about the deletion of academics, but in this case, I simply cannot find any particular ground for notability, either under impact, awards etc. Circéus (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Keep. The nominator should have looked at GS. I can find enough citations there to give an h index of around 15. Quite respectable for a relatively obscure field. List of publications needs to be removed though. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- When did wiki-calculated bibliometrics turn into reliable sources? Notwithstanding that obvious WP:ORissue, you forget the third part of the criterion: "demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This is our general criterion ("received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), the secondary topic-specific criteria are (in my mind) used to assess specific topics where permanent notability is not nearly so clear as for, say, the average head of state. If the only argument we have for her is an h-index, she does not satisfy the WP notability requirements. Circéus (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you're claiming is incorrect in the sense that there is long-established consensus that citations in the scientific literature to a person's work do indeed count for the purposes of demonstrating notability (see e.g. WP:PROF). I'm a little leary of GS myself because it has well-known biases both pro and con. However, WoS is a "Wikipedia-approved" source of citation counts (see WP:PROF again) and that database does indeed show the subject to have acceptable impact, she having >250 cumulative citations. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. WoS shows >250 citations, conclusive evidence that WP:PROF #1 is satisfied. The article itself is admittedly not in very good shape right now, but it is clear that there is significant WP:RS that demonstrates notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Well, I'd love to see such sources, because a citation count isn't one.Circéus (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:Prof#C1 and you will find that Wikipedia policy finds that it is. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Let me quote a relevant statement from WP:PROF: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work". Whether Circéus is personally are convinced or not, high citation count is indeed sufficient indicator of notability and this AfD is sure to close as "keep" on simple application of policy. Since not everyone has access to WoS, allow me to list just a few of her highly-cited articles: P Parolin (2001) Oecologia 128(3), 326-335 (36 citations); P Parolin et al (2004) Botanical Review 70(3), 357-380 (31 citations), etc. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:33, 26 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure what the relister is looking for here. The above information shows conclusive pass based on policy. Any other entries are likely to simply repeat the same information. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. She has an ok citation count, but not high enough to be convincing to me: on Google scholar, her high citation count is 63, then everything else in 20s. I wasn't sure whether this was maybe just a low-citation field, so I looked at some other people working on plant germination in the Amazon, and found by comparison Christopher Uhl who has numbers nearly ten times larger (and no article here)... I know, WP:WAX, but to me that indicates that the field is not the issue and that the case for WP:PROF#C1 really is unconvincing. She has some leadership role in a couple of societies but again not quite enough for #C6: they're not the highest level posts and it's not clear how major the societies are. And there really doesn't seem to be much to say verifiably about her besides the titles of her publications and those leadership posts. So I'm left wondering, like the nominator, what distinguishes her from any other academic? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although v reluctant to delete academics esp female, her most cited article in google scholar has only 65 citations, and there are no WP:RS stories about her that I can see. NBeale (talk) 16:33, 13 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, T. Canens (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Agricola's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyango[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here is the place to discuss "deletion"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasu6-s (talk • contribs) 04:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Correct ttonyb (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I declined to speedy delete this article, I agree that it fails to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (music). She has produced one album, which is primarily available in MP3 format, but can be burned to a CD on demand. The only coverage of the Artist I can find with any substance is an article at helium.com[3]. The lack of coverage in reliable published sources may have to do with her fame being primarily in Kenya, but we can't tell without more coverage. -- Donald Albury 11:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has produced three CDs which I have. How about this article? [4].She is a Japanese woman who is the player of the Kenyan instrument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasu6-s (talk • contribs) 13:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who issued the CDs? I found one "album" on Amazon that was in MP3 format for downloading, with a note that they could burn it to a CD on demand. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (music) and then explain what criteria she meets and how. -- Donald Albury 00:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's not reliable, sorry. PubSub says "Our engine can find the latest posts from blogs and social media sites such as Twitter and Friendfeed, usually within minutes of their publication and sometimes within seconds." None of those come within the scope of WP:RS. I've added three refs that I hope are a bit better, and a bit about her inspiring Suzanna Owíyo into taking up the nyatiti. Peridon (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two more articles about her. "Aspiring musician sets sights away from U.S. and on to Africa", Mainichi Daily News, 17 October 2009 and Opiyo, Dave (10 February 2007), "She Came, She Learnt And She Conquered", All Africa duffbeerforme (talk) 08:30, 9 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, T. Canens (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did this google news search and the second result is an AllAfrica story behind a pay wall. -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Ged UK 14:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Seo[edit]

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

a) no source given mentions a "Sarah Seo" b) a female Colonel of the South Korean Army in the 1950ties?? that's a joke! c) article is obviously a joke, as there is 0 biographical information beyond the first and last line d) a google search only returns results that where taken from wikipedia. noclador (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G3 My own search revealed no hits at all for this Sarah Seo; combined with nom's evidence, this is a hoax. This article has been here since May 2010--how'd it last this long? Blueboy 96 21:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and already the next hoax article by the same "editor": Hyesoo Chae where the editor of both this articles requested himself a speedy delete! ([5]) noclador (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bertis Downs, IV[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Punkrocker1991 (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subject does not meet notability guidelines for just being associated with notables Canyouhearmenow 13:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Subject is very notable. In 1996 he negotiated the largest recording contract up to that point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.E.M.#Monster_and_New_Adventures_in_Hi-Fi:_1994.E2.80.931996 among other achievements. A number of GHits makes me feel that article satisfies [WP:BASIC] and [WP:ANYBIO] Punkrocker1991 (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, upon a search of the largest contract, it leads to an article that states Downs presented the announcement but does not say he was responsible for the negotiation. [6]. Again, just because someone worked with someone of notability does not make them a candidate for notability themselves. I have sat in on several Grammy award winning projects and even gave my opinion, but that in no way makes me a Grammy award winner or entitled to recognition for being a part. --Canyouhearmenow 14:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I respectfully ask if you searched for GHits for "Bertis Downs" and "Bertis E Downs" as these both also bring up quite a few articles. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move and merge with R.E.M. article. Regarding notability, Downs is credited as being the contract administrator and a negotiator of the contract in question. Qwerty (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge into the R.E.M. article would be a better solution. I am still on the fence as to the notability of this subject on his own merits. All of the articles seem to be wrap around articles and outlining the same material. I am not saying that he does not deserve credit for his work, but I think it would be a better fit to merge him into the article that most of the references lead to. That being the R.E.M. group article. --Canyouhearmenow 13:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete No evidence of notability given at all. where is the WP:RS coverage? NBeale (talk) 16:10, 13 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, T. Canens (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scrapy D[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable entity. The only thing I could find online about him was his website, which the original author states he may not own any longer, and reports of an arrest for DVD bootlegging. The original author also messaged me and expressed interest in deletion due to these same reasons of notability. Pax85 (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Scrapy D page may be deleted. I began it when I saw his name listed on the WikiProject Reggae page of names to be wikified, but as he is not an artist (and possibly no longer owner of the website), the page likely hasn't enough relevance for existence. --Chimino (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found. No indication of meeting any of our notability criteria.--Michig (talk) 07:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:N. Lack of reliable sources fails WP:BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Harper Clarkson[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^speak 18:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that a bishop of the Episcopal church is notable. This is a perfectly acceptable stub about a 19th century bishop, that includes a link to a treasure trove of documents about this man's life, including reliable sources. Improve this article through normal editing - don't delete it. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This previous AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop), gives a pretty clear consensus that being a Bishop by itself (even in a non Anglican/Episcopal area) is notability in and of itself. Ravendrop (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any precedent that says any bishop is automatically notable. The article is unreferenced except for one external link which brings you to a page where there are links to four primary sources (sermon transcripts and obituaries). I haven't seen evidence that WP:GNG has been passed. SnottyWong ^confabulate 15:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any precedent that says that all obituaries are by definition primary sources. Clearly brief death notices, usually written by family members, are primary sources. In this case, though, we have much more than a routine obituary, that is really a detailed biographical sketch written by noted 19th century journalist George L. Miller, founding editor of the Omaha Herald, which is still published as the Omaha World-Herald. I think that qualifies as a reliable secondary source. Cullen328 (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've expanded the article and added three references. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 6 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, Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason advanced to disregard a rather clear consensus regarding notability of ecclesiastics. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was SPEEDY DELETE, A7. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Return to the castle[edit]

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

non notable game, no speedy criteria apply WuhWuzDat 18:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete web content with no notability preseneted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as web content with no assertion of notability. Failing that, delete due to no evidence of notability as demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable independent sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. While those arguing for keep have found some coverage, they have not found enough to counter the WP:NOTMEMORIAL argument, at least in the eyes of those arguing delete. The renaming of a street does not provide automatic notability - nor, under our guidelines, does it provide any semblance of notability at all if not accompanied by other evidence. Ironholds (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zhe Zeng[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable WP:ORPHAN stub article. Victim of September 11 attacks but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating individually based upon earlier AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Willing to hear otherwise, but all I've seen is memorial coverage. I think the other one closed as a keep because a street was named after him in his memory. That's not surprising, nor is it notable enough for an article-- nearly every U.S. serviceman killed in Iraq or Afghanistan has had a bridge, a street or another location named for him. Sorry, WP:MEMORIAL may seem harsh, but it's one of the better rules that we have. Mandsford 18:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Memorial, as others. I do not find the "he has a street named after him" thing to be an automatic conferrer of notability. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If a major city considers you notable enough to have a street named after you, then they consider you a notable person. News coverage shows his story, he running to the building to help, instead of staying safe. See the New York Times bit about him [7]. Book coverage as well.[8] Dream Focus 02:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions in a sermon and a magazine might score some points, and although I agree that he was one of many that day whose actions were selfless and heroic, I don't see much that suggests that he's actually celebrated as a "Chinese-American hero" [9], the article's claims notwithstanding. I don't see that it makes any difference whether a major city or a small town names one of its street (or in this case, a one block section of Bayard Street) after a person. We don't even confer that type of automatic notability for persons who have had an entire town named for them, and I can only imagine how many articles we'd get if there was a pass for people whose name became a street, road or bridge. Mandsford 16:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - some coverage in independent sources, but not enough I think to pass the notability test; WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. I agree that having a street named after you, by itself, isn't grounds for notability; I don't think it's enough to turn this into a 'Keep'. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep due to somewhat substantial coverage if we cannot Merge him into a list of something like Victims of the September 11 attacks.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. I understand that it has only been a day since I closed the previous nomination, but this article fulfills notability guidelines by a long shot - there's easily-available coverage focusing on Zelmanowitz in the New York Times, and he is mentioned in other articles as well ([10]). m.o.p 02:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Zelmanowitz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Strong Keep - Notable, his specific story was mentioned in a documentary film, The Oprah Magazine, CNN, NY Times, The Forward, etc. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Clearly meets the GNG, one of the most widely covered 9/11 victim stories. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zelmanowitz is one of a handful of the nearly 3,000 people who died in the World Trade Center who qualify as notable as we define it, getting significant coverage, multiple reliable verifiable sources, and well after the event [11]. The story of him and Ed Beyea was one of the focuses in the bestselling 102 Minutes and his decision to stay behind with his disabled friend, rather than leaving, keeps getting cited as an illustration of altruism or empathy [12]. I see his story more as an illustration of misplaced confidence that he and his friend were safe on the 27th floor from a fire more than 60 stories above them, but he makes the books as notable. Mandsford 00:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The main argument appears to be: is the coverage in Rolling Stone sufficient to meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The consensus would seem to be that it was not. Wikipedia does not exist to act as a memorial to victims/heroes - that is another theme here, and I feel that those arguing for deletion have made their opinions with sufficient strength to make this a case for deletion, with regret - as I recognise that all the FDNY victims of 9/11 are all heroic PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Welty[edit]

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

Keep This New York fireman had been profiled in Rolling Stone magazine before 9/11/2001, as well as after his death. He is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The subject was not "profiled in a Rolling Stone article"; he was merely was featured in a composition article about "The American Dream". Claiming that the issue was "widely read" simply because it appeared in the 30th Anniversary Issue along with a couple Seinfeld-related articles is not criteria that proves notability. The article contains no references whatsoever about a perceived "controversy" about his comments related to nepotism and racism, which also does not address the notability concerns presented. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully, Delete WP:MEMORIAL is a harsh, but necessary policy, requiring us to disregard to rely on emotion when it comes to whether someone deserves a Wikipedia article. This article clearly is a memorial to Mr. Welty, who, like most of the people who died on 9/11, hasn't proven to meet our standard of notability. None of the persons who were featured in the Rolling Stone article would have become notable as a result; few of the 343 brave men in FDNY qualify for their own individual page, simply because we have to avoid becoming a memorial. Mandsford 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:MEMORIAL. Rolling Stone bit sounds nice at first, but as noted above, it was a blurb as part of a larger story. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His part in the first Rolling Stone's article seems significant. The article isn't available online, so unless someone owns a copy of that, we don't know how much he contributed to it, with quotes and information. The people of New York city thought he notable enough to name a street after. I'm sure he was given some sort of award or medal for his final actions. Not just known and notable for one event, but two. Dream Focus 02:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's weak, even by the usual standards. You don't know what's in the RS article, so you err on the side of "well, it might be significant" ? The people of New York don't determine notability; simply having a street named because one died in a tragedy is not an automatic qualifier for an article. Tarc (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge into a list of something like Victims of the September 11 attacks.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A simple list of victims, the vast majority of whom would not meet the notability requirements, would be an even worse violation of "not a memorial". That option isn't on the table. Tarc (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MEMORIAL is not intended to prohibit articles on subjects who otherwise meet the GNG, even if the circumstances surrounding the death may generate a substantial share of the relevant coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right. His name still keeps coming up in the news, in large part because his mother, Adele Welty, has become an activist in memory of her son, so I can't deny that he still comes up in coverage. On the other hand, one could argue that his mother is more notable than he has been. In addition, WP:PEOPLE does rely on the opinions of the editors about whether the person is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", which are leaning toward keep at the moment. Not to be callous, but appearing in a magazine would not be notable by itself, and dying on 9/11 would not be notable by itself; and the two together are an item of trivia as "the guy who was in Rolling Stone and then died on 9/11", which doesn't make him any more courageous or more notable than the other 342 firefighters killed that day. I compare it to this brave U.S. Marine [13], USMC Corporal Rick Crudale, who got his picture on the cover of TIME Magazine and then got killed a few weeks later [14] along with 240 others in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. I'd say that he's not notable enough for his own article either, but I'll concede that you have a point on Welty continuing to meet WP:GNG. Mandsford 17:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, standard Wikipedia is not a memorial case. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. General consensus indicates that the subject is notable for his actions and role in the investigation. Note that the current version differs greatly from the AfD-tagged version. (non-admin closure) Guoguo12 --Talk-- 16:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orio Palmer[edit]

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

Keep This battalion chief of the New York Fire Department climbed to the 78th floor of the World Trade Center South Tower and filed informative radio reports about the carnage in the moments before the building collapsed. He is not just another fatality - his unique observations make him notable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Leading a team that reached the 78th floor is not criteria that meets Wikipedia's notability standards. This does not significantly set him apart from other firefighters or civilians who were victims of the attacks. The article as it stands contains anecdotal information and nothing that would meet notability standards. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Palmer's accomplishment of climbing 78 floors, while burdened with very heavy fireman's gear, notable? Are his reports from the 78th floor noteable? The collapse of these buildings remains highly controversial. There are dozens of different conspiracy theories. And Palmer's accomplishment, and the meaning of what he reported, are cited and debated by parties on all side of these debates. An example follows. David Ray Griffin is a notable 9-11 theorist. Ryan Mackey is a rocket scientist, who is challenging Griffin's challenges to the mainstream descriptions of what happened to the buildings. Here Mackey specifically challenges Griffin's interpretation of Palmer's account of what he found on the 78th floor. No offense but I therefore believe you are quite mistaken to assert nothing sets Palmer aside from the 342 firefighters. Geo Swan (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Mackey (2007-08-31). "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin's Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation" (PDF). Jet Propulsion Laboratory. ...accompanying this description, indeed shows exactly two areas of relatively small fires – one near the point of impact in the southeast corner, and a larger one corresponding to the denser area of combustible furniture in the northeast corner. Thus, NIST's results are totally consistent with Chief Palmer's comments. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Delete per the given arguments and cited policies of the nominator. IQinn (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Nominator forgot to provide a link to the ((afd)) of February 2nd, 2011 -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edelmiro Abad. Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the people who died on 9/11 wouldn't meet our standards for notability. Leading a team that reached the 78th floor seems to be what does significantly set him apart from other persons when it comes to coverage, as evidenced by a wide range of books published long after 9/11 [15]. Mandsford 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to WP:NOTMEMORIAL -- A ((db-person)) was placed on this article fifteen months ago, asserting the article lapsed from WP:NOTMEMORIAL. On Talk:Orio Palmer I agreed that almost none of the victims and survivors of 9-11 will merit separate articles, but I thought I offered strong reasons why Palmer should be an exception. Geo Swan (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've expanded the article, adding information from three books published 4 to 5 years after the event, demonstrating Palmer's notability in the history of firefighting and September 11. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Palmer is clearly one of exceptional individuals associated with 9-11 who does merit a separate article, for the reasons offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? I don't mean to be callous here, but he didn't actually do anything but...die in the WTC. Yes, the recovered recordings provide some interesting insight into the moments before thew tower collapse. Reading the "keep" opinions here makes it sound like he personally carried an armload of children and a balanced basket of newborn kittens on his head to safety or something. Less Appeal to emotion and more rationality here, please. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry, but there just isn't anything here. It's great that they were able to play the recordings for loved ones to provide a sense of closure. Not notable for this, not for any events prior to 9/11. Being a battalion chief in itself doesn't quite meet notability guidelines as the Chief position did for William Feehan. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's important, according to our notability policy, is what reliable sources say about the topic, not whether one Wikipedia editor personally thinks the topic is notable, or another doesn't. I've expanded the article, which now has ten references from reliable sources that discuss this man in depth, and begin to put his significance into historical context. Therefore, he's notable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just being mentioned in a reliable source is not the final arbiter of worthiness fore a Wikipedia article, this is a common mistake of inexperienced editors. We have other criteria that must be satisfied, such as "is the person only known for one event?" As an example, go search for that JetBlue flight attendant who pitched a drunken hissy fit last year. No standalone article, because he was only in the news for that one thing. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Tarc links above to Biography of a living person - one event which is not at all applicable here, because Palmer is dead. The relevant and comparable policy is WP:BIO1E, which reads, in part: "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination." I would submit that Orio Palmer's role in this event of "sufficient importance" equals or exceeds Howard Brennan's role in the Kennedy assassination. Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was said to have played an "indispensable role in ensuring calm in the stairwells, assisting the injured and guiding the evacuees on the lower floors."[10] Those whose lives he helped save surely think he's notable, as does the news media covering that event. Footage of him used in a documentary. Dream Focus 02:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~Snow close, early keep. Clearly sufficient notability, as reflected in the refs and other sources that can be found in a google search, to meet GNG. That an article is an orphan -- and I "fixed" that in a minute (as nom could have done as well if it troubled him) -- is no reason to delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you could, please explain which of the 5 criteria listed at Wikipedia:SK#Applicability that you feel justifies your call for a speedy keep. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Let's make it a "speedy close", rather than a "Speedy close".--Epeefleche (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A speedy keep is usually done when there is something wrong, flawed, or unreasonable with the original nomination. A snow close is invoked when the outcome of the discussion is so obviously clear (e.g. lopsided votes) that waiting the full 7 days for the discussion is deemed unnecessary. That is, arguably, worse; you've gone from attacking the nominator to trying to undercut the discussion itself, a discussion which is certain;y not one-sided. Not that we should be bean-counting, but after 1 day we have the 1nom+2 deletes vs. 5 keeps. IMO, that is a healthy and reasonable split of opinion, so let's just let it run its course, eh? Tarc (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the outcome of this AfD is that clear. Whether it is closed as a keep -- as it is running at the moment -- or a "no consensus revert to keep, the result seems obvious. The nom's rationale was partly built on misunderstanding (that an orphan is reason for delete), and was in part built on facts that no longer exist (such as the orphan status of the article), so even the "negative" remarks have been undercut by analysis and editing. It's not "worse" to point that out. It is "better" -- if a clear keep can be closed early, we save constructive editors time that they would otherwise waste here, and could better apply to improving the project rather than flush it down the toilet in a meaningless manner.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Epeefleche (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've expanded the article further, adding information from the 9/11 Commission Report demonstrating Palmer's notability. The article now has 11 solid references. Cullen328 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mandsford's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient coverage in reliable sources exists to demonstrate notability. Robofish (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the sources added to the article that he has notability beyond simply dying in a terrorist attack. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep quite notable before the 9/11 attack as a Battalion Chief of the NYPD, and certainly notable for his role in that history changing event as well. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is our editing policy to keep such material rather than to delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Murder in Small Town X. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Juarbe, Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable stub article. Victim of September 11 attacks but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating individually based upon earlier AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think being a winner of a reality show is enough notability, independent of his role in 9/11. --Grev (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment–Winning a reality competition is would be considered WP:RECENT, is at best transient notability and is not criteria listed in the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Murder in Small Town X. His name, to the extent that it is remembered at all, is an interesting bit of trivia. While that may seem callous, it is more than most of us will be remembered for. Mandsford 01:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder in Small Town X. Usually I'd say being a reality tv winner would be sufficient, but this was only a one-off, 8-episode summer filler show that got canceled after that one season. Not exactly in the Survivor or the Amazing Race echelon here. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning $250,000 on a reliable television show seen by millions and given coverage for this alone in the media, made him notable. Dream Focus 02:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder in Small Town X. But we must all be careful not to set (bad) precedents by creating pages for those who would not normally be sufficiently notable save for the fact of their murders on 9/11. In this case there is something else (Murder in Small Town X) to justify a redirect and some mention. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge into a list of something like Victims of the September 11 attacks.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a long list. There were over 2,600 in the World Trade Center, in addition to those in the planes and in the Pentagon. Mandsford 16:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm glad you brought that up, Brewcrewer, because 9/11 is a major interest of mine-- I wish that there were historical wikis the way that there are entertainment wikis, where we could do articles about 9/11 and other events. I worked on making my own sortable database of the persons who died in the trade center, which I don't mind sharing, with info of what floor they were on, who their employer was, nationality, age, etc. and it's 2,627 names. My feeling is that Wikipedia's rules would bar that as an article, however; our 9/11 articles include links to the legacy.com and other lists, which is the practice that substitutes for making our own lists of victims. I'm happy to discuss this further on my talk page. Mandsford 17:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notability is not derived just from being a murder victim, even a 9/11 victim. So a category based solely on that would be unencyclopaedic and likely voted down in any AFD. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a category, but a list. An article subject must meet GNG standards, but not content within an article on a notable subject. So too with lists. The list has to be a notable list, but not the content within the list.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A list, that's a horse of a different color. I thought you meant a category. My bad. I already posited (see the stricken section below) that "A list, maybe, but I am not sure." I am not 100% certain; it probably would be controversial and make for a spirited debate. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Almost 3000 were killed that day, so with all due respect, any category like Victims of the September 11 attacks should be a no go. A list, maybe, but I am not sure. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MEMORIAL is not intended to prohibit articles on subjects who otherwise meet the GNG, even if the circumstances surrounding the death may generate a substantial share of the relevant coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that, but you would have to show that the WP:GNG is actually met in this case. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Lear's Fool 03:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Edward Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Keep He was an astronaut, and is notable for that reason independently of the events of 9/11. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Being an astronaut is not criteria that proves notability. He wasn't even part of a manned mission that took place; his mission was canceled and he never went into space. That declaration does not address anything within WP:NOTABILITY. There are no reliable sources showing significant coverage of this person referenced in the article, either. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Cullen on this one, that Colonel Jones would have been notable as an astronaut, even one whose mission to space got cancelled. We have hundreds of articles in Category: American astronauts. I'll concede that I can't find any essays or common outcomes concerning astronauts, as we do for athletes. The history of this article is interesting [16]-- apparently, back in Wikipedia's first year, we had someone who wanted to create pages for all the 9/11 victims and started on that task days after it happened. It was 2 1/2 years before anyone noticed that he had trained as an astronaut too. Prior keeps, and there have been several, have been based on the fact that he was part of the astronaut corps, not because he was on Flight 11 [17]. Too bad that this one didn't get named Charles Jones (American astronaut), as I doubt that anyone ever called him Charles Edward Jones except his mother. Mandsford 01:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster that caused his scheduled spaceflight to be cancelled. Cullen328 (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Someone who "would have been notable" had x or y happened does not make that person notable, nor does it fulfill the notability requirements already stated. Sottolacqua (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Those who complete astronaut training are considered astronauts and are notable, even if their mission is canceled. Cullen328 (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response—Simply being an astronaut (or completing the required training) does not meet notability guidelines and is not discussed in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Sottolacqua (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Notability (Astronauts). Oh, wait, that doesn't exist. Delete. I think the memorial aspects of being a 9/11 victim have been addressed here and elsewhere, so otherwise, simply a WP:GNG failure.
Keep This page was nominated at other times as well. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/more_911_victims_2 is about him only, and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Charles_Edward_Jones as well. Notable for being an astronaut. All astronauts have their own articles. Dream Focus 02:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MEMORIAL is not intended to prohibit articles on subjects who otherwise meet the GNG, even if the circumstances surrounding the death may generate a substantial share of the relevant coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per reasons given by Cullen & Dream Focus --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact that astronauts are not currently listed in the relevant 'automatically notable' guidelines doesn't mean that they aren't automatically notable, it simply means that nobody's bothered to propose/consensus that they be added. Probably because they believe that it is WP:COMMONSENSE that they're already in there and so don't know that they aren't. They should be, and as an American astronaut, flown or not, he is worthy of a Wikipedia article. Suggest renaming to Charles Jones (astronaut) once the AfD closes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while the individual components of his notability might not stand on thier one (more about this in a moment), combined, they surely meet the GNG. His Air Force career doesn't seem to meet WP:MILPEOPLE (being just short of the general officer minimum to be presumed notable), and I think consensus has been established that not all 9/11 victims are automatically notable (though I disagree with that). I think I have to agree with the others on the astronaut notability: having been selected and trained is probably enough for notabilty, even if his flight was cancelled. Combine that with the two "almost but not quite" points and you have a solid keep. It doesn't seem to be a MEMORIAL issue, and there aren't any other deletion rationales presented. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Ganci, Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable unreferenced stub article. Victim of September 11 attacks but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating individually based upon earlier AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was the highest ranking uniformed officer in the New York Fire Department, and is therefore notable, independent of the events of 9/11/2001. He was the senior uniformed officer among several hundred killed in the line of duty that day, and that makes him notable as well. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Being the highest-ranking officer in a city's fire/police department is not criteria that proves notability. Being the highest-ranking executive of a company among other victims who died in the attack does not make that person notable, and that same argument applies to the highest-ranking uniformed officer. As the article states, "he was among the 343 New York City firefighters and paramedics who were killed...", and Ganci, Jr. is no more notable than the other 342 in that group who died and don't have articles here. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Nominator chose not to provide a link to the ((afd)) of February 2nd, 2011 -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edelmiro Abad. Geo Swan (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The Nominator of the ((afd)) of ten days ago chose not to follow the recommendations of our deletion policies, and inform the contributors who started those articles that the articles had been nominated for deletion. ((Afd)) are supposed to be the venue of genuine discussions, where there is a possibility of a genuine exchange of views. For a genuine discussion to take place I suggest it is essential the nominator comply with the deletion policies, so that those likely to disagree with the arguments for deletion have a chance to voice their counter-arguments. In those case where the individuals who start articles have made a good faith mistake, I suggest they are entitled to an opportunity to read the arguments for why articles like the one they started don't belong, so they can learn from their mistakes. The failure of nominators to comply with the recommendations of the deletion policy wastes everyone's time.
In this particular cases I suggest the ((afd)) of 2011-02-02 would have close differently than "relist separately" if the nominator had complied with the deletion policies, and article creators had participated in that discussion and offered their counter arguments then. Geo Swan (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The creator of this article was notified that it was nominated for deletion at 12:47, 13 February 2011. Please review all facts before accusing someone of acting in bad faith. The failure to do this "wastes everyone's time." Sottolacqua (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one has accused you of bad faith. I will remind you that you initiated an omnibus ((afd)) on 2011-02-02, and added ((afd)) tags to nine articles, [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], but you only left a heads-up on one contributor's talk page -- [27]. Yes, when you initiated separate ((afd)) on 2011-02-13 you left separate notes. But I think it is unfortunate that you neglected to leave eight other notes on 2011-02-02, when you first nominated these articles. Geo Swan (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to WP:NOTMEMORIAL -- when a ((db-person)) was placed on Orio Palmer, one of the other articles included in the ((afd)) of 2011-02-02, and one of those relisted separately on 2011-02-13, I wrote:

The wikipedia is not a memorial. We don't currently cover the bulk of 9-11 victims, or surviving loved ones of 9-11 victims in individual articles. At one time some of these individuals were covered, and, after discussion, that coverage was trimmed, because the wikipedia is not a memorial. The individuals whose articles were excised, or merged, were otherwise unexcetional people, who had been living otherwise unexceptional lives, who weren't covered in WP:RS in anything other than obituaries, or articles about them were basically memorials. I agree we shouldn't carry articles about victims or survivors of 9-11 or any other disaster, that are basically memorials. But victims or survivors whose stories are exceptional, and for whom there are WP:RS documenting how they are exceptional, should continue to be covered.

No one is disputing that something like 99 percent of the 9-11 victims, 9-11 survivors, and their surviving relatives will not have WP:RS to support a separate article. But I believe that almost all reasonable people are prepared to accept that one percent of those victims and survivors, or a fraction of one percent of those victims and survivors will have sufficient WP:RS to support a separate article. If it is our nominator's position that no victim or survivor of 9-11 merits a separate article, even if there are lots of references to support that article then I request they explicitly say so. Geo Swan (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Ganzi would have met our notability requirements on 2001-09-10 -- the day before his death, due the other events in his life, as this google search confirms. Geo Swan (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep particularly in light of Geo Swan's findings of references to him all the way up to September 10, 2001, mainly because Chief of Department of the largest fire department in the United States (and second largest in the world) is important. As I noted in the Edelmiro Abad debate, I didn't find much about him after 9/11 to set him apart from the other 342 firefighters who died that day, although death is the great equalizer. Mandsford 01:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geo Swan. The coverage appears to support some pre 9/11 notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These 3 keeps are utterly ridiculous, these pre-9/11 google-hits are for routine news coverage of local fires and such, e.g. "Chief of Department Peter Ganci said the lack of a battery for the smoke detector was likely to blame for the deaths of the three..." or "It's a lesson we keep learning over and over and over," said Fire Chief Peter Ganci..., as well as brief blurbs about taking the job, and being quoted in a story for firefighters not responding promptly. It is expected for a representative of the fire dep't to talk about these things. Find some pre-9/11 reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of them man himself, otherwise these 3 keep calls above are without merit. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL, non-notable prior to 9/11. Being a high-ranking firefighter is not in itself notable, sorry. Tarc (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^squeal 18:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Geo Swan. He got news coverage before 9/11. The news media interviewed him about fires, and published quotes of what he said. The article says that they named a post office after him, and a book was written about him and got reviews making it notable by Wikipedia standards. Having a notable book written about you, adds to your notability. Dream Focus 01:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geo Swan's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable before events of 9/11 as head of the NYFD, and notable for his activities that day, too. A well documented article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "well documented" I mean that the article has six inline citations which support the text, including two books on this firefighter. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—This is hardly a well-documented article. It contains at best blurbs of trivia (career prior to FDNY, info about his sons and an unofficial renaming of an AFB) and minimal encyclopedic information. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found no difficulty in adding yet another good source. The topic is obviously notable and it is our editing policy to keep such material rather than deleting it. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The consensus is that being Chief of the FDNY is sufficient to make Feehan notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Feehan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Keep This man became Chief of the New York Fire Department ten years before 9/11/2001, so was notable before that day. He held every rank in the department during his long career. He was the most senior of the 343 firefighters who died that day, and is clearly notable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment–Being a fire chief for x years is not criteria that proves notability. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Have you done a Google news search with an ending date of 9/10/2001 to see if he was notable the day before he died? Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My function is not to search Google with specific date ranges in order to determine whether or not this subject is notable. The article as it stands contains no information whatsoever that meets any criteria in WP:NOTABILITY. If perceived sources exist that would prove this, why haven't they been added in the 4.5 years since the article's creation? This person simply does not meet the standards for inclusion here. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your function as the AfD nominator, Sottolacqua, is to comply fully with the AfD policy, which states that "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" are eligible for deletion. Accordingly, your function before nominating the article is to conduct such a thorough attempt to find reliable sources. Please review WP:BEFORE for discussion of your function in this and related AfD debates. I have now completed that Google search I mentioned previously with an end date of 9/10/2001, and found at least fifty articles in reliable sources that describe Feeny as a top fire department official or quote him on fire department business, all published before September 11. There are many more that were published after his death. Now, let's take a look at WP:MEMORIAL which you cite. It says, "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." This particular article most certainly does not exist merely to memorialize someone who is simply a deceased friend, relative or acquaintance. It is a biography of the highest ranking of a group of 343 firefighters who died in heroic service during the worst terrorist attack on the United States. This man was notable and is deserving of encyclopedic coverage. Any shortcomings in the article as currently written should be addressed through normal editing rather than deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia now has 35 articles that are biographies of Commissioners of the New York City Fire Department throughout its history. I take that as consensus that people holding this office are notable. Cullen328 (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I said in the Edelmiro Abad debate that I would have !voted "delete", I think that he was more notable in life than he was in death, based on FDNY's size and his ranking. I see some frustrations building over this one-- let's try not to get too upset over this one, guys. I agree with Cullen on some of these and with Sotto on others. I'm aware that we have articles about other 9/11 victims besides the ones nominated here, so if the ones picked are the weakest in the nominator's opinion, it reaffirms my opinion that WP:MEMORIAL works pretty well. Mandsford 02:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh - Being the FD Chief of a city of this size scrapes by I guess, but I can't see how the encyclopedia is enriched by a basic "he was appointed in year x, was born in Y, and died in Z" biography. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Cullen328's reasoning. Being chief of the New York Fire Department makes him notable. He was quoted and asked for his expert opinion by the news media whenever there was a fire. Dream Focus 02:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edelmiro Abad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete I agree, non-notable as we define it. From what I can tell, this was an early contribution by an editor who was new at the time and may not have been aware of the bar of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Abad was second in the alphabet, right after Gordy Aamoth Jr, so that project was stopped early on. The memorial ban is one of the best policies that we have, harsh but necessary. Mandsford 02:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL, this should be all that needs to be said. Zero notability even in terms of the 9/11 subject, his name just appears on a CNN list and a few memorial websites. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL (a policy which was originally created, if memory serves correctly, precisely for this purpose: to avoid having thousands of articles about non-notable victims of the 9/11 attacks). Unless additional sources can be provided to demonstrate notability, he doesn't pass the inclusion test. Robofish (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alayna Powley[edit]

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

Student singer/songwriter which represents her school at various competition. Questionable notability, most hits are to school or blogging/facebook type sites Travelbird (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well one is a .pdf file from a national charity organisation, running a country-wide lyricist competition. Another is a page about the 3rd place winner of a region-wide talent contest, hosted on a nationwide branch of an international organisation. The last is an official school newsletter. Gravitybender (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure what the wiki criteria for Notability for a musician is, but if this person meets it then that criteria is a bit of a joke. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsigned artist, fails WP:MUSIC. dramatic (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you remove Radiohead then? 118.92.113.64 (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alayna Powley - never on any label, one uncharting single; Radiohead - formerly on a major label, several international no. 1 albums. you work it out. Grutness...wha? 22:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable musician. Schwede 66 08:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable musician, appears she is attempting to become famous by pretending to be famous.

The result was delete. In accordance with standard practice, less weight has been accorded to editors with limited contributions outside this area. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El Cadáver Exquisito[edit]

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

Non-notable film lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability asserted whatsoever. WuhWuzDat 17:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, user: humanayo. It has notability in El Salvador, a film is not important only because is part of the mainstream lists in USA or Europe. The project belongs to the new post war wave of films created in El Salvador by young filmmakers who learn the skills abvroad and came back to the country to start producing movies. Probably none of you have ever seen a movie from El Salvador, made, produced, created and crafted there, that's a historical value. Also the movie is the first one from el salvador witha VOD strategy in USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanayo (talk • contribs) 17:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC) — Humanayo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment, see the page authors admission of WP:COI here. WuhWuzDat 17:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Saying something is important, does not make it so. All articles in Wikipedia must be notable as defined by Wikipedia guidelines. In this case, notability is defined in WP:N and WP:NOTFILM. In addition, that notability must be supported by verifiable, independent, secondary, reliable sources. There is nothing in the article that meets the criteria in WP:NOTFILM using verifiable, independent, secondary, reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Note that there is a 1969 Spanish film (The Exquisite Cadaver) with the same name. If this article is deleted, the name can be linked there.—RJH (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This movie is not called the exquiste corpse, it is in Spanish and the title is El Cadáver Exqusito, it should not be redirected to the one in English. There are many movies with similar titles in the world. Part of the historical value of El cadaver Exquisito is the name, the movie talks about a country in cultural transition, El Salvador, whose main language is Spanish not English, so the project is designed to fit the cultural landscape not to alienate it. The movie in the film databases (imdb-mubi) appears in Spanish for that reason. (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2011

Comment – Based on the movie poster it sure appears the movie is called El Cadáver Exquisito. ttonyb (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a project with a significant web presence and web activity along with the film. It is a visual, historical and social glimpse with a unique lens that provides an important insight into a transforming culture which otherwise may not be seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panpar (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC) — Panpar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – How does this meet the criteria in WP:NOTFILM using verifiable, independent, secondary, reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find mentions of this film including some as part of the coverage about Victor Ruano. See [28], [29], [30]. However, I can find no significant coverage about this film. Perhaps after it has made the rounds of the festival circuit, there will be reliable sources in the form of critical coverage or awards. -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was SNOW delete Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Jennings vs The Saints[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Article is a sport play by play with no encyclopedic value. And seems to be a video game related article with youtube as its only source, not a Reliable Source and I contest its Notability for inclusion. Phearson (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nom indicates, this appears to be about an experience playing a videogame as seen on YouTube. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, non-encyclopedic. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Don't see any way this could be made appropriate for an encyclopedia. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a fictional clip, created by a guy named Demetry James on Madden, posted on YouTube, and mentioned a lot on message boards and the like. It was aired on Jimmy Kimmel's show and has gotten some mention in the press as a viral video[31][32][33]. These sources might support a brief mention of the clip in the Greg Jennings article, but doesn't seem to me to be enough to justify an article, and certainly not something written in-universe. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this nonsense. Even an article about Greg Jennings in his recent Super Bowl win wouldn't be justificable so a fictional one about a computer game someone once played should be speedied out of town. MLA (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nonsense indeed. WP:SNOWBALL please! Phearson (talk) 17:49, 13 February 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) 15:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Njongo Priso[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 23:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cypriot league now considered to meet WP:NFOOTBALL requirements Stu.W UK (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I thought I had missed one. As stated above, the Cypriot First League is fully pro, so I am withdrawing this nomination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Salone[edit]

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

Original article was deleted due to prod because it is a non notable "independent" film and was mainly used as a sales medium/advertisement to buy product. It was also created by SPA account that has edited only this article for years so likely had a conflict of interest. Now another brand new account thats only editing this article has recreated it. non - notable. Tracer9999 (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News search finds that the term "Sweet Salone" referring to Sierra Leone is fairly common, and that there was a musical album by that name, but I find nothing at all about this film. --MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halldór Guðmundsson[edit]

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

NN bio Japanese knotweed (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've transcluded this AfD that was originally missing step 3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy Delete G12 article is a cut and paste of this site http://www.vielseitig-festival.eu/autoren/halldor-gudmundsson/ tagged for speedy.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I rewrote the article to eliminate the copyvio and added a review of one of his books from the Telegraph as a reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ rewrite has fixed the copyvio. However, one review of one book falls short of WP:AUTHOR, so still a delete.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, I'm not 100% convinced that it's the notability of the author being demonstrated in those refs, as opposed to the subject of the biography. However, we've a few international reliable sources now and someone actively working to improve the article so I'll give the benefit of the doubt.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added more references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep G-News search for Halldor Gudmundsson reveals a lot of coverage in multiple languages. In my opinion, Halldór Guðmundsson is a notable writer in Iceland. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another of his books was chosen best biography of the year, so that's 2 prizes. Eastmain is doing a good job finding and adding stuff; I tried to help but I'm afraid he/she's using citation templates and they defeat me, so I'll leave it to him/her for now :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Magicians_of_Xanth#Dolph. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magician Dolph[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character with no significant coverage Sadads (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magicians_of_Xanth#Dolph, doesn't need an article of it's own. In fact looking at the Xanth template at the bottom there's quite a lot there for one book series. This level of detail looks more appropriate for the Xanth wiki than here.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ThePaintedOne. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect for the sake of building a consensus. No significant coverage to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Magicians_of_Xanth#Iris. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorceress Iris[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character, with no significant secondary coverage. Sadads (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magicians_of_Xanth#Iris, not notable enough for its own article--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ThePaintedOne. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect for the sake of building a consensus. No significant secondary coverage to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dresser Johnson[edit]

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

Notability not established. There appears to be very little in the way of objective reliable sources, with most of the article's content copied from the agency's website. Clear COI. JNW (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one secondary source, everything else is their own website. That one cite though is ok, and if there were some independent refs for the band aid thing that could be enough to support a cut down article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur. The company might be shown to be notable eventually, and in a new article, this through reasons expressed by ThePaintedOne, but as it stands it is an affront to Wikipedia standards. Acabashi (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was already redirected to existing article at correct name, no need to keep this open -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Challenge Cup[edit]

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

The article is already covered in more detail in theNorthern Premier League Challenge Cup article. Delusion23 (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Northern Premier League Challenge Cup. MLA (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Tone 14:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers and Harbors Bill[edit]

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

No references, Unverifiable content Ingadres (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, speedy close. With more than 300 GBooks hits [34] showing historical significance, the matter is clearly notable. The article clearly needs work, of course. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article still fails WP:V, can you please at least rewrite it based on any reliable sources? Ingadres (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I made the necessary fixes, added new material and four references, and it is no longer orphaned. Rjensen (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 15:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abidaoud[edit]

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

Unremarkable...last name? I don't specialise in Arabic history, but I see no relations between "King David" and the name, and the first paragraph is a bit dodgy. Dengero (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Abidaoud does appear to be a real name which isn't a surprise given how common Daoud (inc variants) is. Still, there's no verification of notability for the content of this article. MLA (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the content of this article is not about its ostensible topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Unanimously proclaimed notable, meets the GNG. (non-admin closure) Guoguo12 --Talk-- 14:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Society Bank[edit]

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

Delete due to promotional nature. Article about a planned bank scheduled to open or begin operations in Q3 2011. Information in the article is speculative and based on events to take place in the future. Notability has not yet been established. Cind.amuse 12:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Flagship UK Coalition Government initiative with extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources. I might not agree with it politically but even I can see that it clearly meets WP:GNG. nancy 12:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep big society is big news for all its uselessness. MLA (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Per the above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (consider Merge) - obviously notable, though given the current lack of information a merge into Big Society may be more appropriate for the time being. Robofish (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is not just some bank, it is a flagship policy of the UK Government. There are over 86k GHits for this and over 400 in Google News. In addition the article was nomed for speedy deletion by Cindamuse within 2 mins of creation as a stub and AfDd within 13 minutes. This is ridiculously trigger happy - we really should have a policy that articles are given a reasonable time to respond to concerns before they are AfDd. Disclosure: I created the article, but I have no connnection ~~at all~~ with the bank (correction: on reflection I believe that the Cooperative Bank has an admin contract with it and I am one of the millions of members of the CoOp. So in principle if the bank made millions for the CoOp I might get 1p extra dividend or something!). NBeale (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable. Should be expanded at some point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 15:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Falls[edit]

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

Contested prod. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. No sources, no real information, no point to having this at this time AussieLegend (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources on the article, only sources I could find were fansites, with only the limited information on this article. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. 123Hedgehog456 12:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one sentance, no sources, not needed yet. Try again next year.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per everyone else. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Google hits are not on reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sorry guys but the delete !voters make the stronger arguments here. You can't rescue them all :( Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Nicholson (game designer)[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable game designer. K1eyboard (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. MLA (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While he's a relatively well-known blogger within the board gaming community, but I don't think that transfers to general notability. Here's his BGG profile. Kuguar03 (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. No claim of notability is made in the article. Pburka (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The revised version of the article now makes some weak claims of notability. However he still fails WP:PROFESSOR and WP:GNG. He's an associate professor (not a full professor) and there's no evidence that his research has been particularly influential yet. The news coverage linked to below simply confirms that the subject exists. There is no significant coverage of the subject. (Each of the newspaper references in the article mention the subject exactly once.) Pburka (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, his reputation goes well beyond just being a "blogger within the board gaming community" - he teaches board game deign at MIT. In fact considering that the person above recognises Scoot's reputation in the board gaming community and as that is what he is notable for, then perhaps we should accept the consensus which has emerged within that community that Scott is notable, rather than rely on comments from a small group of people who have not necessarily informed themselves about what constitutes notability in this context.Harrypotter (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - For the record, I'm very involved in the board gaming community myself, and have even met Scott. My opinion is not based "on comments from a small group of people who have not necessarily informed themselves about what constitutes notability in this context", but my understanding of WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. If you feel he is notable under those, or some other relevant guideline, the onus is on you to show it. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while 'professor of board game design' might sound like a notable position, from what sources I can find I don't think he passes WP:ACADEMIC. Robofish (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep for the moment. I'm seeing some coverage and his book seems to be available in a fair number of libraries according to worldcat. Plus some coverage [35] in moderately reliable sources. I think we _should_ have a bio on him, but I can't show he meets any of our inclusion guidelines at this time. I'll try to do a more detailed search later when not at work. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged for rescue as I suspect there is enough out there, but I don't have the time at the moment (and probably won't until the weekend) to search it out. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit: could you explain why your link [1] above is relevant? I can't see any coverage of the subject on that page whatsoever. Qwfp (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, cut and paste error from the same site. [36] was the link in question. Sorry about that. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This link appears to be just an advertisement and/or press release for his book. Not sure if this qualifies as independent coverage. SnottyWong ^gossip 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep as well. After working on rescuing the article, I would say he weakly fits criterion 7 of academic notability. He is cited by a number of news sources, but his topic of research is so narrow that I wouldn't expect him to be "frequently" quoted. His book also weakly supports criterion 7. -- Ken_g6 (factors | composites) 20:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His name along with the words "library" and "game" show results in the Google news archive search. [37] The Columbus Dispatch and others consider him an expert on this subject and quote him on it. Dream Focus 03:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added ((WikiProjectBannerShell|1= ((WPBiography |living=no |class=start |a&e-work-group=yes |needs-photo=yes |needs-infobox=yes |listas=Nicholson, Scott |a&e-priority=low )) ((WikiProject Toys|class=start|importance=low|listas=Nicholson, Scott)) )) to the talk page because I think every article being discussed for deletion should have the relevant project templates. I am unsure about whether I have provided all the relevant templates for a game designer, so other editors should go ahead with changes. I have no comment on the merits, except to say that the current article is rather short and dull, giving me no particular reason to want the article kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable game designer who wrote a non-notable book. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not particularly notable. ARS editors have not improved the article enough to make retention worthwhile. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond writing a book, he appears to be a generally non-notable professor.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 15:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Breakdown[edit]

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

Prod was contested by author. The subject of the article is technical difficulties on BBC television networks. This is not a notable event. Any really significant failures that result in major press coverage can be mentioned in BBC One or another appropriate article. Minor glitches aren't notable and don't need to be mentioned at all. Zachlipton (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zachlipton, minor glitches are really notable or a national phenomenon or anything like that, and all "breakdowns" can be mentioned on notable, already existing BBC articles, such as the article of the channel the breakdown occured on. --123Hedgehog456 11:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, that there was some minor technical difficulties does not notability make. Blackouts/brownouts etc are more impactful yet could not possibly be considered notable. MLA (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inaccurate as it suggests that whole stations go down, when its far more common for particular regions to have an issue. If widened to every failure of BBC equipment it would turn into a technical issue log for BBC engineering. Would this constitute engineering-cruft? Funnily enough this possibility doesn't seem to be directly addressed by WP:NOT, although I'm pretty sure it comes somewhere within WP:INDISCRIMINATE--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scams in India[edit]

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

After one more editor expressed support for AfD at WT:IN, I am nominating this for deletion. Contains lot of OR, and personal opinions. Might be converted to a list. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 10:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research. Maybe some minor elements of the content could be in a broader article about either corruption or con artistry. MLA (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow, over 300 citations! You don't see that at AfD every day. Horribly WP:POV and non-encyclopaedic. So biased as to almost read like an attack page and falls foul of WP:ADVOCACY. Not helped that the subject looks to be already dealt with much better at Corruption in India. Maybe put a rediect in to that page but definitely lose this one.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah, I was amazed by the amount of work the author has put into this article. Any comments on converting this into a list titled something like List of political scams in India, or any appropriate title? TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 17:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't see why that's needed, in a country the size of India the list would end up massive over time. If anything usable can be salvaged from this it could probably be put as a sub-section of Corruption in India.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The scams in this list should be expanded even if they are stubs. Just listing the scams doesnt do anything for knowledge.
  - You don't discard the information based on size of nation or data. Now, it is mere list of scams in India. Yes, the number of scams WILL increase, that shouldn't deter us in archiving those details. I don't recommend pushing that as subsection under Corruption in India, instead recommend to provide the link to Scams in India under "See also" of Corruption in India --User:Praveen goud.
- Agree with you. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 17:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. This must be integrated with Corruption in India and under the header List of Political scams. But the list has to be maintained irrespective of the size and how massive it is going to be over a period of time. If the list of oscar award winners can be maintained, why not this!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noblewikicause (talk • contribs) 17:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is an issue which can have many POVs, and it can be very difficult to see a NPOV. Anyway, lets not have an unconnected discussion here. Also, Noblewikicause, kindly sign in talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 17:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, no it doesn't. There doesn't appear to be a comparable list for any other country of the world, the nearest thing is the List of confidence tricks, but that talks generically about types of trick, not specific instances. The list as is is just a collection of alleged crimes, which is an indiscriminate list, whereas the Oscar list is a defined cultural event of massive notability which occurs once a year. Even worse, a lot of the alleged 'crimes' are actually political statements about the political and legal systems in India, not an encyclopaedic list of events with a defined criteria. The current inclusion criteria is clearly based on someone's political agenda. Note, I'm not saying that agenda is right, wrong or anything else, but wikipedia is not the place to promote it. Note also that taking out the huge chunks of blatant WP:OR with an edit summary of To avod deletion , removing the root causes to be incorporated later is about as subtle as a hole in the head. The whole page is only there as an advocacy page with no understanding of the purpose of wikipedia or any apparent desire to edit in an encyclopaedic manner.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Corruption in India. Yeah, that's a heck of a lot of refs, but way too much POV here, that the corruption article is a suitable redirect target. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would recommend to provide the link to Scams in India under "See also" of Corruption in India --User:Praveen goud.
Comment. The author has changed the article by removing some controversial sections. It is now basically a list. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 11:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With an edit summary that suggests they've only done that to get past AfD and then intend to put it back in again. Even as a list I don't think this is worthy of keeping.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed the root causes. The section has only Scams in India. Assume, this wouldn't be an issue for discussion of deletion anymore. Grouping the list of scams of nation is good for easy analysis before hand rather than hiding the scams seperately to be searched. Wiki has list of countries, list of counties, list of blah blah, notable list.... --User:Praveen goud. —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. I was the "one more editor" referred to in the nomination statement. The article is a entirely conjecture at this point, it muddles up different problems with the title of "scam" -- a sex scandal, a mosque-temple issue, corruption, political obfuscation etc etc. It doesn't help that a good chunk of the content was removed to To avod (sic) deletion , removing the root causes to be incorporated later. A list is feasible on scams, but it needs to have a definite criteria, not a jamboree of anything you can find, and definitely this article and its history are not starting points. —SpacemanSpiff 16:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The consensus is that this list does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one upfront club hits[edit]

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

Delete A less-than-notable music chart whose only reference in wikipedia is a brief mention in the UK Dance Chart article which says that this chart and others like it are "compiled by Music Week chart analyst Alan Jones using data from DJ returns in various UK dance clubs". I could not find any mention of these charts on the official site for the UK Charts. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a list that has high influence on the UK BBC chart and BBC1 playlist. You can find mention of the upfront charts on lots of dance artists website. To obtain the complete top 40 data weekly, you can either buy the music week magazine or pay to get access via the music week website. A collection of all the number one so far is an original effort of many from wikipedia. Starbeta (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reference from the BBC or a reliable third-party source that verifies that influence? Peter E. James (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 26 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:35, 2 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, m.o.p 09:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the official charts are notable, someone else's most likely are not. MLA (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Official" is the name of a company - The Official Charts Company - it only appears to have its own charts, not those compiled and published by other companies. Music Week is notable, but I can't find any non-trivial references to this chart (although it seems to be more notable than some OCC charts which Wikipedia has similar lists for). Peter E. James (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, appears to be some fakey-bake chart. Anyone can make a music chart. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nothing worth redirecting... Tone 15:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ununoctium fluoride[edit]

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

Delete. Is this really necessary? All the information here is already in the ununoctium article under the section on compounds. Nothing in the page history worth saving anyway. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in google books or news, suggesting this is currently no more notable than any of the other hypothesised compounds. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A redirect to Ununoctium is unnecessary it's the obvious place to look and will be first hit from a search. --Qwfp (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Unobtainium~~Ununoctium#Predicted compounds. Maybe unnecessary, but "Ununoctium fluoride" is by itself not a particularly implausible search term, and the redirect is cheap and harmless. --Lambiam 01:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I recall that Uranium fluoride was important as a chemical that was used in separating isotopes for early nuclear weapons, so this could, too, but this trans-Uranium fluoride is too speculative for its own article. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lambian. -Atmoz (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ununoctium#Predicted_compounds. ^walk victor falk^talk 06:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Lear's Fool 03:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D. Vinayachandran[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:Captainofhope. Original rationale listed below. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability remain questioned..??? ...Captain......Tälk tö me... 08:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable poet in Malayalam with many books published by mainstream publishers. I am sure there is a lot of coverage in Malayalam sources.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you are "sure' that there are a lot of sources then let's see them. The present sources show little more than "he exists". Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep He is a well known poet in Malayalam. I have added one reference for his Kerala Sahithya Academy award. --Anoopan (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winner of at least two prestigious awards in Malayalam literature, viz., Kerala Sahithya Academy Award and Asan Award. This shows that he is in the same league of O.N.V. Kurup, Sugathakumari, Balachandran Chullikkadu, Sreekumaran Thampi, etc. His poetry has been discussed in the books such as The tree of tongues: an anthology of modern Indian poetry, Indian poetry today, Modern Indian literature, an anthology and Indian literature: positions and propositions. Salih (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete without prejudice. If anybody has a sound "keep" argument I'll be glad to restore this article and reopen the AFD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SBC Architecture[edit]

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

Only source is a book published by the dubious Lambert Academic Publishing, apparently by the same author who created this article. —Ruud 14:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, I did some more extensive searching and couldn't find any independent reliable source on this subject. Several kinds of "SBC Architecture" are mentioned, but none about the SBC Systems architecture. Second: The article claims "SBC architecture was created during the late-1980s by Dr. William S. Chao". I cannot find any proof of that on the web. -- Mdd (talk) 22:15, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some more discussion about this subject here. To me this is an other prove that there is little to none international (I mean English) reliable sources about this subject. -- Mdd (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. No clear consensus on what should happen to this article was arrived at PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independence of Hong Kong[edit]

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

This article is written as if it is an umbrella topic, but it does not have the WP:RS necessary to show notability as an umbrella topic, particularly the RS for the facts in the article don't exist. There are only three references about this topic out of 18 references in the article, the rest are all generic history. Of those three references, one doesn't work in English, and the Chinese version would not qualify as WP:RS. The other references cover Hong Konger Front, which already has an article. So essentially this article is just a content fork/duplicate which makes Hong Konger Front look more relevant than it is - a severe violation of WP:UNDUE. 15-20 years ago there was academic/political discussion about the relevancy/viability of an independent Hong Kong, that is well covered in the handover article and this writing does not even attempt to touch on that. That coverage was not about any movement. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say many Wikipedia articles do not even have any references. So that is not reasonable to delete the article for your reasons. I would recommend merging Hong Konger Front into this article, while Independence of Hong Kong is a more valuable article (than Hong Konger Front) Andyso^{(talk page)} 16:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, this article was created only 2 days ago. The deletion is really unreasonable and unfair for a 2-day old article. Regarding to the references, I'll try to improve and fix them ASAP. Andyso^{(talk page)} 17:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't unfair. New articles on controversial topics should have high standards and should be sourced from the beginning. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The references are good enough for now considering there has only been 1 editor.

Whether this is a movement or not
Whether HKF is the only group to represent this idea
Whether this is a 15-20 years ago movement or a discussion that hasn't even started

Really these are all the more reasons to keep this article so we can research further. Benjwong (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is "Independence of Hong Kong" the specific name of a political party? Or is it simply a political movement? If the latter I would suggest a re-name to Hong Kong Independence Movement where it can act as a much better umbrella term and as a place for individual independence parties/organizations to be mentioned. It can also discuss the independence movement history re:early 1980s when the UK was debating what to do with Hong Kong (keep, cede to China, support independence, etc.) Ravendrop 08:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a political movement, it has started maybe more than 20 years ago. (The Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, and June Fourth Incident of 1989).
HKF is not the only group but probably the most significant group representing the idea
The name I used is referring to the article "Taiwan independence", which has no "movement" after it. Andyso^{(talk page)} 08:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Okay makes sense. However, when I hear "Independence of Hong Kong" I think of the actual moment of independence (which, for Hong Kong has yet to happen) rather than a movement pushing for Hong Kong. Generally, such as Sri Lankan independence movement, Quebec independence movement, or ... separatist movement, are much more commonly used. Regardless, the topic is notable, but needs work. Ravendrop 08:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Topic is most definitely notable. It needs work and a refimprove, but those are not reasons for deletion. See below Ravendrop 08:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points. Therefore I hope this be keep too. Andyso^{(talk page)} 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show, by using reliable sources that this topic is notable or are you just asserting that? Aside from one group, there is no evidence here of any "political movement". SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hmmm. Now that I look more closely at the multitude of sources I found on google searching both "Hong Kong Independence" and "Hong Kong Independence Movement" the vast majority of them appear to be either published by the Hong Konger Front or a group closely affiliated with it. (My lack of Cantonese isn't helping matters much). Your initial assertion of WP:UNDUE seems to be correct. However, I still think there is a place for an umbrella article describing nationalist attitudes in Hong Kong since 19th century British contact, but this article is clearly not it. For it to become anything like that it would have to be totally re-written, and thus deletion is the proper course of action. As per the umbrella article argument, yes, parts of it are covered by Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong, Politics of Hong Kong and 2000s in Hong Kong, but sources such as these: [38], [39], [40], [41] and [42] suggest an umbrella article, such as Hong Kong Nationalism could be created. Finally, the merger proposal put forth by User:Andyso is best held elsewhere, and the original nom's issue of UNDUE would push by vote to not to merge. Hopefully, that makes sense. Ravendrop 04:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Since the independence of Hong Kong is nonexistent and unlikely to exist, it's best to name it something like Hong Kong independence movement or the like. The current title is highly misleading. Ray^Talk 21:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But based on what sources does a "Hong Kong independence movement" even exist? It does not, except for one group, and that group already has an article. I'd support a rename as an umbrella article for multiple groups, if they were documentable but that isn't the case no matter what we name the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I wouldn't oppose a redirect or merge to an existing group, if you prefer. But I don't think we should tolerate having an article this misleading in its current form. Ray^Talk 02:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think article like this one is similar to Ryūkyū independence movement... There are sources in the article already, probably just need some clean up. T@vatar (discuss–?) 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been renamed Andyso^{(talk page)} 10:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This independence concept definitely existed in the 1990s. Hence it should not be deleted. This session should close. If there are any more to discuss it should go in the talk page. Benjwong (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This independence concept definitely existed in the 1990s." ^{[citation needed]}. Until we have WP:RS citations showing an independence movement existed, ever, we do not have the basis for an article. It has yet to be shown that a broad movement beyond one group exists, or existed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The only reason you want to delete this is...you know that, and I know that...Andyso^{(talk page)} 09:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To SchmuckyTheCat: This is really unusual for a such deletion. I've read many articles on Wikipedia and I can say most of the topics are not even notable. So if you really want to delete this article, please clean them first. The only reason you would request for the deletion is purely political, is this right? (That is my own opinion, and so you don't have to agree with me) (Also, if you don't agree with the topic, you can just ignore it.) Andyso^{(talk page)} 17:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My political views are irrelevant to the discussion. And irrelevant in general, my connection to HK is simply work and tourism, not political. I have stronger views on Wikipedia's accuracy and neutrality than Chinese politics. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Most people will not edit this article until the deletion tags are removed. See my comments in the talk page about the reason for a lack of sources. Do you want to discuss why the CPC doesn't allow sources regarding independence to be printed in the SAR territory? Benjwong (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sources means no article or else it becomes original research. If this was a notable topic (and an independence movement in a territory of a superpower nation would be) there would be plenty of academic and diplomatic sources from outside the country to base an article on. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If you find sources for something like Five constituencies referendum where the crowd is chanting "liberate Hong Kong" publicly.... but the words "HK independence" are never used and does not appear in any source. It is still relevant. I don't know if you understand what I am trying to say. HK independence is quite different than the usual straight-up Taiwan, Tibet events. Benjwong (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like: http://www.hkdailynews.com.hk/news.php?id=83721 but my understanding is that Albert Chan, who led that chanting, is leading towards universal suffrage, not nearly as radical as independence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I think you are looking for reasons to keep this article by asking for very standout type of independence activities like riots and attacks. But HK has historically been more interested in the dialogue, paperwork etc. That's why I think you should stop pursuing the way you are, and just let people slowly edit the article. Benjwong (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The consensus is that there is insufficient cause to consider this software to be notable in itself. I note that it is listed in the products in the Geometric Limited article but no details are given there - perhaps a sentence could be added to that? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DFMPro[edit]

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

Unremarkable software product. References are all advertisements or press releases. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination. Also promoting yet another software services and consulting company. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 28 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The following was added to the page in a comment by Chan prashant (talk · contribs)
sorry I don't know much about how to discuss about deletion of this article. This page is created by me Chan prashant. There are comments given by administrator that all the references are from press releases. Hence I am sighting some new references for your kind consideration.Especially from some CAD magazines where authors have reviwed it.
(See this diff.) OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Desktop Engineering magazine is a reliable source and most of this review is about DFMPro, so I'd say it meets WP:N. A second reliable source would be nice. --Pnm (talk) 00:22, 12 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm one of those who thinks that publicly traded companies are notable (a de facto notability, if not a de jure notability). --B (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article isn't about a company. --Pnm (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete due to lack of substantial coverage, although the parent company could be listed. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. As the nominator withdrew their nomination, and there were no calls for deletion by other editors, the consensus is to keep this article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gogyōka[edit]

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

This appears to be a promotional article. There is no evidence of any impact for this claimed poetry form apart from one 36 page book (by Fiore) that appears unreferenced by anyone else. There are no matches in GScholar (making this unlikely to be a recognized form), two matches in GNews which appear insignificant mentions, possibly due to promotion, and one match in GBooks (Fiore's books). I note one match on Amazon but this is to a Books LLC "publication" and therefore circular and itself a negative sign. Raising for AfD rather than PROD due to potential for geographic bias in sources.

Taro Aizu has an associated AfD but this article should be judged on its own merits. Fæ (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and refocus as Enta Kusakabe--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many writers of gogyohka are not experienced at editing Wikipedia articles. Please refer to the reaction to the proposed deletion of this article at Gogyohka Junction.--James —17:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Fæ - Thank you for your response on Gogyohka Junction. It is much appreciated.--James —18:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I notice that in the Twitter community, the number poems tagged with #gogyohka is steadily increasing over time. To me this indicates an emerging poetic form and suggests it would be unwise to delete this Wikipedia article. I do not have the figures for a year ago, but a snapshot at the time of writing shows 262 Twitter posts in the last 24 hours tagged with #gogyohka. Stormerne (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks so much to Fae for dealing with all of us and providing such thorough guidance. I think I'm getting the hang of what Wikipedia's standards and approaches are. Let me ask two quick questions, though. First, how much time can I get to improve the article before it will be deleted? My time is limited, but if I had a month I could probably crank out a totally redone article that is much closer to what is expected. If that means taking it down for now by way of userfication so be it. Just know that I am not ignoring the issues--I just need time and help, and so patience.

Second, "self-published" is proving to be a sticky word to define in terms of sources. Enta Kusakabe posted this on Gogyohka Junction: "I have over 100 books which was published in Japan.

All have ISBN nomber. Do you need all. My Gogyohka books are

maybe 30-40.

4 is my collections of Gogyohka.

How to write Gogyohka books and theory books are maybe

beyond 10.

Collections of many people's Gogyohka by my selection reach to 20.

All have ISBN cords. I established the publisher SHISEI-SHA (Company)for publishing poem books

for my ideal publicity. 300 stock holders.

It publishes 70% of our books. What is the definition of self-publication?"

So are books published by Shisei-Sha considered self-published if the company has shareholders but the company is led by the founder of the poetic form it publishes? This verges on being untranslateable culturally, I worry.Geaghant (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These threads on http://tadoku.org, organized and run by Sakai Kunihide,a professor of Denki Tsushin University in Tokyo, Japan and an author of several books related to extensive reading. http://www.bunka.uec.ac.jp/profile/sakai.html In an attempt to show potentiality and increasing popularity of Gogyohka, threads are added here.

If the publisher is run by the author it is doubtful as a single-source, however if a range of authors use this publisher then it probably would count as a reliable source. To be robust more than one small publisher would be ideal. I recommend you add the best sources in your opinion to the article in order to support any claims or basic information about the poetry form, if they appear credible publications there would be a good rationale for keep as the nomination hinges on demonstrating impact. Normally at least 7 days are given for discussion but there is the option to userfy the article (providing you a draft to continue improving) if the article still fails the notability guideline in the opinion of an independent admin. If you wish to discuss details and collaborate with other authors for improvement, please use the article talk page in preference to this deletion discussion page. Note that forum threads would count as self-published and are rarely acceptable as sources. Thanks Fæ (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, Fae. I would like to request to userfy the article now, as it will take me longer than a week to improve this article enough to meet the notability guideline. One last question: Once the page becomes a draft again, how do I go about resubmitting to make sure the revised draft meets the notability guideline? Geaghant (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on your work to improve the article I am happy to move to withdraw my nomination as below, hopefully an admin will be along shortly to close on this basis rather than going through a userfication, review and release cycle. I am concerned about the independence of sources you have added, but this is an area for discussion on the article talk page about what are reliable sources and what counts as self published. For example normally any Lulu publication is suspect and an ISBN that has no matches in WorldCat, Google Books or the British Library might indicate another source requiring further justification. Fæ (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the nominator, I would like to withdraw the nomination on the basis of the current commitment to improve the article and the prospect of improvement in sourcing in the near future. I continue to be concerned about the potential for geographic bias as sources for this topic will tend to be in Japanese and untranslated and so would prefer to err on the side of keep for improvement rather than delete for current flaws in sourcing. A WorldCat search in Japanese shows a number of potential sources for further improvement. Fæ (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus due to insufficient participation. There is therefore no prejudice against speedy renomination. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrickjmt[edit]

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

Educational website. Despite the mentions in the local paper and an education website, I don't think this meets the notability standards of WP:WEB. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:WEB as well as WP:SOURCES Bluefist ^talk 04:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that basically what the wiki pages for Sal Khan and Khan Academy boil down to, except that he's received more attention since he's a little more broad in what he puts up online? Given, of course, he's won more awards than PatrickJMT (I'm not sure whether he's won any), but the WP:WEB states that anything besides trivial coverage counts (which I'm fairly sure that PatrickJMT has gotten). Leonnatus (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I still haven't found other any news article (I could have sworn a mayor of Austin did something about Patrick...)Leonnatus (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Scratch that: http://www.avozdaserra.com.br/noticiaslight.php?noticia=1286[reply]

Is this notable enough? Leonnatus (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Along with the newspaper coverage and a good many online references, his videos have received 14 million views. I'd say 14 million views makes him significant. Trilemma (talk) 19:58, 1 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please keep this listing up. This guy is creating some of the absolute best (and free) math educational content on the net. He is the person I use on a daily basis for help with math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.139.50 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This guy should have a Wikipedia page. Here are some notable news articles that mention him: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2014/09/16/moocs-finishing-is-not-the-important-part/#7fd6446d5ebc http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/education/edlife/advice-for-new-students-from-those-who-know-old-students.html?_r=0 http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/youtube-math-star-patrickjmt-explains-math-and-science-concept-behind-yamie-chess-stem-education-aid-to-parents-and-teachers-244733751.html http://easterneronline.com/37469/opinion/math-lab-contributes-to-departments-bad-reputation/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.139.50 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. from Template:Relist --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitetiger24601 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete. There is mention that there has been no significant alteration since the last AfD, and the only keep is saying that other articles exist, which is not a reason to keep this one. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IC-92AD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. From article talk page, Last time article was up for AFD, everyone agreed that more references were needed. None have since been found. Borderline NN article, cited only to vendor, reads like an instruction manual. 24.177.123.74. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This radio is as notable as any in the Category:Amateur radio transceivers. If the article needs to have it style improved or more/better citations, edit/improve it instead. --DeVerm (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, hey? There's a reason the references are still lacking-- there's nothing establishing notability here. There are no Google News hits, and the of the top Google hits, the only one that's not trying to sell it to you is Wikipedia. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 05:22, 1 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Written like a simplified user manual, not an encyclopedic article. It has the same problems it did in its first nomination. Take it to an amateur forum somewhere. Out of all D-STAR radios, this is the only one with an article. What makes it so special? There are redirects to this article from three other models, none of which have any article text history. If there is something that could enhance the D-STAR article, move it over there. —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:38, 7 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Revolution flag[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The flag really only seemed to get coverage at this Scott Brown event, and doesn't seem to have any other notability (indeed, the later references only refer to the Scott Brown event.) With the scope of news coverage today, reference to a subject in regards to a greater event does not imply notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is no afd for this, it is redlinked in the article.~~--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~But clicking the red link brings you to this page, for some reason. Do you know how to fix this?~~ The red link problem has gone away, I've struck out the comments.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 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) 01:34, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The only real claim to notability is the claim that "There have been more than 20,000 flags sold with orders from all 50 states." Unfortunately that isn't sourced so it may well be less. As long as sustained notability can't be established, delete. Travelbird (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there is enough historical evidence and notability to keep this. --Kumioko (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, historical evidence? Every single source just mentions it being at one Scott Brown event. Care to explain your reasoning? Your input is certainly appreciated, but without more of an explanation it will probably be discounted.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several references is what I meant to say. I just don't think that there is a need to delete it. --Kumioko (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, there are several references, no one's arguing that, just that the references are insubstantial and don't show the flag was anything other than something at this one event.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Kumioko and per sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, but AfDs are not just a vote. Would you care to elaborate on your reasoning?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact is, the flag in this article is the equivalent of the Sarah Palin impersonator the media was all abuzz about at CPAC this year. It's something that get's a ton of coverage during that one event (although I'd hardly classify this flag as getting a ton of coverage) because it's something kind of exciting, but then is never mentioned in any significant way again.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep: withdrawn by nominator. DS (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kaptchuk[edit]

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

~~Does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. Has a few seemingly-independent google hits, but I'm not sure it's enough to satisfy WP:GNG as it appears to largely be self-promotion~~ Kuguar03 (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. one reliable, third party source, two reliable, third-party source. Ironholds (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG criteria. Cind.amuse 09:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you possibly elaborate slightly? As we've discussed before, it's not constructive to follow me around and contradict everything I say in a blatantly mean-spirited way. You need to actually provide evidence to back up your assertions. Kuguar03 (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Since you are a relatively new editor, I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. I highly recommend that you read, review, and come to an understanding of the policies and guidelines pertaining to discussing deletion and assuming good faith. No one is against you here. Cind.amuse 10:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you're not acting in bad faith then you really are quite obtuse. For the record, your comments here are an example of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Not a useful contribution at all. Kuguar03 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above Egg Centric (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a keep - I was concerned at first about the two sources both being to PBS, but there's also a usable one from the LA Times as well. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Snowball seems likely at this point. I don't feel the available sources constitute significant coverage, but the consensus seems to be otherwise. Please withdraw my nomination. Kuguar03 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It appears this article was PRODed back in 2008 and it was agreed that it didn't immediately fail notability. By way of a more verbose answer Kaptchuk seems to easily pass the "professor test" with ease. Specifically, Wikipedia:Academic#Criteria #1 says The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. This scientist, as a researcher in alternative medicine and placebo effect, is widely quoted by the independent media, such as:

Placebos can work even when you know they're fakes -New Scientist
Placebos work, even when patients are in the know, study finds -New Scientist
Placebos Help Patients Even Without Faking It, Scientists Say -Business Week
Placebo Effect Works Without the Bluff -Discovery News
The Growing Power Of The Sugar Pill -National Public Radio
Researchers lift the lid on placebos -Life Scientist News
All placebos not created alike -Biology News
Placebos Work Even if You Know They're Fake: But How? Time
Perceptions: Positive Spin Adds to a Placebo’s Impact -New York Times
All Placebos Not Created Alike -Science Daily
Acupuncture activates the brain Nature News
Survey: U.S. Doctors Regularly Prescribe Placebos National Public Radio
Placebos Are Getting More Effective. Drugmakers Are Desperate to Know Why -Wired Magazine
Ah, for a Cool Sip Of Liquid Yoga -New York Times
Placebos help, even when patients know about them -MSNBC

This only represents about 5 minutes of searching Google News and every single article quotes Kaptchuk and his research. This doesn't include

Frontiers Profile -Scientific American/PBS and
Ancient Healing -PBS

I am hoping that the above list demonstrated that Kaptchuk clearly passes the notability threshold by criteria 1 of the "professor test". He might satisfy other criteria, but the professor test only requires passing a single requirement, not all. Basket of Puppies 00:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Dille[edit]

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

Contested PROD (though contestor in no way addressed concerns). Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:CREATIVE. Not a well-known or influential figure in television or the video game industry, despite claims. The only independent sources are some Transformers fan sites and an off-hand mention of a collaboration on a non-notable game project with Gary Gygax. No independent google hits outside of comprehensive databases like IMDB and MobyGames and a single book listed on Amazon, none of which confers notability. Writing for some low-budget movies and games does not confer notability. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. While he's been involved in plenty of notable franchises, he doesn't appear to be notable himself. Robofish (talk) 01:18, 14 February 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) 16:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Robofish. Nothing states he is particularly of note for his work. --Teancum (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Peter Wilt. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schlabst[edit]

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

This article's subject is not notable. Phearson (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I agree, that's why I turned it into a redirect to Peter Wilt before you nominated this. Actually, it looks like we probably mid-air-collided on this one. I'm not convinced Peter Wilt is notable, but the subject is mentioned there anyway, and redirects are cheap, so why not? Zachlipton (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not notable enough? The drink has its own website, there is a fest attached to it, one of the references was a Milwaukee Magazine article. Just how much do you need to be 'notable' enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.35.94 (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is the right answer for this short article. --CliffC (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There is little content, little notability. If redirects weren't cheap then I would have commented delete. Royal broil 03:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 15:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian deaths by aerial bombing[edit]

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

In the PROD that was removed I cited "No sources, poor criteria (aerial bombardment does not include "ground to ground long range missiles and rockets"), and very incomplete". User:The Bushranger said it "fails WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I'd say. Also a likely WP:POV magnet and, as noted, includes things that aren't aerial bombardment." User:Bahamut0013 said "In addition to the above, there is no way this list will ever be remotely close to complete." I agree with all of this. —Srnec (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Bushranger. Impossible list to complete. Binksternet (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bushranger, impossible to complete. Information locatable elsewhere (such as in the articles mentioned) on the wiki. --123Hedgehog456 11:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: naturally, since I seconded the prod. I believe that the nomination rationale (and the prod retionale) still hold up. And, while it's not strictly related to this AfD, I have to vent: the constant de-prodding of worthless articles by a certain editor without any efforts to fix/improve them is getting quite tiresome. Thank you Srnec for the notice, as I had requested. bahamut0013^words _deeds 18:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013^words _deeds 18:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per...myself? ;) My original reasoning stands. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per reasoning given in PROD. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientific articles by Ted Kaptchuk[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; Wikipedia is neither a catalogue nor a database. Created as a rather WP:POINTy spinoff after consensus came out against the edits this article's creator wanted to make. Ironholds (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- list articles are generally supposed to be lists of Wikipedia articles, yes? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep List class articles are clearly appropriate for Wikipedia as evidenced by such articles as List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein, a featured list article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists) makes it very clear that this sort of this in appropriate and very useful and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) establishes the specifics for the use of this list, which is religiously adhered to. Any claims that the creation of this article is in anything other than good faith and for the betterment of Wikipedia is confusing, strange and a clear violation of assuming good faith. Basket of Puppies 04:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A note that BasketOfPuppies is the creator of this article. This article was created following a discussion at Talk:Ted Kaptchuk and on Ted Kaptchuk itself, including multiple reverts, which confirmed that the inclusion there was not appropriate - I think good faith is rather gone at this point. The use of List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein as an example is a poor one - Einstein's journal publications listed there all had coverage in third-party, reliable sources, while Kaptchuk's articles do not. The comments regarding Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) are similarly inaccurate; as an MoS guideline, it is not "religiously adhered to" - the notice at the top makes clear it has exceptions. Furthermore, the examples given are "authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists", not scientists, and the mere existence of a manual of style for a topic does not guarantee that every possible element of that topic deserves a) its own article and b) coverage at all. Ironholds (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also point you towards WP:PURPLIST, in the link you just gave, which provides that lists are meant to be navigable tables of internal links. Ironholds (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_article_for_deletion #10 clearly says
If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
Did you attempt to cleanup this article or add maintenance tags to it before nominating it for deletion? Why aren't you following deletion procedural policy? Basket of Puppies 04:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it's not policy. One is not bound to follow WP:BEFORE. Secondly, adding tags and attempting to clean it up requires that the basic premise of the article to be debated for deletion be worth including in the first place. Ironholds (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Splitting says
If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split be carried out.
Bolding is mine. Splitting the list of articles by Kaptchuk is appropriate and suggested by WP:SPLITTING as the length and sheer numbers of articles by Kaptchuk makes his BLP look lopsided and have poor readability. Regarding the notability of his articles, the whole reason why he is notable is because of his research. The converage of his research is well documented in the reliable news. Basket of Puppies 04:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as with WP:BEFORE, the splitting guideline presupposes that the content would be independently worthy of coverage. The citations are all well and good, and would justify an article about the piece of research in question, but they all appear to be focused on the same thing. This is not the same as, to use your example, the coverage of Einstein's research, nor does it indicate notability of either his works individually or, more crucially, his works as a whole - simply a single example. Ironholds (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A list-class article is supposed to be a list of a set of information. It is bad for the project to have a list-class article for the scientific articles of a renowned scientist? Basket of Puppies 05:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is meant to be a list that demonstrates notability, contains internal links and in that regard acts as a navigation tool, and is verifiable through third-party sources. This list is not. Ironholds (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bot hasn't even finished filling in all the fields. Don't you think it would be best to wait and see how the article develops before jumping to an AfD? Basket of Puppies 05:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And usually I would. The content in question, however, has already been found on en-wiki elsewhere, and was not developed there. There is no reason to suggest that its presence in a standalone article is any more individually notable than its presence in Ted Kaptchuk. Perhaps if you could come up with an argument better than "it might develop and become useful, or alternately show that in can develop rather than spending your time creating new MOS guidelines to justify including this article. Ironholds (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For one very simple reason- I am waiting for the bot to finish filling in all the fields. Once that is done then I will be working on it. In the meantime, I find great value in participating in community discussion as to the proper procedure for this very question. Basket of Puppies 05:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does bot form-willing prevent you making changes to those entries already filled out, say? And yes, I'm sure you consider participating in the most appropriate forum for discussion a highly important part of editing - you are to be commended for it. Ironholds (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is now a proposed guideline reflecting this very situation. The input and feedback of the community is, as always, welcome. Basket of Puppies 05:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ted Kaptchuk is no Albert Einstein. It's not clear that the primary subject is notable under WP:ACADEMIC; certainly a spin-off article is not notable either. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just curious- are you saying that Kaptchuk isn't notable and thus this article needs deletion? Basket of Puppies 06:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I said that Kaptchuk may not be notable under the guidelines in WP:ACADEMIC. Have you looked at those guidelines? But this discussion isn't about that page, it's about this page, one that needlessly lists publications, something that wouldn't be appropriate in the vast majority of cases. Kuguar03 (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am extremely familiar with WP:ACADEMIC and it appears to me that Kaptchuk easily passes the "professor test" as described here. Are you suggesting an additional AfD for the subject himself, as that is what your !delete seems to indicate. Basket of Puppies 06:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I might, I'd need to look into it more first, but when and if I decide to do so, that can be discussed in the appropriate place. For this discussion, you should limit your responses to other editors to those that are both relevant and truly needed. Haranguing every person who disagrees with your position could be considered tendentious editing. Just some friendly advice. Kuguar03 (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        AfD is a discussion as to the application of the relevant policies and guidelines of the subject and as they relate to notability. It is shocking that you would even suggest tendentious editing in a forum that is specifically designed to facilitate discussion. Basket of Puppies 06:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        There is a difference between discussion and what you're doing. Producing more text than the editors who don't support your position will not cause you to "win" by default. Please show some restraint and respect. Kuguar03 (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Whatever are you talking about? I am not here to win or lose but to discuss. Please- keep the conversation on the topic of this AfD and not something else. If you have issues with me then please discuss them with me on my talk page, which is the most appropriate venue. Thanks! Basket of Puppies 06:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undue weight. Lists of articles by Professor X should be presumptively non-notable unless shown otherwise. MLA (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The scientific articles by Ted Kaptchuk are not a notable body of work. WP:SPLIT can not be used to justify creating an article, only to justify removing content from an article that is too long. The new article must stand on its on merits, "a parent article happend to be too long" is not a reason to have an article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creation of this new article appears to come out frustration with the way some guidelines are being applied, and was created to make a point. The content of this article was originally in Ted Kaptchuk‎. After two other editors and I insisted this content was unnecessary, Basket of Puppies moved the questionable content to this new article. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#External_links reminds editors to "Avoid listing an excessive number of external links; Wikipedia is not a link repository" and Wikipedia:LINKFARM#LINK adds "excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." This content didn't belong in Ted Kaptchuk‎, and it doesn't belong in this new article. Kingturtle = (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The creation of this article was in no way to create a POINT but rather to resolve the issue of a lopsided article based upon a very long publication section. I hope you will afford me the benefit of the doubt and not immediately react to article creation as a policy violation. Basket of Puppies 14:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In the spirit of WP:NOTRESUME, I'd also say toss this per WP:NotCurriculumVitae. The subject himself meets the general notability guidelines (as I have noted at his AfD), but I don't see the slightest rational justification for this. He's noted for work on placebos, but that notability does not transfer to the body of his publications. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is not notable. I agree with many of the other reasons put forward above for deletion. The guy is notable. This list is not. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 15:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nosica[edit]

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

This language has essentially no coverage from sources other than its main website. Fails to be notable. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per my reasoning here. Cut out the spree, it's counter to our purposes here. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly the user does not feel like improving the article and instead wants it deleted. I found many links just on the first pages of google and instead of asking for this page to be deleted I added them to the wikipedia entry. This deletion spree must stop just because some languages aren't up to the users standards. 198.151.130.66 (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately none of your links help to establish notability as they are all links to project pages and a mailing list. Were you able to find any reliable secondary sources? SQGibbon (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable secondary sources supplied that establish notability or support the claims made in the article. SQGibbon (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with User:SQGibbon above -- I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources to establish notability, so the article clearly fails the general notability guidelines. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Errr, if it's still a developing language it's going to be hard to find third party secondary sources that talk about it in any detail. Apart from failing the notability guideline, ther is another problem: it's kind of hard to write a good encyclopedic article with only primary sources, for a topic that has next to zero history. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 15:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev (programming language)[edit]

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

So few sources I can't establish whether this language even exists or not. Clearly non-notable. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep, per my reasoning here Throwaway85 (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an unreferenced, one-sentence definition with an external link to a website that went offline in January 2006. WIkipedia is not a dictionary. --Pnm (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable secondary sources included to establish notability or support any of the claims made in this article. SQGibbon (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one, really struggling to find sources for this to expand beyond a one line definition. Has no historical/long term interest, barely any current term interest. Consider creating List of programming languages derived from Java --Errant ^(chat!) 11:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concurring with previous users about sources. Have not been able to find any reliable academic sources that have to do with this language. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 08:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although nominator's spree is outrageous in general, this particular subject is not notable. More importantly, not only this article doesn't assert notability, but its subject doesn't that notability. All Google hits are either Wikipedia mirrors or unrelated. 212.233.112.10 (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This language appears to be long-dead with the only source about it being an archive of the project page. The article has never been more than a stub. - Zwilson (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Highways in Ontario#Others. A new article can be created and this article re-merged at any time. Remember, though, that anyone can be bold and merge articles without going through AfD first. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Highway 7051[edit]

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

Merge to Highways in Ontario#Others - Current claim to notability is A) Its high number, supposedly the highest posted in Ontario ("verified" by a photo of the street sign) and B) That its going to be repaired, as all roads everywhere are at some point. Permastub, notability claim unverifiable. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a new article, maybe named 7000-series Highways in Ontario, in a manner similar to the Rockland County Scenario. If no one creates the article then delete as non-notable for a standalone article. Admr Boltz 03:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The best coverage on these highways appears to be at Provincial highways in Ontario#Others. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge either to new list of 7000-series highways or existing list at Provincial highways in Ontario. Dough 48 72 19:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Discussion on a merger can be continued on the relevant talk pages. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Latvia[edit]

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

Content fork of Human rights in Latvia, this article is more about the legal framework of human rights and the prevention of racism in Latvia with respect to international treaties. This is treated in Human rights in Latvia, but there is little of any actual notable cases of racism itself with in the country discussed in the article. Suggest merge any useful material and delete. Martin (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all unique, well-sourced content and delete all non-unique, or not-well-sourced content, per Martin. --123Hedgehog456 11:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expanded since nomination. Fuseau (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article has been expanded, the reasons given for deletion do not apply any more to the article. --Glebchik (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per Martintg and 123Hedgehog456. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk)
Keep- Racism in X articles are standard, if undeveloped in the great majority of cases, and clearly covers a different but related area to "Human Rights in X" rather than being content forks. The article has clearly been substantially expanded and shows this well. However, even if overlapping with Human Rights in X the previous content was clearly an appropriate start to this article. Ajbpearce (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- Not notable, Latvian population is predominantely caucasian, there is little acctual racism, so general xenophobia and even staring at person of diffrent race is seen as racism in Latvia (would make article confusing IMO). ~~Xil (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your points, Xil, about what exactly comprises racism can at most reflect on the titling of the article, which is a matter for a Move discussion on the talk page or a Move vote here. Anarchangel (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Latvian population is predominantely caucasian - irrelevant. See racism - the term covers not only attitudes among races, but also ethnic relations. 2. there is little acctual racism Just a point of view is not sufficient for deciding. The sources in the article show that there are different views on whether racism is an urgent problem. Fuseau (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article apparently tries to accomodate view that there are no races at all, but it still says it is discrimination based on genetic factors i.e. outward appearence and other congenital charecteristics, it also makes clear that there is no differentiation in legal definitions, but as nominator says, legal framework can be detailed under human rights. If you look into statistics on nationalities, you`ll see that major nationalities, which make up ~97% of population are white and AFAIK don`t have any distinguishing genetic charecteristics, which somebody would ever have used to state that they are inferior. I trust 3% of ``Other`` are of very diversified origin, so only part of them could be targted by racists, from some statistics it seems that of those largest groups are Roma and Jews, which make up around 0.4% each, as these groups are commonly discriminated around the world they probably merit seperate articles. But Russophones are not a race. And I did indicate that last part is purely my opinion (I believe POV is more geared toward article content, would be hard to have discussion without having any opinion), indeed, I believe that if every story on racism in Latvia I`ve read ilustrates it with interviews in which victims state that they are offended, because people (who don`t see people of diffrent race often) stare at them, then this person is unused to attention, used to think it is something bad and it is all a media hype - if a person has been given assignment to find racism, he or she would find it even if all inhabitants of the country were of same nationality ~~Xil (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

major nationalities, which make up ~97% of population are white I can advise once again to pay attention at least to the wiki article about racism, at least the lead section, where one can find: "According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnicity discrimination". See also ICERD, defining racial discrimination as "based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin". Russophones are not a race - right. And no one here contests this. But Russians, Belarusians, Romani people etc. are ethnic groups, which are relevant when speaking of racism, per above. if every story on racism in Latvia I`ve read ilustrates it with interviews in which victims state that they are offended, because people (who don`t see people of diffrent race often) stare at them A very strange choice of stories... It creates an image of Latvia more peaceful than what the government itself admits. Why not to read the references in the article, on which you are stating your position? Reference 9 - see pp. 79-83 - about criminal proceeding on inciting ethnic, racial and national hatred etc. You can also read those sources in Latvian, lack of command in which could explain some mistakes made by others: see reference 11 - pp. 31-33 speak about violent expressions of racism. In an older version of your userpage you'd claimed to have command in Russian, too. See, e.g., the reference 19, where K. Ejugbo speaks of attacks to people with differing skin colour. Fuseau (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is at odds with one of the sources cited in the article published by the Latvian branch of European Network Against Racism, in its report "Responding to Racism in Latvia" which states: "There is no conclusive evidence that the larger ethnic minorities are victims of discrimination" --Martin (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the previous comment here I didn't even write about discriminating against larger ethnic minorities. However, at the reference 1 one can find Russian-speaking population highlighted as a vulnerable group by a Council of Europe's body. At the reference 2 one can find an UN Rapporteur stressing the situation of Russians.Of course, other source can express another evaluation, and the fact I've added the reference you are speaking of proves my neutral approach. The various points of view in various sources are normal.Fuseau (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point completly - this isn`t about legal definitions, but what everyone else understands with ``racism``. And saying that Russophones in Latvia are abused because of their race sounds like certain politicians who also say that there is apharteid in Latvia (and facism, nazism and what not). And I merely comented on articles from local daily press, there is nothing that should warrant racism a seperate article. If some idiots having ``racist discourse`` in Delfi is a concern, it can still be covered in more general article ~~Xil (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this isn`t about legal definitions, but what everyone else understands with ``racism`` Please do not substitute someone's narrow opinions to "what everyone else understands to be racism". Wikipedia understands that "racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" (italics added). sounds like - I'm glad your position has no better arguments. If some idiots having ``racist discourse`` in Delfi is a concern If you've read at least those article's references which are mentioned in this discussion, you've seen that there are also violent attacks and desecration of cemeteries.Fuseau (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You`re still missing the point. I am not doubting that there is racism, I merely doubt that scale of the problem warrants it seperate article and your motivation to include non-racial minorities. If you`d leave out legal framework and ethnicities you would have very little to go with. ~~Xil (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicities are also relevant to racism, not only in legal discourse, but in the understanding of Wikipedia - racism.Fuseau (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding expansion: Although the article has now been expanded, the issue of WP:NOTABILITY remains. This article tends to conflate discrimination with racism by mentioning issues of religious and language discrimination which isn't necessarily racist. Even the Latvian branch of European Network Against Racism, which this article cites, in the section "Who is experiencing racism" of its report "Responding to Racism in Latvia" states: "There is no conclusive evidence that the larger ethnic minorities are victims of discrimination" and it goes on to mention a few surveys of attitudes to Roma, Africans and Asians, but there is nothing notable that would justify a standalone article. Looking at the article itself, the section "Racist crimes" doesn't discuss anything because there isn't any racist crime in Latvia. In the section "Racism in politics and media discourse", the two specific instances relate to politicians accusing each other of "racism", but accusation and fact are two different things. The section "Evaluations of the scale of racism" sums it up the problem with this article in a nut shell, there simply isn't any notable racism in the country, certainly not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. Therefore a merge to Human rights in Latvia is still warranted. --Martin (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a criticism that goes to a retitling discussion. Have you, Martintg, considering dissolving the AfD and resolving these issues on the talk page? Because you continue to show that this article should exist as Ethnic Discrimination in Latvia, assuming that the reader accepts your assertions about the article. Anarchangel (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

by mentioning issues of religious and language discrimination which isn't necessarily racist The reference given shows that the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance considers these kinds of discrimination to be in its competence.

nothing notable that would justify a standalone article - there are secondary sources on the topic of this article. Which specific criteria you consider not to be met?

the section "Racist crimes" doesn't discuss anything because there isn't any racist crime in Latvia The reference mentions various kinds and examples of racist crimes.

the two specific instances relate to politicians accusing each other of "racism" In one case, Muižnieks is a well-known political scientist and specifically expert on racism (head of ECRI), and he wasn't active in politics when publishing this evaluation (2005); in the other - accusation is notable, being said inside one ruling coalition. Besides, one can call every evaluation of something as racist to be accusation, but refusing from all such sources wouldn't allow to write articles on specific cases of racism.

there simply isn't any notable racism in the country The references show this is the view of several ruling politicians and experts asked by the official newspaper. And they mention that these views are contested, too. If you wish, I'll expand this mentioning.Fuseau (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously a notable subject. Racism is a very real problem in Latvia. The article is well-written and referenced. Nanobear (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a source to support your claim "Racism is a very real problem in Latvia", sufficient to establish notability, beyond the standard reports which these UN and NGO agencies generate for every country on the planet? --Martin (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UN (and CoE) agencies are quite reliable when providing facts unpleasant for member states - of course, they can be biased, but the most probable direction of bias is that in favour of the criticized states (since the criticized states have votes in these intergovernmental organizations). NGOs may be very reliable, too - see, for example, the awards section of Latvian Centre for Human Rights, referenced in this article.Fuseau (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Nano's Keep vote maintains that the article itself shows that racism is a problem in Latvia. A problem we have at WP is attempts to 'raise the bar' or 'move the goalposts'. The article shows evidence of racism, the UN and NGO reports show evidence of racism, but Martintg's reply insists on more evidence. Anarchangel (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, your characterisation of 'move the goalposts' is incorrect and seems to be an assumption of bad faith. The question is, and this was posed from the very beginning, is what sources are there beyond UN and NGO reports (which these organisations are mandated to produce for every country) that makes this topic notable? One one single book is returned in this Google book search [43], and that is just a reference to an NGO report. Google scholar shows equally dismal results [44] as does Google news [45]--Martin (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move to Ethnic discrimination in Latvia. Racism exists in Latvia, there is no doubt whatsoever about that. Compare to the US, where racism exists, but is kept below the radar of media communications. In Latvia, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance reports, politicians, not only in public but in mass media, have repeatedly resorted to racist discourse.ECRI Third Report on Latvia, 2008 Para. 99-101 As for how this racism is to be named, I really don't care. Common usage of racism encompasses ethnic discrimination, but there is no harm in being specific, especially if it truly addresses the concerns of those who wish to merge. However, I currently have no reason to believe that this will be satisfactory to those who favor Merge. I cannot rule out the possibility that these arguments about 'discrimination, not racism' are red herrings introduced to divert the discussion toward any measure that will destroy or diminish the article. Therefore, I predominantly prefer a Keep resolution, and my offer of the Move option is, inasmuch as I have reservations, a rhetorical one. Anarchangel (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should refactor you comment about the motives of others, as it is not helpful. A major issue is WP:NOTABILITY. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance is mandated to report on all 48 countries in Europe on the topic of Racism. The question is whether racism is particularly notable in the case of Latvia and stands out from these other countries, that it requires a stand alone article? Google books [46], Google scholar [47] and Google news [48] indicates a lack of notability. Which leads to the other issue, being that Wikipedia is a not venue for case studies, which this article effectively is, see WP:NOTCASE. --Martin (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you write shows that the Council of Europe considers that racism in every its member state is notable enough for periodic reports on it. Therefore, "Racism in X" with "X=a CoE member state" are notable topics for Wikipedia articles. If ECRI wrote one yearly report on the whole Europe only, this would be an argument in favour of non-notability of racism in a single country, but... this is not the case. Besides, it should be noted that the UN Special Rapporteur on racism etc. is not obliged to write a report on every country. On Latvia - he did.Fuseau (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Council of Europe is mandated to write a report for each country whether or not racism exists, as does the ECRI. The UN Special Rapporteur on racism wrote a report on the invitation of the Latvian government back in 2007, if racism is so notable in Latvia why hasn't the UN Special Rapporteur written follow up reports for 2008, 2009 and 2010? --Martin (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, CoE leadership considers that racism and intolerance are notable enough in every member state to mandate ECRI to write reports on it. As concerns the UN Special Rapporteur - he doesn't make country visits and, respectively, he doesn't write country reports so often. Everyone may see that he did only 33 country visits in 16,5 years. And he has visited 30 countries only (out of 192 UN member states), as he has visited twice USA, Germany and Brazil.Fuseau (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CoE reports indicate sufficient notability for an article Racism in Europe. You implied the UN Special Rapporteur wrote a report on Latvia because he saw something notable that should be reported, but infact he did so on the invitation of the Latvian government. What government would willingly do that if there was a real problem? --Martin (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Latvia did issue a standing invitation for all UN HRC rapporteurs, which is quite commendable, but... many governments have done it, as you can see on the link.Fuseau (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As per Martintg Tentontunic (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notable or not, decide for yourself - Hate Crimes in The OSCE Region - Incidents And Responses Annual Report For 2009.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 17:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this relevant source, I'll add it in the article. However, for three reasons it is not a good idea to judge on notability of racism in Latvia just by this source: 1. It covers crimes only, not all racism issues. 2. It covers only those facts which are reacted to by the police etc. (e.g., by starting criminal proceedings). 3. There are many other relevant sources.Fuseau (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On page 24 of this report there is a table of all countries reporting hate crime, and also on page 108, Latvia's numbers are in the single digits, comparable to Liechtenstein, while other countries report numbers in the hundreds and even thousands in the case of Sweden. The relevant findings are as follows

Page 46 - Latvia: No data on racist or xenophobic crimes were reported to ODIHR by officials. According to the Latvian Centre for Human Rights, there was no official or unofficial information on investigations of racial violence
Page 54 - Latvia: Based on information provided by the courts, the NPC reported an assault on two persons based on their Roma identity, for which each of the four perpetrators received five-year prison sentences, with three years probation. The Latvian Centre for Human Rights reported two court rulings in attacks against Roma.
Page 61 - Latvia: No official data on anti-Semitic crimes were reported to ODIHR. The Latvian Centre for Human Rights reported the desecration of a cemetery. The Stephen Roth Institute reported one violent incident
Page 79 - Latvia: No official data on crimes against LGBT persons were provided to ODIHR. The Latvian Human Rights Centre reported one incident of assault and three in which persons were threatened. The threats occurred during the Baltic Pride march.

As can be seen, racism in Latvia is on a such a small scale that it is insufficiently notable for inclusion into Wikipedia. --Martin (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A survey on the perception of juridicial transparency in Latvia probably could tell us more about why the numbers are in the single digits. The statistics provided only documented hate crimes brought to the attention of law enforcement, and gives a good indication about the awareness of human rights in this field. The Corruption Perceptions Index probably also might suggest why Sweden has report numbers in the thousands. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries reported have far worse corruption record yet they also report significantly higher numbers of hate crimes than Latvia. Also included were independent reports from the Latvian Centre for Human Rights in parallel to the official police figures, and these are also single digits. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, we can't speculate on the reasons why the number of offical reports are low, and create an article on the chance that the numbers of hate crimes will go up sometime in the future. --Martin (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for poiunting to LCHR data, too, which I haven't found initially. This is interesting, and can be added to the article. However, racism is not limited with crimes only. we can't speculate on the reasons why the number of offical reports are low - exactly. But when ECRI mentions considerations on this issue, we can point to them, as it is done in the article. racism in Latvia is on a such a small scale that it is insufficiently notable You still do not provide any clear requirements and their justification. On the contrary, arguments in favour of the article are clear: there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources, which is enough per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline Fuseau (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kovan Sindî[edit]

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

WP:N/WP:V--Can't find reliable, secondary sources which discuss this Kurdish author at all. But what with language barriers, it's possible that I've missed something (other than the usual passel of wikimirrors and videos). Additional sources welcomed. j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 03:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 11:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was userfy so MQS can continue to work on it Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link User:MichaelQSchmidt/Brianna Frost Hogan

Brianna Frost Hogan[edit]

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

Article is on a subject (person), whose notability hasn't been established. Ted87 (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on grounds of non-notability. Also looks like an ad "She is a "webcam model" who spends her days stripping for paying customers. "--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet -- œ ^™ 16:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does not seem to make a very compelling case for notability here. OSborn^arf_contribs. 05:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Much of the content would require removal under WP:BLP as unsourced. Though currently in a sorry state, if more sources like Philadelphia Daily News can be found and used, and the article edited to remove the sense of advert, the subject "might" show a meeting of WP:GNG and a pushing at WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Tone 15:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Children's feet[edit]

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

This article can just be redirected to foot. Aerosprite the Legendary (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are multiple medical journal sources that are cited. What policy or guideline does this article break? --Guerillero | My Talk 03:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see the nominator's point, but if it's a decent article and its well-backed, I don't see why we would get rid of it. ceranthor 05:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to foot problems in children. The medical specialty of orthopedic surgery came about for this reason, and there are still numerous reasons (such as clubfoot, hip dysplasia etc) why it might be useful to have a general page about foot problems in children. JFW | T@lk 14:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, agree with JFW. This article is about foot problems in children not children´s feet per say. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as plenty of references show notability, I am not opposed to a rename. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - there are enough differences between a developing foot and a mature one that a separate article is indicated. Suggest Podopaediatrics, Podopediatrics, or Pediatric podiatry as title. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per JFW. The content is okay. It needs clean-up and better referencing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion...". Colonel Warden (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have mooted a rename discussion here so that there will be a record with the article if we decide to move it. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey Deutch[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Has had only minor roles in 2 TV programs and one apparently significant role in a movie that is yet to air. This doesn't meet the first criteria of WP:ENT, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." AussieLegend (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single TV credit and famous parents are not enough to make her notable at this time. Maybe later. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 12 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Short and non-notable article of a person who just had two minor rolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerosprite (talk • contribs) 02:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Fipp[edit]

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

Non notable, assistant special teams coach. fails WP:Athlete. Contested PROD (on talk page), with reasoning: "In my opinion, since Mr. Fipp was a college football player who had a scholarship, was a College Football Defensive Coordinator, and has been an Asst. Special Teams Coordinator with two different teams, this article should be kept." Ravendrop (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to post a resume. Could possibly be notable for collegiate playing career--but it isn't in the article. Open to revision should the article improve.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr. Fipp has coached many notable players, which is a way to be included in Wikipedia. Also, he works with NFL players which are high profile. There is no way this should be deleted.Go Phightins! (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious can you show any policy, guideline, precedent, or any other measure where being the teacher/coach of a notable person automatically makes one notable? It sounds a lot like WP:NOTINHERITED, which states that notability is not inherited from other notable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes "Coaches are also assumed notable if they have coached many notable athletes" is specifically from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)Go Phightins! (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please check closer Those words do appear exactly as quoted, but under the track & field section. College and Pro football coaches typically have a higher requirement. If I missed something, let me know.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry You're right. However, we have articles for James Urban (Asst. Coordinator) and virtually every other NFL and CFB Asst. Coach. Fipp is the asst. head of special teams for a team with one of the best kickers, punter, and punt returner.72.70.147.89 (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. I wondered if this was true so I checked the Wikipedia status of the assistant coaches of my local team. Fewer than half of them have articles, and those that do had mostly either played at the professional level (automatic notability) or been a head coach at a major university (possibly notability). --MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ready to change my position because of that either. The other coaches likely met notability standards through other means, not because they were assistant pro coaches.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Take a look at James Urban for example. (His article can be found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Urban) He was a graduate asst. at Clarion University, he served as Asst. to Head Coach for the Eagles, and then was a Quality Control Coach. Now he is the Asst. Offensive Coordinator. Explain why there's an article for him, and why we can't have one for Dave Fipp. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Three responses: 1-It's there because you created that article; 2-it most likely shouldn't be on Wikipedia, I've proposed it for deletion; 3-WP:OTHERSTUFF states that just because other stuff exists does not mean that this article should.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. He is a mid-level assistant coach at the professional level, and as such gets a certain number of mentions in the press [49], but nowhere near enough to satisfy WP:ATHLETE. His college career does not seem to make it either. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 12 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An assistant special teams coach? Please. Blueboy 96 21:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Go - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mutch more pointing to notability. I say Keep Per Go:es reasoning.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rubies of Eventide[edit]

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

Declined Prod. I am on the fence regarding the WP:N of this game. Admr Boltz 20:46, 6 February 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) 02:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page looks well sourced and written. Numerous sources include high profile websites such as GameSpot and IGN. Skullbird11 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even though the game isn't around anymore, it once did exist and was a successful MMORPG for a few years. Even though the official companies sources shut down many of the other sources are notable. Also the "archive. User:Access Time —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: Notable, but the article needs editing - some of the paragraphs still use present tense even though the game is history now. --Ezhuks (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IGN review is sufficient for notability. Szzuk (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordon Saffron Taste This![edit]

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

Prod removed by creator. No reliable sources to establish encyclopedic notability of a film. tedder (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow continued improvements to this new article about an award (minor) winning film by a new author that did indeed have a reliable source review of the film when prodded for a deletion with an explanation that it offered none.[50] With respects to the nominator, it might have been better to have simply tagged this new article for cleanup and additional sources, rather than for immediate deletion. That said, I am working toward its further improvement, and will notify the newcomer author of this discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note What was nominated as this has been expanded, further sourced, and made more encyclopedic... THIS is looking far better. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Removal of a prod is not a reason to nominate for deletion - quite the contrary. Please see WP:BEFORE: "If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Colonel Warden (talk) 19:19, 11 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was notable when it was nominated, but in its improved state, notability is obvious.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject of article appears to have meet WP:GNG using references from reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Terminator (franchise). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance (Terminator)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources that cover this concept in direct detail which makes it impossible to WP:verify notability of this topic. Reviewed the past no consensus AFD and found that the arguments for keeping it were based on a lot of assumptions about the sources that are mistaken (in good faith). Shooterwalker (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Terminator (franchise) by creating a fictional universe section. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since there are no references independent of the subject from reliable third-party sources, the article does meet the criteria of verifiability and notability. The topic itself does not meet the general notability guideline and the content of the article appears to be original research by synthesis. The article is mainly written with an in-universe perspective with no real-world perspective, it's an unnecessary content fork and consists mostly of a plot-only description of a fictional work, so the article fulfills the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that both this article and Skynet (Terminator) could be merged into a single section of the Terminator (franchise) article. Serendi ^pod ous 10:36, 14 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment from nominator: I believe the policy reasons are valid for deletion. However, I would support a merge if it would help this discussion reach a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R2m[edit]

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

There is nothing to suggest that this is software meets the general notability guideline. (PROD was removed with no explanation, by creator). SmartSE (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Authors seem to be attempting to advertise their product (though the wording is not unambiguously promotional. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 7 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable software per nom. --Pnm (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Simeone[edit]

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

Unsourced promotional autobiography of musician. No evidence the subject meets the general notability guideline or any of the criteria set out in WP:MUSICBIO. Negligible 3rd party coverage (evidently reviewed in Future Music magazine, club date mentioned in passing in TimeOut, but that appears to be all) so no sources to compose a new version of the article out of as an alternative to deletion. Article substantially cribbed from subject's websites, MySpace page, etc. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 03:25, 31 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability here, lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Jay Chou. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jay Chou tours[edit]

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

This article, unlike the one below, simply isn't encyclopedic enough, I think, and I don't think a merge is necessary, either. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- this information should be merge into the main article as it is an indication of his achievement as an artist. But if this makes it too long then other sections can be created into separate pages eg Jay Chou discography --Michaela den (talk) 12:54, 2 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in to main Jay Chou article as per Michaela den's recommendation. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 03:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Woell[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Borkificator (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Borkificator (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 03:20, 31 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 15:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Tea[edit]

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

Unsourced for five years. I couldn't find anything to confirm that this was a real historical product. Possibly a hoax? Daniel 01:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a silly hoax. Who smuggles gold in actual cups of tea? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Google search shows that only Wikipedia mirrors repeat this story. Anyway, how could iced tea have been traded (and smuggled) before the days of mechanical refrigeration? And where did the Confederates get tea? And why would they smuggle gold to the North instead of Europe? The whole thing is absurd and it's amazing it survived for five years. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. The part about the gold smuggling was only added later, but even before that, the article had no sources or claims to notability. JIP | Talk 06:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither "Colonel Ryan Mooney" nor "Colonel Ryan Mooney trial" search terms yield any results on Google Books. There is no substantiation for the claim for an influence on Goldschlager. Cullen, you won't have to grind through mirror site entries if you use the -Wikipedia -wiki ("everything other than") search terms when searching Google (see the links above to Books and News etc for examples of use). Anarchangel (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clodhopper (shoe)[edit]

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

totally unreferenced steaming pile of original research. WuhWuzDat 00:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a slang word that has been used for decades, but reliable sources just use the word in passing. I haven't been able to find any that discuss the topic in depth. Not notable for Wikipedia, but perhaps appropriate for Wictionary. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Such a common term there will be refs out there. I won't be looking for them though. Szzuk (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment..So, we are just supposed to take your word for it?. WuhWuzDat 23:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I do, you can make your own mind up! FWIW I looked for refs and couldn't find anything but I'm staying with keep regardless :) Szzuk (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I find a reliable source that says Szzuk is a reliable source, I'll take your word for it, until then I will stick to what can be referenced. WuhWuzDat 19:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A webpage that says Szzuk is a reliable source. Give me 5 minutes ;-) Szzuk (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear WP:DICDEF, giving definitions of a word rather than containing any encyclopaedic information. Consider replacing with a redirect to wiktionary. Robofish (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition. ~~We may want to transwiki to Wiktionary first, though, as this article includes more definitions than wikt:clodhopper.~~ Cnilep (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I copied the additional definitions to Wiktionary. Cnilep (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete this article which has no references, and where verification of the facts has not been possible at reliable sources. Should such sources become available/found, I would be happy to restore the article for improvement, if requested PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ozren K. Glaser[edit]

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

Completly unsourced. No possibility to verify notability. I assume he is an impostor. Ben Ben (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Odd one this, I thought the whole thing was a hoax as first, but a g-search reveals quite a few refs to him, including a personal website which backs up the main claims. It could all be bunk but I suspect not as that would be a lot of work to go to for a hoax. However, there was a trivia section in the article which talked about him being a Mr Universe contender, architect and award winning photographer, which I see no evidence of. I suspect that bit was all a hoax/vandalism so I've removed it. Without it the article looks a lot more sensible. However, it's still un-cited and I'm not convinced he meets WP:MUSIC, so a delete. But with a cite or two I could be convinced.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An IP editor just restored the trivia section, while claiming on my talk page to be the article subject. I've added a COI tag accordingly. They have added in three citations, but only the first directly supports the claim, which is the 'Mr World' finalist. Appears to have come in 17th place though, so not notable for this. The other two citations are in Croation, so I can't read them, but a basic text search doesn't show the subject's name in either, unless the spelling is substantially different? Any non-COI editors who can speak Croation able to check this? At this point I'm still not convinced there is notability here.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 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, – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive weed optimization algorithm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted. Relisting at request of author (of both the article and the algorithm). Notability is difficult to judge: the original paper has received 44 citations, but except for self-citations most of those citations where by papers not cited themselves. (original paper, Scopus) —Ruud 00:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your comments. I would like to mention that a number of "independent" citations have cited other "independent" publications, who cited the original paper. For example, consider the following paper:

- A. R. Mallahzadeh, S. Es'haghi, A. Alipour, "Design of an E-Shaped MIMO Antenna Using IWO Algorithm for Wireless Application at 5.8 GHz", Progress In Electromagnetics Research, PIER 90, pp. 187–203, 2009.

This paper was cited 18 times according to Google ([51])

As another example, the following paper:

- S. Karimkashi, A. A. Kishk, "Invasive Weed Optimization and its Features in Electromagnetics", IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1269–1278, 2010.

is cited for 6 times according to Google ([52]).

Please note that the above-mentioned articles are published very recently. Thanks.- ARM (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Citation counts are not a criterion for notability so the above discussion is moot. This seems to be an area of current research that hasn't yet been covered by secondary sources. As such, a mention in another article (perhaps Genetic algorithm) may be appropriate, but this article is not written in encyclopedic style so I can't recommend a merge. There seems to be more in the article about weeds than algorithms.--RDBury (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was deleted before, looks like original research and self promotion by an author. Does not appear to be a well known/notable algorithm. Maybe it could be included in a page on genetic algorithms, but right now I don't see the evidence for a new article. MATThematical (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral / keep if significantly improved: (This was a tough one to decide upon and my apologies for not giving a more concise opinion.) I understand the arguments and concerns above, but the original paper was published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, and it has apparently been used in a significant number of other publications (regardless of whether those have been cited in turn.) But should it be a stand-alone article on Wikipedia? Having studied the optimization method it appears to be a multi-agent variant of local search and as such could perhaps be mentioned in that article instead of having its own stand-alone article. I have previously thought about merging all the articles on variants of 'local search' (incl. some of the Wiki articles I've authored), but my present opinion is that there is value to having separate articles on the different variants of 'local search', as long as the number of articles is kept reasonable, because they represent markedly different research factions and the separation of articles offer better and more indepth descriptions (as opposed to e.g. the vast number of variants of particle swarm optimization, which do not merit separate Wiki articles.) In the future, Wikipedia might have many more articles on 'multi-agent local-search' optimizers which are variants of the same basic idea, and at that time the articles should be merged into one. At present, however, I don't mind having this article, BUT it must be improved significantly to become of encyclopedic standard and hence merit inclusion (the article currently speaks very little of the optimization method but reads more like ramblings on biological weed and its resilience, etc.) For article layouts that would be suitable see e.g. ant colony optimization, particle swarm optimization or random optimization. As this article has been here since 2006 I would advise the contributor to hurry up and dramatically improve its quality before it gets deleted (again.) Optimering (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 15:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein (programming language)[edit]

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

This language fails to meet the general notability guideline. This is the *only* information I could find about the language: [53]. The link to its homepage from that article redirects to a company that doesn't even sell the product. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 00:00, 13 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]
Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Author could pretty much use his own userspace for this matter. There are lots of non-notable programming languages that appear every month. Some get fluctuating between low amount of users who keep using it from time to time. Definitely fails to meet guidelines to be kept as an article. Userpd (talk) 14:58, 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) 04:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable secondary sources supplied that establish notability or support the claims made in the article. Doesn't even have a homepage anymore? How is it possible for anyone to verify the contents of this article? If it's impossible to verify any of the claims then it needs to go. SQGibbon (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of importance or significance, and no sources could be located. decltype (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have attempted to find any reliable academic sources and came up empty. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 08:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that User:Ubernostrum and User:Throwaway85 above have posted the above verbatim comments on every one of the programming language AfDs that has come up in the past week. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 08:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mekael Shane[edit]

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

Non-notable poet who fails WP:AUTHOR and whose books all fail WP:BK. He has opened his checkbook and paid for publication each and every time--all of the books listed in the article are printed by notorious vanity press Xlibris. No WP:RS available to establish notability of any kind. Qworty (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, unreferenced for two years.Teapotgeorge^Talk 23:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this story in a local paper. But aside from that, I can find no other coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Runk Mennen[edit]

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

A theatre teacher who does not seem to meet our notability guidelines for academics. The references consist of a few directory listings, an article in her institution's student newspaper, and one "personal communication". Brian the Editor (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Brian the Editor (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered that the bulk of this scholar's work was completed before the internet came into being? The world did not start in 1991. Is Wikipedia biased toward post-internet notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donalds (talk • contribs) 21:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about the internet. If there are offline published sources that demonstrate this subject's notability, then feel free to cite them in the article. Brian the Editor (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for DRM produced 3680 hits, all pertaining to her work. How many hits define notable? Do you have a criteria or is is capricious? How many of the hits need to be listed in the article so that someone can make a decision? When did wikipedia become policed by a few? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donalds (talk • contribs) 21:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the criteria described at Wikipedia:Notability and, more specifically, Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Brian the Editor (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using the criteria of Wikipedia: Notability (academics), Mennen is notable in not one, but five categories, numbered by category: 1. Her work in the field of vocal curriculum for actors is pioneering, significanting impacting her scholarly discipline. The organization that she founded, VASTA, calls her 'the mother of us all.' The VASTA website recognizes her as a Lifetime Distinguished member, honoring "individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the field of Voice & Speech." 2. She received an award for leadership from a national organization in her field. (U/RTA) 4. her work has impacted higher education in her field, changing the way that actors are trained vocally. Her students are now teaching in higher education. 5. In three ways: Distinguished Alumna, Professor Emerita, and Purdue Legacy award, singling her out for her work for Purdue University and higher education. Purdue University named a scholarship fund after her. 7. She founded the Voice and Speech Trainers Association, an outside organization that includes but is not limited to higher education. This organization named a grant after her.

This information is included in the article itself.Donalds (talk) 22:47, 2 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 6 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's close but I believe the article makes a case that she "has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline," problem is, there does seem to be a dearth of "independent reliable sources." However, the national award from the unaffiliated University/Resident Theatre Association suggests to me that there may be a notability in her field beyond her own organization. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Sale[edit]

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

He is a draft pick who hasn't even played in the minor leagues yet. Being drafted in the first round doesn't make him inherently notable. Perhaps he should be placed in his team's minor league players page, based on the assumption that he will soon be playing in the minors. Alex (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players. Maybe we should create protect the top prospects of the 2011 draft to prevent a bunch of new pages for non-notable individuals. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:22, 9 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to say delete as he clearly isn't notable, but merge works just as well (if not better). Jenks24 (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JLA versus Predator[edit]

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

Contested PROD. PROD rationale was "Unref'd stub, no indication of notability." Removal rationale was "it may not be notable, but creator has not been given enough time to show notability - a regular AfD would allow that". I made cursory search for sources before PRODing (Google books, Google news, and plain ol' Google) and found nothing to indicate notability or build this past a 1-sentence stub. The EL in the article merely gives the publisher, date, and language. I didn't find any reviews or anything behind-the-scenes details (writing, drawing, sales, impact)...basically anything you'd need to build even a B-class encycloepedia article. IllaZilla (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I tried Googling JLA versus Predator, it produced "about 22,200" hits. Are you sure there's not evidence of notability in there somewhere? The first hit was a review. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did the same thing, and I looked through the first 10 pages of hits. All were blogs, messageboard forums, other wikis, fansites, or just listings that confirmed that the comic exists. And zilch from Google News or Google Books. Like I said, nothing reliable or of the nature that you'd need to write an encyclopedia article. The review you get on the first hit is a random internet person's personal blog. WP:GHITS seems apt. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's pretty clearly a crime against information to delete an article about a real book from the world's most inclusive encyclopedia. What seems to be the case here is that you're not willing to do the research (buy the book, etc.) to write the article you nevertheless feel is needed here. That's fine, but the article's creator already contributed more than you have, and erasing that work won't serve Wikipedia. 174.99.110.64 (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because something exists does not make it suitable subject matter for a stand-alone encyclopedia article (see WP:EVERYTHING). Wikipedia has inclusion criteria, specifically that the topic has been discussed by multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so that we actually have something encyclopedic to say about it. That doesn't appear to be the case with this comic book. I'll thank you not to be so dismissive in declaring me "not willing to do the research to write the article you feel is needed here". I tried to research it, as explained above: I performed a basic search for reliable secondary source coverage and came up empty-handed. If you want the article to remain, the onus is on you to find sufficient sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 7 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I find IllaZilla's analysis convincing. The reliable secondary sources just simply aren't there. My searches turn up only blogs and forum posts and the like. Reyk _YO!

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sanford (manager)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jack Sanford (manager)

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

Potentially non-notable minor league manager. Though he managed a long time and took plenty of teams to the playoffs (though he never won a league championship) I'm not sure he is entirely worthy of an article. Alex (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Baseball Reference, never played in the majors. Blueboy96 15:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that lack of major league experience is far from an automatic disqualifier from article worthiness. Alex (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but about the only thing that could have saved this article was if he played in the majors. Minor-league players and managers are not presumed notable. Blueboy 96 01:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 7 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Heimann[edit]

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

This article was tagged as an unsourced WP:BLP article in July 2009. Since that time no references have been added. I nominated it for WP:PROD for this reason but the tag was removed within an hour by User:WereSpielChequers with the reason "seems notable to me". Icalanise (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep According to imdb she now seems to be called "Nadine Nicole" which incidentally may be a reason to move the article to Nadine Nicole. She seems to have been a guest star in a couple of series episodes which might just get her past the notability bar. Travelbird (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 6 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its ok to prod an old unreferenced BLP as not notable or even verifiable, but prodding it simply for being unreferenced (if it was created before March 18, 2010) is not appropriate. The actress is borderline, but she seems notable enough for inclusion. I have added a ref.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - there are a couple of sources providing significant coverage, but I'm not sure it's quite enough for notability at this time. Agreed that this is a borderline case, though. Robofish (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Tone 15:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naoto Ōshima[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP article tagged as such since August 2009. I nominated it for WP:PROD for this reason but it was reverted within the hour by User:WereSpielChequers with the reason "seems notable to me", which fails to address the problems of an unsourced WP:BLP article. Article is ineligible for WP:BLPPROD because it was created before March 18, 2010. Icalanise (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep or Merge to Sonic the Hedgehog (character) I dug deep into Google through tons of blogs and private websites to find a mention on The Guardian. He gets a lot of attention by the blogosphere which - although unusable as ref/source - does indicate a certain notability. Sonic the Hedgehog is a well known video game character and although I am normally very critical of overly fast inclusion of articles in this field I'm going to say "weak keep". Travelbird (talk) 09:38, 30 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) 20:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE. --Teancum (talk) 13:00, 31 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) 01:40, 6 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Teancum seems to have nailed it. This article needs to have its references improved, but the topic is notable. -Thibbs (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTH in general, and #2 in particular. As a side point, infinite nominations for AfD are bad enough, but now the barely transparent PROD process can be duplicated with WP:BLPPROD? Surely they should be mutually exclusive. Anarchangel (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The consensus is that there is no indication or evidence that this organisation meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Labour Students[edit]

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

Non notable school club. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB. Contested PROD. PROD removed with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument Ravendrop (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Club was where many members of the later labour government began politics, is of importance within the student movement and within the labour party. At a minimum Glasgow and Oxford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_University_Labour_Club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Labour_Club also have pages for their societies and are of equal prominence. Is a University soc not a school soc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomfollett (talk • contribs) 02:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Baring the invalid WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, no citations have been provided. Only link is to 1st party source. If independent notability/verifiability can be established (and not hung off the we had 1 notable member) then we can review the article. For the time being for failing the basics of a WP article this is a delete. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus due to lack of participation. I am going to WP:BOLDly redirect to Milan Hill State Park as an editorial action (not an admin action). Stifle (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barrows mountain[edit]

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

Newly created article is a stub. Informatioin in the article can be incorporated in the existing article Milan, New Hampshire Wkharrisjr (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Milan Hill State Park, after copying additional content from this article to that one. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 7 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Result: Redirect/Merge Hasteur (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Nazaire (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I removed the prod from this article because a previous version has been prodded and discussed at AFD. Since it has 2 more references and has been slightly expanded from the version previously deleted as a result of the first AFD, I'm starting a second nomination instead of deleting it under CSD G4. Original concern was WP:CRYSTAL issues. Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to David Yates#Future projects where this topic is already best currently discussed per WP:NFF. The project "currently in development" does not have the enduring wide coverage to merit being one of those very rare exceptions to WP:NFF. Userfy a version to its author if requested. I have removed to film infobox,[54] as those are not to be used until principle filming has been confirmed in a reliable source. Note: If it had had enough coverage, its title would have had to be moved to St. Nazaire (film project) as a disambig. But it does not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:01, 6 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Yates#Future projects per the notability guidelines for future films. If filming starts, the article can be recreated. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RiffWorks[edit]

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

This article is written in a highly unencyclopedic manner. One of the main contributors, User:Mikkidw, appears to be an employee of the developer, as shown by a message on the article talk page from three years ago, requesting that an editor should ask for reviewer copy before working on the article. It reads like an advertisement, listing features. The software itself is not particularly notable - there are no in-line citations; just a compiled list of "references" - perhaps every bit of press that the program has received. If anyone finds a substantial amount of material about this program online and would want to improve this article to bring it up to encyclopedic standard then I will not support a deletion, but it's been in a similar state to this for more than three years. Taylor (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the edit history for the sole image in the article, User:Mikkidw states she is the VP of Marketing for Sonoma WireWorks, the company that develops RiffWorks. This is surely WP:CONFLICT? Taylor (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can anyone vouch for this software's notability? If it is notable enough I would be willing to clean it up. ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 15:35, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and clean up per Macworld, Macworld again, and Wired coverage. --Pnm (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, per the admittedly weak, yet still third-party, significant and reliable, sources provided by Pnm. The first MacWorld article is written from a press release, and all three are short, but that's still something. Avram (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Content improved; nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Promenade Alabaster[edit]

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

WP:NN retail property. Despite assertion of a nationally publicized controversy, the only g-hit for any news coverage was related to a shoplifter connected to a meth lab. Fails WP:CORP. Toddst1 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After Eastmain's sleuthing and edits, I think it's worthy of a Keep. Toddst1 (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This isn't the kind of shopping center that would normally be considered notable, and no independent reliable sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from reliable sources. I found the references with a search for "eminent domain" alabaster , because the mall hadn't been officially named at the time. This is a regional mall with a total of about 1 million square feet, which is probably big enough to be considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:09, 7 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as references have now been added. Peter E. James (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; nice work by Eastmain. bobrayner (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. While there were some comments left, no one felt sufficient strong enough to recommend that this be kept. The consensus is that it should be deleted. Should it meet the criteria for inclusion at a future date, it can be re-created PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ami (magazine)[edit]

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

Non-notbale magazine. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - previos deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ami Magazine. Judging from this, the article is pretty much identical to the one that was deleted. I was going to tag it for deletion under CSD#G4, but since the original reasons for deletion were the magazine being "brand new" and "a startup", it could be argued that a few months later that no longer applies.--Beloved Freak 23:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found the following references, but I don`t know if they are enough.
- http://savvima.com/2010/11/16/new-jewish-weekly-magazine/
- http://www.collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=11886&alias=new-ami-magazine-launched Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Those sources are a good start, but I also am not sure that they are sufficient.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article was first published in Ami Magazine and was republished in major publications as well as in the Chicago Tribune.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwew (talk • contribs) 07:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - The Obama Chronicles invocation is just to a site that links many Obama-related things, which is basically just a link to the Chicago Tribune -- it confers little significance on the article at best, and doesn't invoke Ami. The Cross-Currents piece is just the author of the article reusing the article in a blog, which again doesn't suggest much in the way of notability of Ami. So far, I'm not seeing anything that crosses the notability threshold. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this on The Chicago Tribune web site.
- http://discussions.chicagotribune.com/20/chinews/fl-jjps-shafran-1229-20101228/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.98.29 (talk) 20:26, 9 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. C'mon, this magazine has only published 10 issues! What makes it notable other than that it is new? Yoninah (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The consensus is that this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion and so should be deleted. However, if anyone would like to merge suitable content into another article, contact me and I will move it to your user space PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fantastic Four vol 1 1[edit]

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

DeleteThis article is a content-fork redundancy of material that already exists in detail at Fantastic Four, Marvel Comics and Silver Age of Comic Books, all of which give third-party sources on the topic of this first issue. This article, the headline of which does not follow WikiProject Comics MOS, adds nothing but a brief plot description and fancruft about where the fictional supervillain the Mole Man will appear next. Tenebrae (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can't delete Fantastic Four #1. It's the most valuable Silver Age comic there is. This is the holy grail of silver age comic books. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep though I agree that the article needs to be (and currently is) rewritten almost completely. I've outlined my objections to deletion on the talk page, but to sum up, my opinion is that this issue is a seminal comic book in much the same way as Action Comics 1 is and that this article can take on some of the material currently in the main Fantastic Four article along with material about its current market value (though with all respect to Nipsonanomhmata, it is number two, not number one), and use in "homages". I'd be happy to move/rename to line up with the WikiProject MOS, but it's not clear to me how it is deficient (other than needing to be italics). Matt Deres (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sssshhh. Don't tell them that. ;-) Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right now there is a nice pearch on the fence for me with this one. As the article stands it is a very rough index of the issue. That is something that doe not belong with in an encyclopedia, no matter how notable or famous the issue is. That said, there may be an encyclopeadic article in there if Action Comics 1 is used as a guide. That would mean though:
1. NO plot section. Period.
2. No "next appeared" mentions with characters.
3. No story minutia (see #1).
4. A "Publication" section that covers, with cites, how the issue came to be published. How large the run was. What Marvel had to do to get it published. And so on.
5. Moving what is currently the "Reception" section to "Collectability". And expanding it beyond just a single line from a single price guide in a single year.
6. Seriously working on three additional sections: "Development of the story" similar to the "Superman" at Action Comics 1 covering how Lee and Kirby developed the story and what editoral and external concerns they had to comply with; "Reception" covering how the issue did when released and/or critical comentaries of the story content; and "Reprints" again looking at Action Comics 1.
- J Greb (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, though, that as obviously a landmark as Action Comics #1 is, the article for it is surprisingly subpar. There's a great deal of plot, there are several tagged, uncited claims, and there's nothing in the development section that's not already at Superman. "Collectibility" could certainly go into Action Comics. The one thing here that doesn't appear at Superman or at Action Comics is the (uncited) enumeration of five panels that were changed from the original comic-strip format to comic-book format, and once cited, that can go in either or both of those extant articles.

I'm thinking the reason we don't have Detective Comics 27 or Amazing Fantasy 15 articles is that, similarly they would almost entirely duplicate what's already at Detective Comics & Batman and at Amazing Fantasy and Spider-Man, respectively. (Housekeeping note: The AF15 link is only bluelinked because it redirects to Amazing Fantasy.) --Tenebrae (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are about half a dozen individual issues, give or take, that are notable enough and may have enough information to support their own articles. Action Comics 1 is one of those issues. Ids the current state of that article "perfect" or at GA status? No, but it is at the stage that is a good target to aim others at.

The things I think should be there to seriously think about splitting out from the articles on the series are the material related to creating the story or stories in the issue, the critical commentary on that specific issue, the "Collectability" section, and the "Reprint/homage" of the individual issue. That focus on the key issue rather than the over all publication can make splitting natural. Some cases, Detective I think is one, won't immideatly be there since the article on the series is obcenely sparse.

As for plot... note I pointed to a plot section. An article like this should not be a plot dump. But in compiling the information about the development of the story or critical reviews it, elements of the plots are unavoidable.

- J Greb (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've redacted my keep !vote above; I'm gonna have to switch to neutral on this. I've been going through my sources and, truth be told, it doesn't seem like there's enough new material to warrant a whole article. My recollection was that there was more stuff out there, but when it comes to putting it all down, it just doesn't seem like enough. I still am of the opinion that there are a handful of individual comic books that warrant an article, but I don't see any way I can collect enough sources to sustain this one, at least for now. It's unfortunate that things shook out this way; I just stumbled upon this article while looking around to see if it seemed appropriate for me to create it (synchronicity!) and didn't want it CSD'ed before I at least had a chance to have a crack at it. Well, I've had my crack; I'll go through my notes and see if anything can get added to the main article. If things look different in the future, I'll try to grow this article the proper way rather than like this. Sorry for the bother! Matt Deres (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, however this shakes out, I want to assure you that it's no bother at all for any of us. Honest, spirited debate of different points of view is critical to improving Wikipedia, and speaking personally, I'm glad to to see someone like you — who wants not only to edit but to expand on what's here in bold ways — becoming part of our community. Don't stop! I'm looking forward to seeing you around the project. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is one of the most important Marvel comics ever made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.166.186 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's well and good, though an unsigned comment by an anonymous IP has questionable weight. More importantly: What content do you propose we use to fill out this article that doesn't duplicate what is in other articles? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:39, 12 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into Fantastic Four if needed. Kuguar03 (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undue weight. Merge if appropriate. This particular Fantastic Four vol shows no particular notability. MLA (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The consensus is that this term is not used widely enough as reported at reliable sources to show that it meets the criteria for inclusion. I would like to comment MelanieN for her work on the article - I am sure that the result of this AfD will not prevent her continuing her sterling work on articles! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo Opera[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Seems to be a non-notable neologism coined by Daniel Steven Crafts to describe his own work. Not seeing anything in Google that supports this being a recognised genre or sub-genre. The term is used from time to time as a description but doesn't seem to have gained much traction. To save the article we would need at least one reference, independent of Crafts, discussing this as a genre or movement. DanielRigal (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not a notable term/genre. Also possible that the creator of the article may have a conflict of interest and is trying to promote the term. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author seems to think Crafts created this form, but in fact the term "gonzo opera" has been in use since at least 1993 [55]. Someone needs to rewrite this article to reflect the fact that it has been done multiple times and that Crafts/Wheeler did not create the genre. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there, I expanded the article so that it now lists multiple examples of the genre with references. Please take another look. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still no reference for it being a recognised genre other than just a descriptive term that some people have chosen to use and which one person promotes as a genre. If the first sentence can't be referenced properly then that is fatal to the article's chances. If we can't prove it is a genre or sub-genre and we can't find a consensus as to its definition then it fails verifiability. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this. "A couple of people have used the term independently of each other to describe a couple of unrelated operas" does not a "concept" make. I've had to remove a few of your references, MelanieN - "Gonzo Opera" in reference to the Gonzales Cantata is a play on his name, not a statement that it belongs to the genre. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:32, 14 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to United States Pirate Party. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party of Oklahoma[edit]

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

I am requesting a Redirect to United States Pirate Party on the grounds that this state chapter of the Pirate Party is non-notable. It has no official recognition in the state of Oklahoma, has never run a candidate for office, and has received no substantial news coverage. MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason I am bringing this redirect request to AfD is that I previously suggested a redirect on the article's talk page, but the suggestion was contested. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see from the author's talk page that a previous article, Pirate party of oklahoma (note the slightly different capitalization), was speedy-deleted in August 2010. Apparently it was promptly recreated by the same author. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Both articles are quite long. Although there is a lot of overlap, it may be possible to improve United States Pirate Party. About the speedy: I don't think this one qualifies for WP:A7 since it asserts an affiliation with the notable US Pirate Party. --N Y Kevin @029, i.e. 23:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The United States Pirate Party is all but a defunct organization (I can say that as I am listed on the Board of Directors), the Oklahoma Pirate Party has all but (and possibly has) withdrew its support from the United States Pirate Party and is acting as an independent state party. Not only is that the case, but by US Law there is no such thing as a "National Party" there are only state parties, and national committees. Since each state has to be incorporated separately and OK already has its own independent incorporation I think it should be its own article. ☠ Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 21:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do you have any independent, reliable sources to support any of this information? All I can find to indicate current activity is the websites of the parties. The state organization's website was last updated in December 2010. The national party's website was last updated in January 2011. Neither seems to be very active. A Google News search finds recent news about Pirate Parties in other countries, but not the US. The state organization still claims affiliation with the national party. [56] --MelanieN (talk) 04:58, 9 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. 1 year old (so no tradition), no real coverage, failed to gain ballot access. MLA (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United States Pirate Party per NYKevin. 123Hedgehog456 11:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United States Pirate Party per nom. and NYKevin. --JayJasper (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facundo Bagnis[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NTENNIS. Not Davis Cup matches that I can find; no matches at top ATP level. Ravendrop (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that references have been found to say he has played in the main ATP tour, therefore passing WP:NTENNIS Ravendrop 02:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The funnest thing is the only reference is about Cueves. KnowIG (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Recently played two matches of the ATP World Tour, I revised article and added the reference. According to WP: NTENNIS (The player has competed in the main draw in one of the major professional tournaments). Jonas kam (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn as per confirmation of User:Jonas kam's assertion. Mayumashu (talk) 17:32, 10 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The nominator has withdrawn but there are outstanding delete !votes. I'll ask those editors to revisit this discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"sigh" I just noticed that one of the !voters has been blocked for a week with talk page access revoked. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Kearney[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Has had only minor roles in 54 films (21 of them a shorts), one of which hasn't aired yet. The only significant role has been in the TV series Primeval. This doesn't meet the first criteria of WP:ENT, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." AussieLegend (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I made the mistake of not checking IMDB when I looked at her bio. One of the 2 short films that she was in was made when she was 12 and the actress was in her 40s so it wasn't this actress. See Talk:Ruth Kearney for more. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - by the same logic, Karen Gillan's entry should be deleted too. The only "significant" role she has had has been on Dr. Who. All her other listed roles have either been minor ("girl at bus station") or in productions which you'd be pressed to describe as "notable" (The Well). Or how about Janet Fielding? Again, outside of a single major role in Dr. Who, her career isn't that notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.241.28 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" is never a good argument in a deletion discussion. Maybe Karen Gillan should be deleted too. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists is never a good argument." I believe you have misread the article you cite. It notes "editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy. Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid." Additionally, "the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale and thus the second user has provided no reason to delete the article." You suggest deleting the Ruth Kearney article based on her only having one notable role. However, that holds true for several of her co-stars who have their own articles, and for numerous Dr. Who past and present cast. "It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency." Every other actor who is or was formerly a main cast member on Primeval has an individual page. Hence the consistency argument holds. As for Karen Gillan, yes, by your logic, her article also needs to be deleted. I disagree with that logic, but feel free to place a deletion notice on her article. I don't imagine it will take long for others to offer a differing opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.241.28 (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the very first example in Wikipedia:Other stuff exists#General avoidance principle, which applies directly to this discussion:

"The claim of "Other Stuff Exists" most often arises in deletion debates, where it is often used in a poor manner. Examples:

Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that. –LetsKeepIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)"[reply]

The section of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists that you have referred to doesn't really apply here. I've already provided a rationale based on the notability guidelines, which say that the article shouldn't exist. Your only rationale for retention is that other similar articles exist. OSE addresses this - "So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet." This is something that I've also mentioned previously. As for her co-stars, the only one that has dubious notability is Ben Mansfield. Regarding consistency, you might care to note that it says "this may well be a valid point" (emphasis added). "May" does not mean "is". I've had a look at Karen Gillan and she doesn't suffer the notability issues that Ruth Kearney does. it was a poor example to use. She has had several roles and meets the general notability guidelines. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, if you slavishly follow WP:ENT, this stub must be deleted. Let's use a bit of common sense: if a supporting actor is on one hit TV show, that should be sufficient. Keep. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't just fail WP:ENT, she fails WP:GNG as well. These guidelines are put in place for a reason, not just to fill space. If we don't follow them, slavishly or otherwise, what's the point of having them? The guideline is specific, it says "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (emphasis added) One was clearly not enough for those who created this guideline. And let's get this in context, her appearances total 7 episodes. If she had been in the series from the start it might have been a different story. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment For WP:GNG, we need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Looking for a couple of minutes I see (albeit in an unreliable blog) that an interview was recently published in SFX Magazine. Assuming this is verified, this would seem to be significant coverage in one reliable source that is independent of the subject. Any one verify this, and any other sources? Edgepedia (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This verifies the interview is in the December 2010 edition: Preview online, you need the magazine for the article [57]. Edgepedia (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and another interview published by totalscifionline [58], a rather short interview with DigitalSpy [59]

I think she would pass WP:GNG as well, assuming these are reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 11 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's had a big enough role in a big enough TV show, whatever the guidelines state. We have enough sources for a stub that passes WP:V.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give her a chance. She's been in a new TV series just this month. Maybe some new fans will generate some hits. But I can't disagree on notability thus far. Not much there. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 03:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to her bio, she's had six years of chances. She appeared in the last season of Primeval, which has now ended, so there's no more chances for her at the moment. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Till the next AfD. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk)

NOTE There were three films listed in the article, all Canadian. They are almost certainly referring to an older Canadian actress of the same name. The Irish Kearney's CV lists only Gracie and Primeval along with live theatre. Barsoomian (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since my nomination was based on her being in more productions than those in which she has actually appeared, perhaps I should withdraw this nomination and resumbmit based on her being even less notable than I thought. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]