< 26 February	28 February >

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

The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 14:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Commonwealth Games[edit]

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

Because the only credible bid with a source has decided to bid for 2026 instead of 2022 [1]. Intoronto1125 (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename 2022 Commonwealth Games bids. BUC (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we will not have 2022 have an article, but 2026? Intoronto1125 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom with no prejudices to recreation when information becomes available Gnevin (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can be reopened when more information is available. Kante4 (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commonwealth Games. There is some informal talk going around some cities as to whether or not to place a bid, so I think its still a very plausible search term. That said, I agree that since there is no confirmed bidder that the page isn't needed. As for the 2026 bid for Cardiff, that isn't firm yet, only speculation. If Cardiff does come out an say yes we are bidding for 2026 before bids come out for 2022, then it is entirely plausible to create that page even without a 2022 due to reliable sources being created. But, that hasn't happened yet, so no need for that page either, and can be discussed if it happens. (end). Ravendrop 07:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose redirect. A redirect Commonwealth Games provides the reader with zero information about the 2022 games. -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Famous Five (series). As the possible merge target has been redirected, this one goes as well. Tone 20:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirrin Cottage[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for sources and notability since August 2008 ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe this warrants a mention in the article on the book series but not a separate article. Warfieldian (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Merge merge is better option indeed. Warfieldian (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who read and re-read and loved these books as a child, I nonetheless vote delete, non-notable fictional location. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kirrin Island, pretty obviously. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no sourced content in this article - why would we merge it? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Due to the lack of any sourcing.--Pink Bull 02:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big State League[edit]

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

This league apparently never actually started. The league's official web site, located here, still shows that the league is scheduled to start in May 2008. Dewelar (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Dewelar (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page, then move Big State League (1947-1957) to Big State League. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Muboshgu. This league never got off the ground. Heck, it never got on the ground.--MJHankel (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, that is what should be done. Had I known I could make that part of my proposal, I would have. -Dewelar (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kinich Ahau. Tone 20:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Kin[edit]

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

Fixing incomplete nomination by Retal (talk · contribs). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kinich Ahau. I worked on the page, cleaned up and added a couple references. However, there is another page about the Maya sun God, Kinich Ahau, so unless it can be made clear how these are different, I suggest merging Ah Kin, which is little more than a stub, into the larger page. Nihola (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nihola. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Humphries[edit]

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

Fixing incomplete nomination by Stoicstowe (talk · contribs). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) The nominator has not given a reason for deletion. - Pointillist (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – passes the WP:BASIC test "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject." I'm not referring to all the froth about his personal life, it is his Apollo editorship that make him high profile: there's tons of reliable stuff if you google "Oscar Humphries" Apollo. - Pointillist (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the Telegraph calls you controversial, then you are notable. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editor of Apollo is notable. I notice that I tagged this for notability at an earlier point--the editorship was already in the article, so I was wrong to to do so-- I must have overlooked that. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable...Modernist (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BigDom talk 09:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pack of Wolvz[edit]

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

Fixing incomplete nomination by 66.87.4.95 (talk · contribs). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to be notable. Don't seem to have charted in the Phlippines, much less internationally. WP:PROMO, creator of page (whose only contributions ARE this page) seems to be the bands promoter, per the article. VikÞor | Talk 23:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient references from reliable sources to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:BAND. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just an advertisement from their promoter, something wikipedia is not for. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is non-existent. This article is a blatant advertisement. Evanh2008 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" [edit]

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

AfDs for this article:

This is complete fucking unencyclopedic content. I think it's pretty clear that when you have such a fucking massive amount of fucking past nominations, it clearly fucking doesn't need to be on fucking Wikipedia, but rather fucking Uncyclopedia. The list might be referenced like fucking crazy, but that doesn't justify that this controversial list should exist. Fucking kill it with fire. Takeo 22:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per section 2 subsection 3 of the speedy keep guidelines. The previous nomation was made on almost the same same grounds and was soundly rejected. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fucking kill it with fire, I agree. Completely trivial stuff. Non-encyclopedic. Diego Grez (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fucking interesting, actually. I will note that the sourcing here is better than 99.967% of the lists on Wikipedia and that the documentary on the subject (Fuck) more or less validates the topic as worthy of study and discourse. I can appreciate why many people would want to delete this on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. Ultimately, this would seem to pass muster as a Wikipedia list, however. Carrite (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- per Carrite. --E♴ (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ffs.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Reach Out to the Truth 05:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close as the nominator has failed to cite a single policy as to why this article should be deleted. Lugnuts (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid AfD argument. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the eleventh time, an encyclopedic and sourced (212 at last count) list that meets the criteria of MOS:LIST and WP:LISTPURP. No matter if one likes the list topic or not, the topic iitself has received wide attention and commentary in numerous reliable sources for many years. So like it or not, the topic is and remains worthy or note. As for its usage in film and culture being controversial? WP:NOTCENSORED. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see how this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT case. Takeo 12:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to cite policies and guidelines to back your argument as to why the list should be deleted. For example, WP:NOTDIR says Wikipedia does not consist of "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". You could also argue that the list does not meet anything on WP:LISTPURP. Another possibility is WP:SYNTH, where we see family websites cited to have a film qualify for the list, despite no actual coverage of the film as one that frequently uses the word. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also WP:LAME#Lamest deletion wars. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it's really, really stupid to care about the number of times the word "fuck" is used in a movie. But apparently, some significant enough portion of the population gets their knickers in a knot over it to the point of counting up the "fuck" usage as part of movie screening. As such, the list topic is valid. Criteria for items in the list are made clear, and list entries are cited to reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For fuck's sake, after 9 nominations and 2 deletion reviews I think we can safely say that the consensus is to keep. Although this AfD is pretty fucking amusing, I don't think we have to make it an annual event. Use WP:N, IAR, whatever the fuck we want to justify it, but the discussion on this one has gone on far too long. --Danger (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Add this discussion to List of AFDs that most frequently use the word "fuck" in a civil manner. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not because of the "fuck" part, but because of the "most frequently" part. 100 uses is an arbitrary threshold - why not 99 or 101? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The question of a reasonable cut-off point being 100 has been discussed in many of the previous AFDs. So rather than arbitrary, the number had been agreed upon through earlier consensus. A revised cut-off point might merit discussion on the article's talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have just looked through several of the past AfDs, and I see that, while my point has indeed been raised before, it hasn't been properly answered. Why indeed should exactly 100 uses be the standard for inclusion? If there is a good answer to that, I missed it, and I don't think "We've just decided to use that standard" is a proper answer. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are inumerable studies and books and even films specifically concerning the use or over-use of the word in films, so the list topic is demonstrably worthy of note in a encyclopdia that prides itself on being not censored. So pardon, but I would think your concern might be more a matter of a consensus of editors agreeing on a set number (100? 150? 200?) that would best define our own use of "frequently" for the purpose of determining inclusion (or not) in the list, and less a reason to delete a list on a notable topic simply because the "question hasn't been properly answered." There are thousands of book results showing the term and its usage in film has been studied and discussed ad-infinitum. Fuck: word taboo and protecting our First Amendment liberties by Christopher M. Fairman is an example. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I understand it, all your reply amounts to is saying, in effect, that an arbitrary threshold is OK. But if exactly 100 uses or more of the word "fuck" isn't what reliable sources mean when they discuss frequent uses of the word "fuck", that's a pointless answer. Unless reliable sources say that 100 uses or more is important (which I don't believe for a moment), then this list with its current criteria can't be justified that way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        In order to prevent any of them from becoming unmanageable, the various lists on Wikipedia are set with inclusion standards arrived at and agreed upon by editors and based upon the particular list and what it purports to list. And, as all the "rules" of Wikipedia are themselves determined through consensus, and not set as a ruling by an absolute power, the use of any set of criteria that must be met for inclusion in any list on any notable topic has wide precedent. So I see your own question as being more of "who or why determined 100+ as a reasonable number for keeping the list maintainable?" In a self-governing body that sets its own policies and guidelines, "arbitrary" is not always a bad word. I do not see using that 100+ as a determinant for inclusion on the list as representing any one person's personal descretion nor do I see 100+ as a inclusion determinant as being random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will as its use was developed and applied over time and through discussions. If this list were EVERY film that EVER used the word, it would be unmanagable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That hardly answers my point - if reliable sources indicate that over-use of the word "fuck" is notable, then the right thing to do would be to have an article specifically on over-use of the word "fuck", which is not what this list is. It's a list of films that use the word "fuck" 100 times or more, which seems pointless, given that nothing in reliable sources would indicate that that specific number (or indeed any number) has some special importance. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        As lists are created as editable navigation aids, and as readers may wish to have access to such information, this one is not pointless. Suitability and structure for any list is set by the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists), and as in this case set by WP:LISTPURP, WP:STAND, WP:LSC, WP:LISTNAME, and WP:SALAT. That so much time and energy is spent by sources in counting the use of the word itself in the listed films is another deteminant of notability of the topic. With respects, I see 100+ as a reasonable minimum to keep the list maintainable. Discussions on modifying the list's inclusion criteria to are best discussed on the article's talk page and do not require a deletion in the lack of that discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        "as readers may wish to have access to such information, this one is not pointless" - So you think that there actually are readers who care about which films use the word "fuck" exactly 100 times or more? Why? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, as that the article has existed since 2004 and has received thousands of edits by an innumerable number of editors means that there are readers and editors who do care about such, so it does not matter that I personally might or might not... and even a simple G-search for the title brings up over 35 thousand results showing a strange fascination folks have with the topic,[2] so I'm sure someone with the tools and time will be glad to provide a breakdown of the number of visits the article itself has had since creation. As for why folks are interested? Why are folks ever interested in anything? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense. People edit articles because they exist, and (usually) because they're about a subject that they have some interest in. That doesn't mean that anyone cares about which films have exactly 100 uses or more of "fuck"! It could be that the people editing it are interested in "fuck" but that's no indication that they care about the "100 uses or more" part! And there's simply no reason to think that ordinary readers of Wikipedia care about it either, which is a good enough reason to delete the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, newcomer or old-timer or one-edit IP, people edit articles because they have some interest in improving the topic. Indeed, I've seen many articles deleted because they had problems and NO ONE edited them... some having sat forgotten and collecting dust for years. And though you contend that the topic cannot possibly be of any interest to readers, the sources provided in the article indicate the opposite. But again it seems you have a greater issue with the lede's setting of 100+ uses as a criteria that allows the list to be managable. You are welcome per WP:LISTPURP, WP:STAND, WP:LSC, WP:LISTNAME, and WP:SALAT to begin discussions to modify it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That someone edits an article like this doesn't mean that they necessarily care which films have exactly 100 or more counts of "fuck" - it simply means that they likely care about something related to the article. I didn't say that there couldn't possibly be anyone out there who cares which films use "fuck" exactly 100 times or more - only that it's absurdly unlikely. The only people who do care about the exact number count appears to be a handful of Wikipedia editors. The problem here isn't that the 100 or more threshold is wrong it's that any specifically defined number is wrong, since, with respect, only the people voting "keep" in AfDs here actually care in the slightest, the ordinary Wikipedia readers we're trying to serve don't. And referring to half a dozen alphabet soup Wikipedia policies isn't the equivalent of providing a convincing, common sense explanation of why this article should be kept. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        We have topics based upon their coverage OUTSIDE of the project, and determine their worthiness for inclusion based upon that coverage. We do not dictate what a reader might or might not wish to read. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. It's arguably not a very useful index for the films themselves, though some films certainly have a reputation based on their use of profanity, but the list topic itself is notable. Perhaps some day this will no longer be remarkable, just as the use of "damn" in Gone with the Wind required amending the production code to permit it, but in a film today wouldn't raise an eyebrow. But for now, the word is still relatively taboo, and its usage can mean a difference in ratings. All of that, and the nom's deletion rationale is really just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. postdlf (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend WP:SNOW close as keep in light of the overwhelming consensus, the history of it passing AFD nine times previous, and the fact that keeping this open is now just providing a forum for a two-person shouting match (no offense). postdlf (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken by me. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To the sane mind, this is a completely trivial and pointless list. However, the topic has somehow received enough coverage to render it notable so there are no grounds for deletion. BigDom talk 09:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure (programming language)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

PROD contested with no reason given. No outside verifiable significant sources that establish notability for inclusion. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of transparency, I should probably point out that for the same reasons I nominated

All were nominated using the back door deletion process called PROD. It allows a single person to tag the article, and if uncontested for a few days any editor with delete privileges can delete it, without any public review outside of the obscure PROD list. Especially sneaky considering the Keep outcome at the last AFD for some of them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles which have been through an AfD are ineligible for PROD-ding. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep German IT magazine article, ~~ACM journal article that apparently talks about it,~~ refereed article from the Linux Audio Conference 2009 proceedings. This ~~more than~~ meets the GNG minimum. Read the prior AfD(s) beforehand next time. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources that you have provided are far from convincing. Granted, I can't read the first one, but the only mention of Pure in the entire article in the second one is: "Pure: A functional programming language based on term rewriting. Pure uses LLVM as a just-in-time compiler," which makes it hardly suitable. Finally, the third is written by the developer of the language and is hardly independent. Additionally, the previous AfD was a withdrawal (which doesn't mean that it can't be speedily re-nominated) and was withdrawn due to numerous attacks on the user over other AfDs. This AfD is no way a bad faith nomination; a little WP:AGF is needed. Finally, it is still the imperative of the writers of articles to source them with reliable sources, not for readers of the articles to go out and look for them, and especially when the language has such a common word for a name, those with limited technical knowledge can easily be swamped looking for proper sources. The best way to defend this article would be to put WP:RS sources into the article, rather than simply stating they exist. Ravendrop 07:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the 2nd source; I was just going off what was claimed at the prior AfD, so that criticism is valid. Regarding the 3rd source, I believe the refereeing provides sufficient independence. Finally, I was not commenting on ~~your~~ the nom's faith or propriety, I was merely commenting on ~~your~~ the nom's diligence in observing WP:BEFORE. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the second, but as I do have full access to it and can confirm that's all it says. On the third, I'm still wary because its still written by the developed. I think it can work as a an additional source, but not the primary or only source. Lastly, I didn't nominate the article, and was not attempting to criticize you directly, but more of putting it on record so that someone doesn't quickly look at the discussion and not realize that the previous AfD wasn't as cut and dry as it appears on the surface. Ravendrop 08:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no independent, in-depth treatment of this language from WP:RS. Would be willing to change my vote if some is found. Weak Keep Based solely on the German article and, minimally, on the refereed proceeding. Ravendrop 07:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What beef do you have with the German article? --Cybercobra (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you, or someone else, verify that it is a WP:RS. Ravendrop 04:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's from iX (magazine), a magazine for IT professionals published by Heinz Heise; see also Google translation of dewiki article on iX. It's apparent from skimming that the article is entirely about Pure.--Cybercobra (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references provided above (one refereed article + two independent mentions) and by being the successor to Q (equational programming language). —Ruud 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or WP:Buro Renomination churning of recent AfD closed with ten Keep !votes, one Delete !vote, cited references, and withdrawal of the nomination by the nominator. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting harder and harder to AGF with you. It has been pointed out to you multiple times that the previous AfD closed due to outside canvassing and harassment, something widely accepted. Argue keep for actual reasons, not this one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing admin for the first AFD, I have to agree with Unscintillating on this one, this renomination was premature. Unlike some of the others and despite the withdrawn nomination, that one was a "clear keep". Yes some of the !votes might have been canvassed but there was enough participation from established editors that the close should have stuck for a while. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no knowledge of or interest in these rumors. I think that this nomination could have waited for three months. Unscintillating (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are not rumours, they are fact. And that you don't know of them doesn't mean that you can ignore them or pretend they don't exist. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Additionally, there is no policy that says that withdrawn Afds have to wait any time period before they can be re-nominated. It is perfectly acceptable to re-nominate them at any time afterwards. As of now you have not given any policy based reasons to keep this article. Ravendrop 04:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no interest. Whatever your issue is, it could have waited three months, there is no deadline at Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I can't AGF at this point, and just need to point out that Unscintillating is purposely playing the fool despite full knowledge of the Reddit canvassing incident.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of what this previous post might appear to be, respondent has no history of dispute with me and I can and do assume good faith going forward. Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're trying to wikilawyer your way into something or what, but it's just not needed. A lack of past interaction between us has nothing to do with anything we've been discussing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know, or don't care, about the circumstances of the previous AfD you should not have mentioned it. Yaksar is correct; you are not acting in good faith. You've only brought it up because you saw in it an opportunity for deliberate bad-faith obstructionism. Reyk _YO! 02:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern, this is respondent's previous response to me here. Suggest that respondent use "IMO" more often. Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And? Your point? I said, "I agree with opinions X and Y" and you replied with "snigger snigger thanks for your opinions on opinions X and Y, but what are your opinions snigger snigger" as though it wasn't blatantly obvious that I shared those opinions. I don't like being talked down to, and called you on it. It's not a big deal, and irrelevant to this discussion. Reyk _YO! 01:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Based on the reasons I gave only a week or two ago. Pure is a language which has a number of developers, an active mailing list, peer reviewed articles describing it. The are distributions for many Linux systems - none to my knowledge produced by the main developer, but others consider the language sufficiently important. Can anyone point out one possible benefit of removing the article? Would Wikipedia be better without this article? Of course not. I'm not a user of the language, but realise it is an important language. Any idiot can hook up lex and yacc and make their own language, but Pure is well thought out. Drkirkby (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No one's arguing it's not useful or important. But without sources to show this, it doesn't matter.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as above. I quote my response to Christopher Monsanto's nomination a few weeks ago:

"Wikipedia has been, as far as I can tell, the only uniform and complete source of up-to-date information on functional programming languages. With the deletion of popular, interesting languages like Nemerle and Pure, it becomes immediately useless because it is no longer comprehensive. While I agree that old languages with low notability and no users should be cleaned out, a much more conservative attitude should be taken toward languages with a considerable, active user and/or developer bases. Moreover, languages that are not particularly popular or referenced highly, but that serve as token examples of a concept should be kept around for conceptual completeness. You have argued elsewhere that in this case, the concept itself should be given its own article. I think that in the case of programming languages, the concept, which may just be a mere combination of certain features, does not always warrant such an article. Again, if such languages are removed, then Wikipedia is no longer a comprehensive source of information on the topic and we must look elsewhere. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, there is no "elsewhere", so now we are without such a resource and those seeking a comprehensive overview of functional programming languages will be lost in the dark. Morgan Sutherland (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)"

Morgan Sutherland (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia being the only place to hold information on a subject is not a reason to keep it. Quite the opposite, in fact; Wikipedia being the only source on a topic is a reason to delete that topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the keep votes above. This article seems to me to meet the general notability guideline. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the keep votes above. I believe this article adds value to Wikipedia and should not be removed. Also a new article all about Pure was recently posted on blueparen.com. mudgen ^(talk)

1:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Join Java[edit]

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

PROD contested with no reason given. No outside verifiable significant coverage to establish notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of transparency, I should probably point out that for the same reasons I nominated

All were nominated using the back door deletion process called PROD. It allows a single person to tag the article, and if uncontested for a few days any editor with delete privileges can delete it, without any public review outside of the obscure PROD list. Especially sneaky considering the Keep outcome at the last AFD for some of them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 4 journal articles about it listed in the article's References. The third-party peer review involved in getting a journal article accepted+published makes these sufficiently independent for notability purposes, at least in my view. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There area also a number of derivative works referencing this work in google scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.34.160 (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC) ~~— 121.45.34.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ internode.com.au dynamic IP users have made numerous Wikipedia edits, such as this one: 2009-04-09 121.45.34.101 Operating system. Unscintillating (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. —Ruud 21:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to say I have no real desire to have this article deleted. However, I need to point out that, given that the four references in the article are all written by it's creator, you're going to actually need to refer to at least one other source that can be considered reliable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick Benton, Luca Cardelli, Cédric Fournet. "Modern concurrency abstractions for C#". ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 26 (5):
  The work that is most closely related to Polyphonic C# is that on Join Java [Itzstein and Kearney 2001, 2002]. Join Java, which was initially designed at about the same time as Polyphonic C#, takes almost exactly the same approach to integrating join calculus in a modern object-oriented language. Apart from minor variations of syntax, the main language differences appear to be that Join Java takes a more restrictive approach to inheritance than Polyphonic C# (simply outlawing inheritance from any class that uses join patterns) and that Join Java also allows the programmer to specify whether pattern matching within a class should be sequential or nondeterministic. The implementation of Join Java uses a tree-based pattern-matching library; some further details are given by Itzstein and Jasiunas [2003].
  —Ruud 12:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So throw that in the article! I don't know how much clearer I can make it, I have no issue with this article's existence provided it has accurate, independent and verifiable sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That being said, the source just seems to say that Polyphonic C# is similar to this, it's not really more than trivial coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- http://ijcsit.com/docs/vol1issue1/ijcsit2010010101.pdf Asynchronous method invocation in Join java and polyphonic c#
- http://www.cse.tkk.fi/fi/opinnot/T-106.5800/2009_Spring-Seminar_on_Multicore_Programming/slides/explicit-slides.pdf presentation that talks about Join Java. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.34.160 (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joy (programming language)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

PROD contested with zero reason given (I'm sensing a trend here). No notability established from outside verifiable and substantial coverage. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of transparency, I should probably point out that for the same reasons I nominated

All were nominated using the back door deletion process called PROD. It allows a single person to tag the article, and if uncontested for a few days any editor with delete privileges can delete it, without any public review outside of the obscure PROD list. Especially sneaky considering the Keep outcome at the last AFD for some of them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles which have been through an AfD are ineligible for PROD-ding. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vector journal article, ACM SIGPLAN Notices article, EuroForth conference paper. All of which were presented at the previous AfD; I agree with User:Cyclopia's comment from that AfD. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Buro Renomination churning of a recent AfD that resulted in SpeedyKeep with six keep !votes and a withdrawal. See also WP:N#cite_note-7. Unscintillating (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be intentionally ignorant please. You and I both know that the other AfDs were biased from outside canvassing, and that the nominator withdrew his nomination and left wikipedia as a result of that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Don't know and don't want to know, if that is why we are here, then I recommend that you withdraw any such WP:POINT nominations and allow some time to pass. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's 0 POINTyness involved here, as explained before.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)*Comment As per my Keep !vote in the previous AfD, this language is also supported by references at Cat. Unscintillating (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge it into concatenative programming language as an example. —Ruud 19:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Google Scholar lists some (small) number of citations of both of the main Joy papers (Joy: Forth's functional cousin and The JOY of forth), including one from a SIGPLAN workshop. It's not much, but it's something. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Consumed Crustacean, it seems to have a few sufficient references. Also, I agree with Ruud, in that otherwise it should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophus Bie (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Algae (programming language)[edit]

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

PROD contested with no reason given. Article has no outside verifiable sources to indicate notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of transparency, I should probably point out that for the same reasons I nominated

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any non-primary-source coverage aside from an entry in some random unofficial Linux software directory. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. —Ruud 12:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Foughty[edit]

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

No real assertion of notability, a google search brings no meaningful results (or really any at all that would appear to be about the subject) and the included references do not appear to support the claim of notability (other than the third, which is italian so I can't tell whether it supports the claim of notability or not). demize (t · c) 20:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article claims that she is "internationally acclaimed" but her acclaim seems to be pretty much limited to her local paper, The Virginian-Pilot, plus one blurb in an Italian paper when she toured there. Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Cullen328. She has insufficient notability. Warfieldian (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nearly unanimous support for that result. Orlady (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Creek[edit]

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

This creek fails WP:N/WP:GNG. Zero substantial gNews archive or gBooks hits. Only a few even mention the creek, let alone discuss it. I had proded the article, but the prod was removed with the comment, "geographical features are topics that encyclopedias cover." I don't disagree, but of course, the geographical feature must still meet WP:N. Novaseminary (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Geographic features are generally kept, even if a discussion about them cannot easily be found. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So every creek in the world is automatically kept? Regardless of whether it received coverage? what makes WP:GNG not apply to creeks? Novaseminary (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It has recieved widspread coverage in books. In future consider google book searching....♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Thanks for the tip... It has received wide coverage (800+ mentions in gBooks, though not all are about this creek, and many are non-RSs). But is any of it significant enough for GNG purposes? Establishing a creek exists is not the same as establishing it is notable, unless existing creeks are inherently notable. Novaseminary (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is widespread consensus that geographical features are "inherently notable". I personally hate that term but the fact is that virtually any verifiable geographical feature on the planet providing it has a few sources to verify it are always accepted on wikipedia and considered encyclopedic. There have been numerous scientific research papers into this creek, not to mention the mention in many historical books on the county. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be some limit, though. There wouldn't be widespread consensus to include the large rock in my neighbor's yard, or the drainage ditch/creek. Is there a guideline that lays this out? As for sources, there are no scientific articles dealing with this creek cited in the article. There are sources that use the creek as a reference point (as one would a street... and not all streets meet N), but none that offer substantial coverage about the creek. Novaseminary (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on sources. Sources are what dictate notability not size of geographical feature. If multiple reliable publications think a small rock is worthy of coverage and writing about then so does wikipedia.Naturally most things like small rocks and most streets in towns do not meet notabililty requirements. But rivers certainly are generally notable, however small. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with that, for the most part. But to qualify, wouldn't the sources have to "address the subject directly in detail" per WP:GNG? None of the sources cited, nor any I can find, meet this prong of GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per others - as a geographical feature it's inherently notable, I think. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This Google Books search should eliminate most false positives. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I'm not convinced that creeks are inherently notable, this one has enough coverage to pass the GNG. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But which sources "address the subject directly in detail"? Novaseminary (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There does appear to be enough coverage from multiple sources to demonstrate passing WP:GNG. While there doesn't seem to be a single extremely in-depth piece, ie a book entitled Margaret Creek, WP:GNG does allow topics with relatively less coverage as long as it comes from multiple sources independent of each other. WP:GNG states "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." In this case, the number of sources does compensate for the lack of a single very in-depth source per WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly stated and referenced that this is a major tributary of the Hocking River (restated in Athens County Comprehensive Land Use Plan)[3] (downloaded .pdf - FinalAugust2010.pdf, page 14); Lake Snowden[4] is a 136 acre lake formed by damming one of the tributaries of Margaret Creek. Opbeith (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Zero substantial gNews archive or gBooks hits" - but why not check out a search engine or two before starting this hare? Opbeith (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than noting its existence as a tributary and using it as a locational reference point (which may be enough) there is no in-depth coverage of the creek even in those sources. And isn't the article as it now stands more about the Margaret Creek Conservancy District, (or really the Hocking River watershed); that is the areas surrounding the creek, than about the creek itself? Why not rename the article Margaret Creek Conservancy District? Novaseminary (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article is about the river. I strongly suggest you withdraw your nomination as this doesn't stand a snowball in hell's chance of being deleted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The basis of the original forcefully argued nomination was that Margaret Creek had insufficient claim to notability to justify an article, in that there was nothing to distinguish it as being more than a drainage ditch or the equivalent of XXa smallXX sorry, in fact it was a large rock. Opbeith (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Existing geographic feature. Article has good references and a good amount of information for a starter on a creek.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article includes plenty of reliable sources covering the creek. Rlendog (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is about one of four major watersheds in Athens County, Ohio and the surrounding area other than the Hocking River. I would not do an article about, say, Sugar Creek, another tributary to the Hocking, because it's about 10% of the size of the Margaret Creek watershed, but Margaret Creek is substantial. jaknouse (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well-referenced article on an encyclopedic topic (geographic features) that passes WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electronics and the environment[edit]

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

Content Fork and complete overlap with electronic waste. Indeed, the three or four sentences this article does contain are about, well, electronic waste... Yaksar (let's chat) 19:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - impossibly vague title except for electronic waste aspect, which is already an article. This cannot be developed into a good article since it does not have a specific subject. One might as well write about "gender equality and the environment" or "computers and food" - the overlap is a fuzy set, not crisply defined enough for an article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My earlier examples of Energy and the environment and Transport and the environment exist and are also weak articles, but that's not germane to this discussion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly-vague title, synthesis, no criteria for what belongs in the article. Content fork and overlap. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content fork and overlap, with overly-vague title. Johnfos (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since Water and the environment isn't notable enough, I have a hard time seeing how this could be. In any case, we already have electronic waste covering the same topic. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is clearly potential in writing a reasonable article on the topic. Environmental issues of electronics not only includes waste and recycling, but also environment-friendly production and operation. For example, there have been a number of recent European regulations towards energy consumption, improved component interoperability, etc. However, it seems that the initial author does not have a clear goal for this article (considering the myriad of related Environment articles) so it is somewhat hard to argue. – Edit: Just figuring there is Energy and the environment. I assume environment-friendly production is also covered somewhere so there is no need to duplicate content. Nageh (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consider merging the one cited fact into Energy and the environment, otherwise delete. I agree that writing about this topic would be difficult to do without falling into WP:SYNTH, and as Nageh said, it would also likely lead to the duplication of content. Kansan (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It's an easily expandable subtopic of energy and the environment. There's enough potential content here for at least one article. I do not see that it would necessarily be synthesis, and I think there is no topic at all that can not be written about in an encyclopedic manner without violating SYN, if there is material to write about it at all. difficult does not mean impossible. It's not a matter of covering everything "somewhere" . Everything should be covered at the appropriate length according to sources--we are NOT PAPER, and the goal is not to find the minimum number of articles possible. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia isn't paper,but nearly all our readers (Hi, Watson!) are human beings with finite lifespan which we ought not to waste on a flock of loosely organized articles of minimal relevance to any particular subject. Not being paper is no excuse for sloppy writing and sloppy organization. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And more importantly, this article is only about electronic waste. If there was actual information about electronics and the environment related to something else (and different from energy and the environment it would be a different story, but that is not the case.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Wtshymanski's argument about it not having a specific subject. Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filotti family[edit]

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

Although there are a small number of individuals in this family tree with articles, there is nothing to indicate that the family as a whole is notable. This article seems to be contrary to WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTDIR #2 (Genealogical entries). The article is inadequately referenced. I'm sure there is a place for family history on the internet, but Wikipedia does not appear to be the appropriate vehicle here. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any evidence that the family is any more notable than any other minor landowning one. Sure, there are a few notable Filottis, but the family itself hardly seems to merit an article. The references don't do much to help, either. The Alexandru Gabriel Filotti work, for instance, appears more of a self-published family history than a serious, peer-reviewed, scholarly effort. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason to delete the article about a family who includes many personalities who have contributed to romanian culture: Politicians, actors, artists, writers, diplomats etc. If you look at articles about Romanian families, why are other articles more justified, for instance the Rebreanu family who includes a single member who was a great romanian writer, but no other personalities. Why is the Ovitz family presenting a family of circus dwarfs more important? Why are trees for the Roosevelt family or the Chotek family more important? Are Wikipedia family trees just reserved for royalty or aristocracy?
I would also protest against the consistent attacks which User:Biruitorul has against articles I have written and which he repeatedly proposes for deletion. There may be a difference of oppinion between us. However, the matter should be settled in an arbitration and not as a repeated personal attack. I really find it extremely strange that after several other attacks by Biruitorul, suddenly a completely new user User:RichardOSmith comes out of the blue, and identifies this article as an article which should be deleted and immediately afterwards, Biruitorul finds this proposal and supports it. Afil (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A few points. First, the Ovitz family is notable because it is covered in reliable sources; that's not really the case with the Filotti family. Second, I personally object to all family trees on Wikipedia (they're generally superfluous), but needless to say, they're more justifiable for royalty, where descent is such an important factor. Third, I've redirected Rebreanu to the author; you're quite right about that one. Fourth, the truly notable Romanian families are the Category:Romanian boyar families, again because of their independent coverage. Fifth, I don't dispute that some Filottis are notable, which is why we have the Filotti page for them.
  As for my own role: no, I am not issuing "personal attacks", I am simply seeking, with the consent of the community, to delete a few articles on non-notable figures in the Filotti family. I have no idea who User:RichardOSmith is; I found this nomination from his vote here. But if you have doubts, feel free to ask for an investigation. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The keep rationale advanced seem to entirely fall foul of WP:NOHARM and WP:WAX. I see no evidence of personal attacks from Biruitorul and I note the irony in making that accusation and then making a thinly-veiled accusation of sockpuppetry. I have addressed that accusation on the discussion page. To elaborate on the referencing concerns: I have researched family history myself and I know very well that it's not fool-proof. Information has come to light which has shown my own research to have been in error, and I have been able to correct errors in the trees of fellow researchers. In other words, a poorly referenced tree such as this does not meet the verifiability standards required for an encyclopedic article. There are other sites, such as Ancestry.com, which would welcome your work. Whilst we are checking contributors credentials, I also note that Afil could be a shortened A Filotti. If you have a WP:COI you are strongly encouraged to declare it, and it would be worth asking whether you have the right forum for your family research. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All this does not answer the question why this tree is singled out for deletion. It is not based on my personal research, the information being taken from published works. My contribution is the construction of the tree using the information collected from the indicated references. Why would this constitue a conflict of interest even if Afil is a shortened for A. Filotti. There are no personal contributions to the tree and no personsal comments. Therefore I do not understand the question if this is the forum for my family research, as the article does not contain any personal research. Afil (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afil, in all fairness, nothing will answer your question about why this tree is "singled out" for deletion. One can quote the relevant wikipedia notability standards (which you seem not to have ever read), can point out the many precedents, can debunk your false analogies... it's still of no importance to you. You simply don't register that your questions have been answered, and you're never persuaded by any argument, but simply start over. But that's okay, Afil, because AfDs aren't really about persuading the creator(s) of the articles submitted, they're about pertinent arguments and consensus. Dahn (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Filotti - No indication that the family is notable as a family per Wikipedia general notability criteria at WP:N. Article seems to be sourced to non-WP:RS family history websites. If reliable sources can be found for verifiability and to substantiate notability, an abbreviated version of the article (without the elaborate family-tree graphics, and omitting most nonnotable members) would be worth keeping. The disambiguation page for the family name is good destination for redirecting the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is based on printed works published by the publishing house of a History Museum in Romania, who also carries out research on historic subjects. They are not family history websites.

Delete - No assertion or indication that this is a notable family. Some, perhaps all, of the names with articles are problematic as well. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What indication do you want that the family is notable? It is incorrect to say that perhaps all articles of names are problematic - most are not. Even Biruitorul acknowledges that there are notable members of the family. However besides the notable members of the family, the article quotes two published references which present the entire family - do you have any reason to ignore them? What is disturbing is that if there are no references, the article is tagged for lack of verifiability. If there are, though they are printed studies, they are presented as unreliable. When other articles with similar trees are quoted, the similarity is ignored. This is hardly a fair and proper review of the case. Afil (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Splendid genealogical original research but notability is not demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Yes, we know, otherstuffexists, but this one simply cannot be measured against the basic GNG rule, let alone more specific requirements. The article is a pile of WP:OR, of dubious reliability, no encyclopedic interest and much clan promotion. Dahn (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - also nominated the related Taşcă family. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I am requesting is a discussion on the notability criteria for families. Biruitorul considers that only boyar family trees should be presented, i.e. that Wikipedia accepts only trees for aristocracy and not for other families. I am not sure there is a consensus. Actually the discussion raises three different questions: if the family is notable, if trees are at all acceptable to wikipedia and if the article is properly referenced. First a consensus should be reached on if and what kind of trees are acceptable to wikipedia - personally I am against the distinction between aristocratic and non-aristocratic families, after all we live in a democracy, whether Biruitorul likes it or not. If no trees or only trees for royalty are acceptable, there is nothing else to discuss. Second, assuming trees are acceptable, it should be decided what criteria we have for the notability of a family. It could be if a certain number of members are notable, there could be other criteria. A consensus should be reached if in these cases only the links between notable persons should be presented, or trees which are as complete as possible. At the end, after reaching a conclusion on these issues, in case a certain tree meets the requirements, we can discuss if that particular tree is properly referenced. Some of these issues have been raised by Orlady, who suggests among other things, that a reduced version of the tree could be kept. But how does Tarc know the family is notable or not if we have not yet a consensus on what a notable family is? The family tree has been published by the most reputable living Romanian genealogist, professor at the University of Bucharest. What is the difference between the view of a University professor who spends time researching the tree of a family and the view of Tarc who considers it not worth while? Can this become a systematic discussion of the issues and not a succession of sweeping statements? Afil (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (G12) by User:Mifter (Non-admin closure). RichardOSmith (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Android project[edit]

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

This article seems to be mostly an WP:ESSAY. Completely unreferenced, refers to a mess of different things that are redlinked, and the subject of the article is unclear. Seems to overlap heavily with Android (operating system). – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 18:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Copyright violation of [5]; tagged for speedy deletion. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Challenger DCNS de Cherbourg – Singles Qualifying[edit]

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

Not notable and was earlier discussed to not start those articles. Kante4 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also i nominate those articles:

2011 Challenger of Dallas - Singles Qualifying
2011 Challenger Salinas Diario Expreso – Singles Qualifying

Delete all: The qualifying to challengers are hardly stand-alone notable. A simple external link and mention of who actual qualified on the main page of the tournament is easily sufficient. PL Alvarez ^Talk 23:11, 27 February (UTC)
Delete all: The line has to be drawn somewhere. Qualifiers to challengers are certainly not notable. (Kante4: can you link to the earlier discussion. I vaguely remember it, but can't find it?) Ravendrop 08:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the earlier discussion. The result was to just link to the Draw and list the qualifiers like Alvarez said. Kante4 (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL I have also nominated the Dallas one separately and put a talk page on so the deletion disucssion there will show up. May I suggest that a brief word with the creators maybe in order. KnowIG (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD tags were not placed on the other two nominated articles. The Dallas one was also taken to AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Challenger of Dallas – Singles Qualifying, and I have placed the appropriate AfD tag (linking here) on the Salinas Diario article. Ravendrop 00:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No deletion:In my opinion to each tournament belongs a qualifying stage in tennis and not only a main draw with the winners of the qualification stage and that is why there need to be qualifiers included into wikipedia even if it is only a qualifier. A tournament is only complete if you also have the qualifiers included. So no deletion.(Forgot to add my name)Catgamer (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liviu Filotti[edit]

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

Nothing indicates that this individual is anything more than a perfectly ordinary professor, or that he has done something meriting inclusion under WP:PROF.

Let me also note that this forms part of a wider pattern of cruft on the Filotti family: see this discussion, this one, this one and this one for more details. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have nominated the article Filotti family for deletion. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing in the article to indicate why he'd meet WP:Notability (people), and i see nothing on Google Books, News or Scholar either. Qwfp (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of a series of my articles which have been proposed for deletion. I have requested an arbitration on the matter and consider that the article should be kept until the conflict has been solved.

I would also like to point out that the Liviu Filotti is not worse than any of the other alumni of the Pierre and Marie University which are posted on Wikipedia, such as Thomas Ebbesen, Nassif Ghoussoub, Artur Ávila, Jean Serra or Ahmad Motamedi. What I have difficulties understanding is why the others are OK and this one is not. Afil (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no arbitration request, unless you mean your two already-closed discussions of the nominator on WP:WQA [6]. As for the other articles, please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Nevertheless, I'll answer your question: the first four articles you list mention several national-level awards and honors (such as being elected to an national academy) that their subjects have and your subject appears not to have. The fifth, Motamedi, looks undistinguished as a faculty member but was a national cabinet member and is notable for that. In addition, several of these people appear to have significantly higher citation counts in Google scholar than Filotti's, indicating that they likely pass WP:PROF#C1 and that Filotti does not. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough notability of any sort. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Doesn't make the cut under either GNG or PROF, it's all part of the Filotti family cruft. Dahn (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to List of Left Behind Characters#Nicolae Carpathia, where he is already mentioned. Any merging desired can be done by pulling content from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolae Carpathia[edit]

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

No sources establish the notability of this fictional character. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous hits on Google Books discussing this as a fictional character; I have added some to the article. One reference, Morgan, David T. (2006). The new Brothers Grimm and their Left behind fairy tales. Mercer University Press. ISBN 0881460362., mentions this charfacter 47 times. Clearly sufficient for notability. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of sources exist, and even if they didn't a merge to a (to be created) List of characters in the Left Behind series would be more appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article does not meet the general notability guideline since there are no reliable third-party sources that treat it in detail. With no secondary sources independent of the subject, it also does not have significant coverage. All Google hits about the character appear to be either for trivial mentions or from primary sources, which does not show notability, and those that show critical commentary are for the Left Behind series, not this fictional character. With not critical commentary, the article is written exclusively with an in-universe perspective, lacking real-world perspective and, as such, it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Since the article does not appear to have real-world notability, it's an unnecessary content fork that doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 2220 hits on Google Books. Have you checked that each one is either trivial or primary? Have you looked at the reference I gave above by Morgan which devotes four chapters to this character? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have checked some of them and the Google hits that I checked are trivial mentions, plot about the series, reviews of the series or primary sources. And none of the secondary sources there treat the character in detail. Also, several mentions in a single source does not constitute significant coverage, particularly when the source itself is not independent of the subject and treats the character in regards to the plot. The book shows notability for the Left behind series, not for the fictional character Nicolae Carpathia. Jfgslo (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you checked some of them. I see. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He shouldn't have had to check any. YOU go find some that explicitly impart upon NC notability, edit the page to include it, then we'll talk. But until then, we continue to assume that no evidence for notability exists, and act accordingly, just as we do in everything else on WP. - Drlight11 (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone states "there are no reliable third-party sources that treat it in detail" then they are under some kind of obligation to address the question of what the thousands of references actually say, since the statement is tantamount to saying that not a single one of those references is a reliable source, and that is incompatible with not having checked them. This page is for discussing, among other things, whether this subject is notable. The object of such a discussion is to decide whether the article is capable of being sourced, and we are already discussing one such source. It is not necessary to include those sources in the article right now, per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per nom. The series is obviously notable, but this character is not. HairyWombat 00:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do you support the nominator's assertion that there are "no sources"? Have you checked into all of the two thousand books that refer to this character? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the nominator's assertion that this fictional character is not notable. User Jfgslo discusses the sources most eloquently. Specifically, user Jfgslo has explained why it is not a counting exercise. HairyWombat 15:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a mere counting exercise, agreed: but counting does come into it. However, an assertion that there are "no sources" needs to address the fact that there are thousands of references in Google Books and 157 in Google Scholar. Jfgslo says he has checked "some" of these and feels able to assert that none of them treat the character in detail, an assertion which I believe is contradicted by the single example I gave above. To assert that there are no sources is to assert that none of these hundreds and hundreds of references constitutes a source. That seems unlikely in itself in view of the numbers involved, and would require either a claim to have checked all the sources of some other reason to discount them beyond mere elqouence. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just waded through 60 mentions of "Nicolae Carpathia" or "Carpathia" in the book you cite as a source, Morgan, David T. (2006). The new Brothers Grimm and their Left behind fairy tales. Mercer University Press. ISBN 0881460362. All of them treat the character in regards to the plot; none of them make the character notable. Again, it is not a counting exercise. HairyWombat 03:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would aver that it is up to those attempting to rescue this article to establish its notability BY finding some of those "thousands" of sources that DO treat the character as more than just a component of the plot, and editing the NC page to include a description of those sources' analysis. It could well be that NC has been richly studied, but until someone can find such analysis and include it on his page (instead of just his actions in the literature), I vote Delete. - Drlight11 (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the series character page (if it exists) or series page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Window sitter[edit]

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

This article has come under discussion though another unrelated thing over at the anime and manga project, concerns include: The article being entirely original research, no sources are present, and also fails WP:Notability as it lacks third party sources. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just to restate my comments from WT:ANIME, the article is entirely original research, has no sources whatsoever (an image gallery is not a source), and does not shows any indications of notability via reliable, third-party sources. Further, this term falls into the category of neologisms as a Google search for reliable sources does not turn up anything. —Farix (t | c) 17:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced this isn't notable just from my personal experience at having seen a number of these programs over the years, but if nothing concrete can be found then it should probably go. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, no notability shown from reliable sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CSE hits. Incidentally, it would not be difficult at all to write a Wiktionary entry for the unrelated Japanese term given the CSE hits and the many Google Books hits. --Gwern (contribs) 21:09 27 February 2011 (GMT)
Move to Wiktionary - there seems enough to at least describe a term, but yea, I don't see enough for notability.陣内 _Jinnai 23:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question I've seen many of these over the years too but haven't found a reliable source, like a CNet review. Is this a type of software where it could be included as a brief entry in a list, with this as a redirect? TransUtopian (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, unless anyone can find some coverage in a reliable source. Robofish (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, Not Notable, Original Research. Agree that it should be in Wictionary. Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator timeline[edit]

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

WP:CONTENTFORK of Terminator (franchise) that is only a plot summary, which is what Wikipedia is not. See WP:NOT#PLOT. No third-party sources to WP:verify notability of the timeline. Lots of third-party sources briefly summarize the movie plots, but that doesn't justify a WP:CONTENTFORK for various sequences of events in the movies based on reception of the movie at large. (If someone asks to make policy exceptions for this timeline, I'll show that these timelines are typically deleted if/when nominated. But I think most people know that by now.) Shooterwalker (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Terminator is so spaghettified that there can be no timeline, espeically with the TV series, novels, and comics thrown in. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:PLOT; not appropriate to have a stand-alone article consisting solely of in-universe detail. I think it is a plausible redirect, though, and I have seen coverage about time travel paradoxes in the Terminator films, which could be a stand-alone topic. This book has a chapter about the paradox, and this book has some similar coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no references and it's an unnecessary content fork. There are no reliable third-party sources to presume notability so the subject also doesn't meet the general notability guideline. The content of the article is appropriate material for a fansite, not Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BigDom talk 09:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical Culture[edit]

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

This article looks as if it's referenced, but when you get into the sources they are either unreliable (e.g. blogs) or originate with the organisation itself. The original author is a member of the association. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the article should be marked "Improve references" then, but not delete. Here are a few :

Editor2020 (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple search for sources as called for in WP:BEFORE Item #4 would have shown that this organization (or religion by some accounts), which has been around for over 135 years, is notable and has been covered in depth in many books independent of the group. Here's just one example: Saga of American Jewry, 1865-1914: links of an endless chain Any shortcomings in the current version of the article should be corrected through the normal editing process rather than deletion.Cullen328 (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs Cleanup, not deletion. Added Primary Sources cleanup Template. VikÞor | Talk 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. This very clearly meets WP:GNG. I am going to move the page to "Ethical Culture movement" as that is more precise. Search that exact term in google scholar and books and you'll see how easily this passes notability. I also have to admit that I'm not sure on what grounds the article was nominated in the first place. Yes it needs attention but the nominator may wish to review WP:BEFORE prior to future nominations. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this notable topic needs cleanup and better referencing - which is available - not deletion. LadyofShalott 04:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable in the history of atheism and religious thought. In fact, more notable than the page makes out as there are Ethical Society chapters outside the U.S. Many of what are now atheist or freethought organisations originated as ethical culture groups, and those often originated out of religious humanism, unitarianism etc. To understand the development of atheism, you need to understand the ethical culture movement. Improving the references shouldn't be too difficult. And COI shouldn't be too big of an issue here either: plenty of religious adherents edit or originate articles on religious topics. Answer is to get more eyes on the topic to make sure it adheres to WP:NPOV. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to rewrite the entry. Some sources are on their way but I'm just now getting to additions about the English Ethical movement ifrom the Campbell book I've been using.Griswaldo (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know someone who does research on the history of humanism and frequently goes to the library at Conway Hall, home of the South Place Ethical Society. I may ask her to give some suggestions on books on the history of ethical culture movements. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I have found quite a few sources at my academic library actually ... just haven't picked them up yet :). I'll continue to use Colin Campbell's book section on ethical societies (from Toward a Sociology of Irreligion) to create as much of a backbone as possible in the meantime. If your friend is interested in helping us edit the entry that would, of course, also be fantastic. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a list of potential sources I found from JSTOR and the British Library catalogue over on Talk:Ethical Culture movement. Given that I didn't try very hard to produce this list, I'd say there's enough sources there to establish both notability and the possibility of producing a historically-informed verifiable article. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is mentioned is other articles and does not need its own article. Also, it reads like a brochure.--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "It is mentioned is other articles and does not need its own article." Please explain. Also, "reading like a brochure" is not a reason to delete, if it could be written in a way that it no longer reads like a brochure, which is exactly what we're currently working to do on the entry. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Sandeep Chaitanya[edit]

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

Not notable swami without sources to assert notability. Wikid ^as© 10:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article need expansion but can be retain. Bill william compton (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The person is well known identity among the Hindus of South India, specially in Kerela. He is the founder of religious school (School of Bhagavad Gita) in Thiruvananthapuram. He represents hindu community at international religious conferences like Parliament of the World's Religions. His show Sampoorna Geeta Jnana Yagnam was telecasted on the national channel of India and on DD Malayalam. He has covered on major newspapers of India and not once but several times, like The Hindu- second largest circulated daily English newspaper in India and highest in South India. What else he needs, which would prove his notability??? Bill william compton^Talk 20:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources say that the subject is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:25, 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]

Note The subject remains not notable. There are no reliable sources that attribute notability to the subject. As such, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:23, 19 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, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment: In general, I think the subject might be notable. However, I am unsure if the spelling is correct? The School of Bagavad Gita's website (which is linked to at bottom of article) gives the founder's name as Swami Sandeepananda Giri. Also, should Swami be part of article title? It is title, not part of his name, (like Bishop in Christian). so Bishop Desmond Tutu is a redirect to Desmond Tutu. Would there be any way to check the Hindi Wikipedia for either name, or the School? VikÞor | Talk 00:13, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third-relist rationale: To allow participants to evaluate Vik-Thor's suggestion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. the 5 gnews hits don't reveal much. most of the coverage merely verifies he exists. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (for Vik-ThorThe) real name of the subject is Sandeepananda Chaitanya Giri, but in many places it is written as Sandeep Giri or Sandeep Chaitanya, Chaitanya is his middle name (just like Varahagiri Venkata Giri, Venkata is middle name and Giri is surname) and Sandeep is generally a North-Indian name; so in most of the North-Indian texts it is Sandeep and yes, word Swami shouldn't be use here, its an honoring title in Hinduism, like Lord in British peerage; it can be change but the main issue is whether this article should retain or not.

(for LibStar): go to the article and try to tackle references of newspapers and major websites like Parliament of the World's Religions, observe them carefully. Bill william compton^Talk 13:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unless sources are provided, we consider this original research. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical comparison of musical scales and mathematical progressions[edit]

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

The substance of this article is a proposal for a "double linear progression" system of just intonation, which appears to be OR. Melchoir (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Melchoir (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly an OR essay. This may be an interesting subject, and I appreciate that a lot of work went into it, but there is no encyclopedic content here.--RDBury (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while we look for sources. I'm not qualified to examine them in this subject, but I find it difficult image this sort of analysis has not be previously proposed. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be averse to relisting the AfD as necessary. But for what it's worth, I already looked for sources. Here's a couple queries I ran just now:
- "double linear progression" Google Books Scholar
- "double linear scale" + tuning Google Books Scholar
- "double linear" + intonation Google Books Scholar
In fact, the "double linear progression" isn't the only painfully naive idea in the article; it's just the most prominent. The whole thing... it's... it's just best to nuke it from orbit. Melchoir (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An expert would know, and we don't. I slapped a 'needs attention from an expert' tag on it and they can nominate it if it is bogus. Anarchangel (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, not a format of an encyclopedia. May be, some content will fit to Equal temperament article (BTW I do not see accurate information on so much various "musical scales" in this essay). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:19, 26 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOTDIR #7, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:NOTESSAY. We don't have to wait interminably for an "expert" to show up. If the article doesn't demonstrate through references that it is accurate and not original research, then it has to go. We don't retain potentially misleading and unsourced articles on the off-chance they may be correct. I see no valid keep rationales here. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - very interesting, but also very obviously OR. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Inge Reilstad[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines for academics. Geschichte (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Independent sources not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Web pages and personal blog are not acceptable WP:RS. WP:SPA-created by Jiriraska (including the head-shot image) – this is probably a vanity page. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This looks more like a case for WP:GNG than for WP:PROF, but no third party sources that could establish notability are given. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet Colleges in Pakistan[edit]

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

I don't see any notability. And besides a blog, there are no sources. bender235 (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this isn't a great article and searching for good references may take some time but the concept is notable. This is a set of educational establishments which in itself is encyclopedic as well as their being military and in Pakistan, both of which are interesting as in particular is the combination. There are quite a few articles about the individual colleges and the overarching article is appropriate assuming it can be improved. MLA (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a pretty reasonable (and notable) topic for an article to me - a particular specific variant on the school system. (cf/ Cadet Colleges in Bangladesh) Shimgray | talk | 01:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of potential sources; see Google Books. Melchoir (talk) 08:30, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidence exists that this a specific variant of schooling (particularly in South Asia), as Shimgray and Melchoir just pointed out. Mar4d (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Mitzewich[edit]

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

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

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

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

Nothing establishes real notability. Written in a promotional tone, with no reliable, secondary sources. (Author contested prod). OSborn^arf_contribs. 14:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chicago Tribune, August 6, 2008: "One of the most popular video cooks however is John Mitzewich of YouTube fame." The San Jose Mercury News published an in-depth profile of him on February 9, 2011. He's notable, and shortcomings in the article can be addressed through normal editing rather than deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are additional articles to substantiate if needed. For instance this Bay Area Living Article is from a small time news establishment but it does establish the fact that he is "big time." Someone with more knowledge of him should be able to fill in the obvious gaps. Enburst (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a reprint of the Mercury News article. Cullen328 (talk) 21:28, 27 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable cook. Wouldn't be on here if it weren't for the systemic bias in favour of people who do things virtually rather than in their own location. MLA (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What matters is not our own personal opinions about systemic bias and virtual chefs, but rather what the reliable sources say about Mitzewich. This sort of in-depth coverage is what notability is all about: YouTube foodie John Mitzewich embraces Valentine's Day, San Jose Mercury News, February 9, 2011 This is the newspaper of record for the Silicon Valley. Bottom line - he's notable.Cullen328 (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Despite starting as a "virtual" youtube poster and blogger, there is now substantial coverage outside his blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gromgull (talk • contribs) 07:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference YouTube viewers turn chefs into unlikely stars, San Francisco Chronicle, January 13, 2011 Cullen328 (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chef John should have a wiki entry, he is a great blogger, if Philip DeFranco can have one without question, so should Chef John. Sethlife — Sethlife (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep references in prominent sources seem to establish notability pretty indisputably. -- 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by InspectorTiger (talk • contribs)

Keep Wikipedia have many pages with less-notable persons. Chef John is great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.242.6 (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nameštaj BOŠNJAČKI[edit]

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

Non-notable company, written promotionally - Speedy tag removed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable furniture maker; unambiguous advertising: It enables customers a unique and original furniture design and complete interior solutions ideas, which is especially important for all who wants interior made specialty for your needs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:27, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedily. No claim of notability. Advertisement. MLA (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longfellows poetical works[edit]

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

This article is about an 1883 edition of a collection of the American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poetry. No notablity of this edition has been established, most of the article is based on the description provided in the book itself, and the only third party reference was published over 100 years ago. TFD (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability is in the fact that this was the first compilation of all of Longfellows works gathered into one volume. The book itself is now a collectible, often selling for many hundreds of pounds at auction. The commissioned artworks in the book are also of note, given one is Sir John Gilbert. Also any book which is still in print over one hundred years after publication is notable. Tentontunic (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also the only official compilation of his works. [7] Tentontunic (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Longfellow biography. Calling it the only "official" compilation of his works is inaccurate; his first collected works came out in the 1840s. This is also a British edition and his only authorized publisher was the American company Houghton Mifflin (formerly Ticknor and Fields). Considering the lack of international copyright upon Longfellow's death, and the notoriously rampant piracy by British publishers at that time, we would need an unbiased third-party source to confirm the claim (currently connected only to what might be a clever marketing technique). Until then, this is a posthumous anthology and, as there are dozens of them, I fail to see how this one is more notable than all the others. I'll also point out that the article title is incorrect and needs an apostrophe and proper capitalization. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source [8] says, "London: George Routledge & Sons Ltd, 1883. 964pp inc illustrations (including tissue-guarded frontis from Evangeline and vignette to title page of Longfellow's home) - This is the "Author's Copyright Edition" of the bard's poetry. This volume includes "83 illustrations by Sir John Gilbert, R. A., and other [unnamed] artists". It also includes "not only every poem printed in any other edition issued in England, but 86 copyright poems which can only be found" in this volume." Is this a secondary source to support the first that this was the only official compilation? Tentontunic (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Find a Longfellow scholar, biographer, historian, etc. This source looks like it's just echoing the marketing. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 20 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing distinctive about this particular collection, as every well-known poet will have one or more such collections published at some point. I'm unconvinced that the sources cited in the article (two of which are this book itself) or the bookseller's description cited above constitute multiple, independent, substantive sources that would satisfy the GNG. Deor (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Parga[edit]

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

I don't mind being proven wrong, cause the subject can play, but he is not notable. Look at the Google News and Book searches--nothing. I am not embarrassed to say that I've been listening to metal guitar players for a few decades now, and this one I'd never heard of, despite this claim. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have added three references. The last reference is the most notable with a long dedicated interview on dmme.net. Hope that's enough to get him kept. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an interview done with a reputable, reliable source. The other references you added, while they are appreciated, are not to reliable sources. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From User Silentseduction08: User Drmies, how can you say that DMME.net in not a reliable source? Dmitry Epstein has interviewed a huge list of famous musicians, including Paul McCartney and Ozzy Osbourne. Do you really believe that someone unreliable or unverified would be able to secure interviews with such international household names? I'm in serious doubt of your editing capabilities. 07:52, 1 March 2011

Keep From User Silentseduction08: There is so much information available on Mario Parga, one of the UK's most notable instrumental guitarists, that I'm surprised this Wikipedia page is being scrutinized again. A 'Google' search shows countless references to him from all over the world for the past 23 years. User Drmies - there are thousands of notable musicians in the world that I myself do not know of, but that doesn't mean that they're unworthy of recognition here on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but I find your remarks both arrogant and somewhat offensive. Can you honestly name every single rock/metal/instrumental guitarist? I sincerely doubt that. It seems to me that there are a lot of editors on Wikipedia who are at times full of their own self-importance. I've seen it on a few other Wiki pages too. Wikipedia is a tremendous tool and of enormous benefit to all seeking answers. To have a faceless person sat behind a computer wrongfully edit and mark a page for deletion is totally wrong and Wikipedia shouldn't allow it. Yes, I understand that the concept of Wikipedia is the ability to edit/update each article, but to remove important text and mark for deletion purely because someone "has never heard of it" is absolutely ridiculous. To put this into perspective: Mario Parga has appeared and played live on many international radio shows, has played live on MTV and TV in several countries, has music available on Amazon.com. iTunes, Napster, CD Universe, etc., has appeared in a multitude of international mainstream guitar magazines, has/has had several major endorsements from major musical instrument manufacturers, and is known to most followers of what is termed 'shred guitar'. Please keep this page and leave it alone. Thank you.

~~Keep~~ From User Silentseduction08: Multiple references have today been added, there are more if required.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. Currently, the article suggests this is a session musician. Session musicians are not notable. A musician who has talent is not necessarily notable - for instance most musicians in world leading orchestra are not notable. MLA (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ From User Silentseduction08: Mario Parga is not, and has never been a session musician. He has appeared on several albums as a 'special guest' (as have many other non-session musicians), but he is primarily known for his own specific guitar instrumental music. Session or unnoted musicians do not generally record solo albums that are available for sale internationally through all the major online stores (iTunes, Napster, etc.) and many physical stores. Nor do they generally do interviews with respected journalists such as Dmitry Epstein (see the dmme.com reference link added on 2.20.11). Mr. Epstein has access to many major household names and recently interviewed Paul McCartney, but he also interviewed Mario Parga in 2008 and opened it with (quote): "There's a lot going on for Mario Parga. Highly respected for his guitar craft, the English-born Las Vegas resident..." "Highly respected" again proves Parga's notablility. The reference link to Shredaholic.com that was added a few days ago lists Parga under 'The Shred Legends' category. This website is specifically dedicated to the 'shred guitar' genre. While talking about 'The Day I Went Mad' album, Spiritofmetal.com (reference link added to the Wikipedia page) describes Parga as follows (quote): "1999's 'The Day I Went Mad' featured guitarist Slash, Def Leppard guitarist Vivian Campbell, Kiss and Union man Bruce Kulick and noted guitar virtuoso Mario Parga". Parga is described as 'noted' here, and is mentioned along with more mainstream guitarists who despite guesting on this album are also not session musicians. The reference links I added prove that a) Parga is definitely noted in the 'shred' guitar genre, b) he is noted as a virtuoso guitarist in mainstream rock music, and c) he records his own music and solo albums and is therefore not a session musician. Please realize that although the instrumental rock guitar and 'shred guitar' genres are not as popular as more mainstream rock/metal/pop, etc., both genres do contain very notable musicians who may not be household names but who have still influenced many musicians.
Note: Duplicate "keep" !votes from Silentseduction08 stricken. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I hope that the closing admin will look at the actual quality of the references that were added--the article in its current state doesn't have a single reliable source, and really qualifies as a BLP violation (I'm about to apply the appropriate tag). Silentseduction, I did not intend to offend anyone; my apologies if I hurt your feelings. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From User Silentseduction08: I too hope that the closing admin will look at the added references as they contain all the points to prove to keep this Wikipedia page in it's current edition. As for user Drmies' comments on the quality and reliability of these references, the references are all legitimate and come from very reliable sources within the 'shred' guitar and rock music genres (I've commented on Drmies' note regarding the unreliablity of DMME.net - please see above). Personally, I think this user is unhappy to discover that he/she is not quite the living lexicon of rock guitarists he/she presumed, and the adding of the new BLP violation tag is in my opinion vindictive behavior as the page is already in question anyway - hence us writing here... I've until now omitted from this discussion that Parga also has two European fan sites (one official and one unofficial) and two unofficial Japanese fan sites. This proves that he's obviously a recognized musician. Possibly the largest website for Mario's type of music is called 'Truth in Shredding'. Typing his name into their search engine brings up a mass of articles on him. AllOutGuitar.com, a very highly respected guitar webzine also has several references to him. I believe that this Wikipedia page is now correct and in compliance with Wikipedia's terms. I respectfully request that all the violation/query tags be removed and the page left alone. Thank you. 07:05, 1 March 2011
- I'm not going to take the bait offered here to start swapping insults, and I hope I don't have to explain that having (official or unofficial) fansites doesn't mean a whole lot. It is also clear that the editor has not matched the websites mentioned against the requirements in WP:RS, though I urge them to submit those sites to the RS noticeboard at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: if they are that good, then the editor can only benefit.
  But I would like to say that the tag ("This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources.") is of course not a "violation" tag--it is rather an invitation to improve the article. That it warns the reader that the information in the article does not meet high standards of verifiability, at least in this editor's opinion, is a bonus. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's supporters have presented dmme.net as the best source available, but the site itself says that it's a "solo work", i.e. a personal web site rather than a reliable source with editorial control. I'm sure that Drmies has realised by now that I make every effort to prove him (and any other deletion nominator) wrong, but I have been unable to do so in this case. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha Phil--actually I hadn't, I'm kind of thick that way. But I believe you have bested me more than once, and if AfD is a fight (which I don't believe it is), than I gladly admit I was wrong every time I lose to you. Seriously, I tried to find the sources for this one, and I couldn't, and I appreciate you trying as well. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from User Silent Seduction08: This will be my final comment on this Wikipedia discussion page. I believe I’ve presented facts and reference links as per Wikipedia’s policy.

I’ve certainly no intention of swapping insults with user Drmies; I simply do not value his/her knowledge of this particular subject matter nor his/her editing credentials. Is it Wikipedia policy to ask for reliable references and sources from a potential editor in order to permit the editing of a page…? Interestingly enough, when I started my University degree last year my class was told that we were unable to use any Wikipedia references due to its unreliability from dubious editing. That kind of sums it all up.

I’m also not surprised to see another ‘delete’ vote, possibly by someone in league with Drmies despite claims to the contrary. If this isn't the case, then I apologize. With regard to user Phil Bridger’s comment on the validity of DMME.net: yes, it is the website of freelance rock journalist Dmitry Epstein. Most of the World’s journalists are in fact ‘freelance’ and make a living selling their interviews to magazines and books. Mr. Epstein is no exception. To think that a highly respected journalist who has interviewed countless internationally known musicians is invalid because his website is “personal” and has no “editorial control” is quite bizarre and nonsensical.

I’m sure the page will be deleted through the ill-informed influence of a few self-proclaimed ‘editors’ who probably sit behind computer screens in bedrooms rather than real editorial positions. And in reply to Drmies’ insinuating message that I myself am possibly Mario Parga: I am not. I am an avid fan of the guitar ‘shred’ genre and took my user name from a song I particularly like from one of Mario’s albums. I have permission from Mario’s management to edit several independent web pages and part of a music website relevant to Mario's music. I’m also a fan of several other notable shred guitarists who I’m sure Drmies “has never heard of” either.

It seems to me that Wikipedia is becoming more of a giant Internet forum than credible archive, and that's a terrible shame... User: Silentseduction08 01:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Fear Effect. Regardless of the actual number, Google hits cannot be used to establish notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fear Effect Inferno[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Canceled game of no particular notability. Full of original research due to the lack of coverage outside of a couple of mentions on gaming blogs. No independent google hits. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Goes to Fear Effect. Szzuk (talk) 22:45, 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) 16:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google registers 53,900 hits when 'Fear Effect Inferno' is directly quoted (the use of " "). The artical is well written and the writer seems to have taken attention to detail. Although a little more sourcing could be done, I or anyone else could to that with so many direct hits. I will have to give this one a keep. Skullbird11 (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try again and you'll find <300 ghits. Szzuk (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, even more this time, 55,000. Skullbird11 (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here [9] Szzuk (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The .com Google search does show 50k+ hits [10]. Still, WP:GHITS states that's not a valid argument. That being said using Wikiproject Video games' reliable sources search turns up little more than landing pages (admittedly I only checked the first few pages of the search). --Teancum (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominating 2 articles is hardly "quite a few". You're welcome to express your opinion in either, but I suggest you keep the discussion about the articles and familiarize yourself with arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:48, 18 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, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fear Effect with minor mention in its development section. Insignificant coverage to stand on its own. --Teancum (talk) 15:07, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Boersch[edit]

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

Non-notable German businessperson. Very likely self-promotion by DonPedro2000 (talk · contribs). bender235 (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete founded two companies and has won two European awards, so could well be notable. Needs better citations though as both current cites are from the same minority interest magazine. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has won a national and a European award. I've improved the referencing; I'm afraid neither of the existing refs supported the sentences they were placed after, but I've been able to independently reference both awards, the dissertation, ACG (although it has changed names at least once since and I was unable to find him listed as a founder on the company's own site), and the names of companies he has lent venture capital to. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:48, 15 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, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Yngvadottir.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:31, 20 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Due to insufficient participation, restoration of this article may be requested for any reason at WP:REFUND. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pickering[edit]

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

Resolved BLP prod. However, only primary sources are used. No notability shown. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Google News returns plenty of results, but they are for a namesake who is often quoted as a business analyst. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Added, Ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chapman55567 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Primary and secondary references added, Internal wiki links also added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chapman55567 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, the relevent criteria looks to be WP:CREATIVE #3 for creating a notable piece of work. Which move the discussion to the two shows and whether they are notable. Both have stub articles, but they don't say much beyond the series existing. I can't see that they have enough notability to hang this article off of. If they were demonstrated to be more notable though (e.g. they won awards, etc), then I could be convinced otherwise. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 15 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, 20 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ontogenetic art[edit]

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

COI article promoting a "theory " of art created by a performance artist (who also happens to be the page author) WuhWuzDat 15:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:09, 17 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, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references on the page are for the biological concept rather than this synthetic concept for which no references are obvious. AllyD (talk) 00:11, 20 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not merge and redirect to artist's article (which is itself of dubious notability). Only reference does not mention article subject, no hit at google scholar, so does not even merit a merge, since no sources. Self created self advert. PPdd (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Friends (Angel comic)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Whether this is a good merge candidate to somewhere else, I'm not sure, but it certainly seems to lack standalone notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Angel (TV Series) under the expanded universe section. -Pax85 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appear to be a truckload of similar comics, judging by the Angel comics template, and the general subject appears clearly notable. Whether all of these should have individual articles, or be merged into an omnibus treatment, is a standard editing decision, not a matter to be brought to AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 15 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, 20 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources exist establishing notability. See [11], [12] for examples. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Davis (web designer)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Prod contested in 2008 and again in 2011 (by Falcon8765). Nominator's rationale was: Non-notable person. Joshua Davis has one noted award and will have had installations at a few places, not 'several' enough to be notable. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are so-called pioneers of the web. Joshua Davis has certainly been a part of many teams who have moved the web along, but really nothing of notibility on his own accord. Pnm (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep work has been featured in major galleries and won a major award. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 01:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 15 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, 20 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Bank scandal[edit]

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

This article lacks reliable independent sources. It was created by an investigative journalist, so reads as potential advocacy rather than neutral coverage of the events. The events may indeed be real, though the interpretation may be open to question - if so we need much better sources. Otherwise it needs to go as a poorly sourced article naming numerous living individuals as being responsible for serious criminal activity. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the scandal was tabled on the floor of Pakistans parliament. It is widely referenced Zak (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A rough search shows that this scandal happened, no matter how old it is, and if that is verified, the article passes notability IMO (especially given the supposed high profiles involved in this). Mar4d (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per mar4d.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, per many sources such as [13], [14], [15] and [16]. Yet another time-wasting nomination from an admin who seems to think that he is above such plebeian work as performing simple searches before nominating articles for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article would benefit from more (and perhaps, better) sources, the scandal itself is clearly verifiable and notable (per comments by Mar4d and Phil Bridger. No clear grounds for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Festus[edit]

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

There are no signs of notability about this footballer Wrwr1 (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete third tier teams in Finland don't seem to be notable so notability wouldn't be automatically conferred. MLA (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 02:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Finnish top league is actually fully-pro, but I can't find any source confirming he actually played in it - if anybody gets more luck then let me know, I'll happily reconsider. Giant Snowman 02:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Finish second and third divisions are not fully pro, and therefore do not grant notability under WP:NSPORT. There is insufficient coverage to merit keeping this article under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Extended periodic table. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unbipentium[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Redirect to extended periodic table; see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbiunium. I'm not sure if the stuff about the self-coupling of the omega meson is enough to save the article. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in very much agreement with the nominator. Let's see: we have an element that hasn't been created yet but for which a name exists. There are infinite such elements. The only thing of interest here is the island of stability, but I don't think it's truly noteworthy until the element has been created and this has been experimented upon. Zakhalesh (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. This element doesn't exist, and there are currently no plans to synthesise it. Therefore all actual content is the article is the name "unbipentium", which comes trivially from the number 125. No relevant information whatsoever. JIP | Talk 10:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The previous nomination ended with closure as redirect to systematic element name; however, the current decision seems to be to redirect elements 139 and below to extended periodic table and elements 140 and above to systematic element name. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, why not make an article for elements that haven't been created yet but which are believed to have some interesting property? Zakhalesh (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would think that elements that have an interesting property and/or have been (mis)reported or are have had synthesis attempts should have their own pages. That means that element 119, element 120, element 122, element 124, element 126 and element 137 should be kept, and element 121, element 123 and element 125 should be redirected to extended periodic table until they become interesting by these criteria. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbiunium (element 121) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbitrium (element 123). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A small change to the above: given that the target-projectiles for unbiunium (element 121) seem to be reliable information, it would therefore move to the "have its own page" list. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unbiunium[edit]

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

Redirect to extended periodic table (as do other unnotable synthetic undiscovered elements). This article basically just includes trivial information (the g-block information can be found on the extended periodic table article; the "naming" section is boilerplate; the "target-projectile etc." section consists of nothing but "reaction yet to be attempted"). However, a journal does talk about it. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd be inclined to keep this one. The target projectile combinations seem noteworthy enough and were added by an editor that has been adding reliable info to related articles. ChemNerd (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the element is fo sufficient theoretical interest to deserve a separate article. I've added the reference to the text. Nergaal (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minx (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, no releases, no label, created by one of the band members. Purely promotional. RadioFan (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Strikerforce (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have seen some media promotion of this band, searched for them and noticed it was nominated for deleting. I feel it should be kept. thank you Johnjayzon (talk)

Note - The above user has made no other contributions to Wikipedia other than this AfD and the creation of their user page. Strikerforce (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Follows guidelines for a modern band in 2011 bearrocksmoon —Preceding undated comment added 07:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment To what guidelines might you be referring? Certainly not BAND? Please elaborate so that others may further understand your vote. Thanks! Strikerforce (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it weren't promotional, no reliable sources given to establish notability of a band. tedder (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND by referencing sufficient reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Universum Communications[edit]

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

Came across this article elseweb. It looks respectable on its front, but the article citations include links to sv:Wikipedia, the company's own Web site, and three articles about the company's survey, which do not discuss the company itself. Google News doesn't yield much more, although it has a lot of links they all source back to the company's annual survey of employers. Basically, there's no evidence of notability here. Kate (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP - it is worth noting that the article about the company at sv:Wikipedia was deleted in December for lack of notability. I have searched Swedish news sources for signs of notability but haven't found anything. --bonadea contributions talk 11:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and subsequent comment. Clearly no secondary sources providing any credibly significant coverage; as such it fails WP:ORG. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 22:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dancehall Queen Latesha Brown[edit]

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

Minimally sourced BLP does not demonstrate notability. Prod was removed without improving the article. Hasteur (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability established. Strikerforce (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Les Zigomanis[edit]

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

I can't find anything indicating this person is notable. The two "sources" in the article mention the subject in passing, in exactly one sentence each. Googling yields the standard LinkedIn/Facebook/what have you, but nothing of substance. I don't see anything to indicate that a further search for sources would be fruitful, nor are there currently enough to sustain the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion has failed to establish whether A Lyga is fully pro. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mantas Lėkis[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. PROD was contested on the grounds that FK Tauras Tauragė is a fully pro league. I assume the word "in" is missing here. In any case, if the A Lyga is fully pro, I have not seen any sourcing thereof. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. -- Novickas (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Any evidence that the Lithuanian League is actually fully-professional? Giant Snowman 16:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As you can see from this FIFA page [17], A Lyga is Lithuania's national league and FK Tauras Taurage is one of its teams. The A Lyga winner plays in World Cup competitions. As far as is A Lyga fully professional - don't know how you-all are defining that here; but apart from its being the national league, see from a Major League Soccer website "BEFORE MLS: Began his professional career with Lithuanian side Zalgiris Vilnius..." [18]. Novickas (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a league is the highest league in a country, does not necessarily mean it is fully professional. Likewise, just because one club in a league is professional, does not necessarily mean that the rest are pro also. Have yet to find any concrete sourcing, one way or the other, on the pro status of the A Lyga, and since notability requires verifiable evidence, Mr. Lekis is non-notable unless it can be established that the A Lyga is fully pro. As for the "world cup competitions", I assume you mean the UEFA Champions League and Europa League, these competitions are not fully pro either, at least in the qualifying rounds for which Lithuanian teams qualify. UEFA permits a fair degree of amateurism in these early rounds precisely because some country's top leagues are not fully professional. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this helps or hinders Stu.W UK (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It changes nothing. The fact that there are some professional clubs in the A Lyga has already been established, and this source says nothing about how many pro clubs there were before the tax change, and how many there are now. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, ok relax. For a start it refers to Lithuanian football in general as being professional; it doesn't say that some clubs are and some aren't. Now I wouldn't call it the greatest source in the world, admittedly, but seeing as I can find absolutely nothing that says top division Lithuanian football is semi-pro or amateur I'd say that I'd lean towards 'professional'. this is the only other thing I can find, which says the A Lyga is the top division of professional football. Everything else is a wikipedia rip-off or sounds too similar to be credible. Stu.W UK (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a separate point, A-Lyga isn't mentioned on WP:FPL at all at the moment. Would it not be better to get some consensus on whether or not a league is professional before nominating articles for deletion? Stu.W UK (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me appologise if you took offense to my previous comment. It was not intended in any way as an insult or accusation. The sources provided certainly pose some interesting questions, but there are not conclusive enough for my liking. You could undoubtedly find sources about "professional" football in countries like Estonia or Montenegro, where the top few teams of the highest division are fully pro, but the clubs at the bottom of the table are not. As I stated above, notability requires verifiable evidence, and given the lack of clear evidence as to whether or not the A Lyga is fully pro, WP:NSPORT becomes insufficient for establishing notability. More importantly this player quite clearly fails WP:GNG which is prerequisite to NSPORT anyways. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is an alternative, NOT a prerequisite! Read WP:N - 'A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.' As for the verifiability of the A-Lyga's professionalism, I agree it is cloudy, but I would personally err on the side of WP:IAR. The professionalism rule should weed out the truly insignificant top leagues - the Welsh, Sammarinese or Maltese for instance - but shouldn't be used as a stick to beat the borderline cases with. Stu.W UK (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is a contradiction in guidelines. NSPORT reads: In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. Furthermore, its not clear whether or not this article meets NSPORT making GNG the logical fallback. While the IAR reasoning certainly has some merit, but do we really need another one line stub without much room for expansion. The way I see it the GNG requirement was included to avoid cases like this one. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah NSPORT is confusingly written. On the same page it says 'Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline', which again suggests that meeting either GNG or NSPORT is sufficient. As for this article, I would personally say why not have a one line stub but then that's inclusion vs deletion for you. There will almost certainly be room for expansion in the future - it is only his first season after all. Stu.W UK (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To which I simply say, WP:CRYSTAL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he should be included because of what may happen in the future, just that stubs are likely to fill out over the course of a player's career. If he never played again, I'd say the stub would be better than nothing. Stu.W UK (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are various special provisions for sportspeople, and in general I agree to use them as limiting beyond the GNG, but this needs to be applied with some common sense. Even if the national team of a country is not fully professional, it is the national team. Perhaps that should be added to the guidelines, but whether it is written there or not, we can't explicitly provide for all contingencies. It's reasonable to accept the national team as providing notability for its players. (subject to the usual role, that they must play in regular competition, not merely be on the roster). DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the pro status of the national team relevant? Mr. Lekis has never played for Lithuania, and except for the fact that the team is listed in the infobox, there is no indication he has even been called up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What does this "2010- Lithuania 0 (0)" mean? Oh, and people who want to keep this article should add atleast some kind of information with refs and his old teams. Then I could say "Keep" Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the article listed in the references, I think the Lithuanian national team is listed in the infobox, because he was considered for a call up to the national team, but then not called because he was injured. In any case, he hasn't played for Lithuania which is what is necessary for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to clarify. Lithuania doesn't have a single national team, they have leagues. The top tier league is A lyga, consisting of 11 teams just now, including Lekis' team, FK Tauras. The league winner and some of the runner-up teams compete in international play. So Lekis' team had some international play in 2010, Europa League, against Llanelli A.F.C. (Wales), and as you can see from this BBC article [19], Lekis played in that series. Wish I knew how to fix the infobox. Novickas (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me bluntness, but the claim that the Lithuania national football team does not exist is simply false. The national team, and league structure there work more or less the same way they do in any other European country, meaning the infobox correctly displays the relevant information, although I suspect it is incomplete. His appearances in international club competitions have all been in qualifying, which do not grant notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to see the WP A lyga article as profoundly wrong, since it states that it's LT's highest level of football and that it consists of a number of teams rather than describing one particular outfit as "Lithuania's national team". If so, please post that at its page. By extension the BBC article is wrong too, since it specifically describes a multi-game match between FK Tauras and another team in Wales as part of the Europa League competition, rather than as the "Lithuanian national team" vs. another country. Novickas (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The A Lyga contains no one club side, I agree, nor did I ever say so. The national team I mentioned in my early post operates completely separately of the A Lyga, may call upon any player of Lithuanian nationality whether they play in Lithuania or not, and plays against other countries' national teams most notably in qualifying matches for the FIFA World Cup and the UEFA European Football Championship. Playing for this team, would make Mr. Lekis notable under WP:NSPORT. However, as his article clearly indicates, he has not played for this team. The BBC article you referred to earlier, talks about an international club match which has nothing to do with the the Lithuanian national team, and I apologise if I gave the mistaken impression that it did. As far as the infobox is concerned, the match referred to in that article is a non-league fixture and should therefore not be displayed in the infobox. As I stated above, the match does not grant notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the national team - my US-centrism is showing; find it hard to think along those lines. (Not helped by how few games they play). I would still think that club play in Europa League matches is enough for notability, but if a wider consensus about that already exists or emerges, pls let me know. Novickas (talk) 15:33, 27 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) 00:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the top league in Lithuania should qualify for notability. MLA (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should the <playing in the?> top league in Lithuania qualify for notability? (actually the league itself is notable, but given the article is about a player I guess you mean playing in the league)--ClubOranje^T 08:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources such as this seem to indicate that the A Lyga isn't fully professional (I know it's a translation, but it mentions a number of times that the club is aspiring to become professional, and explicitly states that some of their players are working other jobs during the week). Lekis isn't playing in a notable enough league at club level, and hasn't actually played for the national team yet either, so fails WP:NFOOTY. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It says that the club is new so it's trying to improve, get more financing, trainers, medics, etc. It does not explicitly say that it tries to become professional - it tries to become more professional (i.e. the article does not indicate or imply whether it's starting off as an amateur, semi-professional, or professional club). However, it does says that 5 player have other jobs, that the club pays wages and pays them on time. Where does that leave us? Renata (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With several players working other jobs, and no fixed salary, I think its safe to call the club semi-pro, meaning it leaves us with an article that pretty clearly fails WP:GNG, and appears to fail WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say that the salary is not fixed. It says that the club pays salary, but does not say what it is based on. Renata (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you say that players were payed an hourly/time-based wage earlier? In any case, a club with several part-time players is by definition not fully-professional. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahg, I see. What I meant was: the club pays the wages in a timely fashion - the article mentions that some other clubs (not identified) are postponing wage payments due to financial difficulties. Renata (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sources have been provided at the end. Calling them non-independent appears to be stretching it a little. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari[edit]

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

Non-notable religious figure, article is mostly unsourced and a couple of searches do not produce a collection of reliable sources that could support the statements made or establish notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I listed a complaint at the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard about major POV issues on Kawthari's page, but I don't think the page should be removed altogether. A Google search for "Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari" turns up 64,000+ hits, and as the Controversies section of the page reflects, his appearance at a major UK university was enough to elicit a public response from a member of parliament. The page needs some serious work (and some trimming), done by someone who is NOT a member of an organization associated with Kawthari... but I am not convinced there are significant grounds for deletion. TremorMilo (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - IMO Google number results are valueless in assessing notability. apart from this single incident I can't see any independent reporting about him at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reliable substantial source is confined to a single event. Most of the article lacks citations. The links mostly seem to be sites that are connected to the subject, or are a non-media site critical of him. Given the inherent contentious nature of this bio, we should demand multiple independent sources with substantial coverage about this person, and those be included in the article. There seems to be no explicit claim of notability here (no major awards, best seller list, etc...). So, the only way to argue for retention of this article, is to show quality coverage. --Rob (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With regards to the argument of notability, this man is notable in the fact that a brief google search of 'Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam' provides results linking him to talks given at various universities around the United Kingdom at various universities, mosques, and other venues such as Friend's House in Euston, London, UK. The results also show that he has also delivered talks in Canada and other countries worldwide.--Al-mahad al-turath (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — Al-mahad al-turath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 20 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) 00:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Rob. More independent sources needed other than those around the controversy to denote a bio. Can't find any significant awards for his works as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This book about Muslims in Britain, published by the Cambridge University Press before any current controversy, devotes a couple of paragraphs to the subject and describes him as influential. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim that there are no sources independent of the subject or his publishers is not true. The claim that there is no citable content to show notability outside of a single event is not true. The article was written in 2009, and Phil Bridger's find was written in 2010, both before the controversy.
Most importantly, Muslims in Britain: An Introduction, page 88, Sophie Gilliat-Ray, Cambridge University Press is an impeccable source, not merely showing notability but explicitly noting influence.
Daru Liftaa
Seeker's Guidance (the photo on this page comes from the Commons version)
White Thread Press already in the article
Sunni Path Works from inside the article but not out. Weird.
Islamic Waves Mostly videos

Anarchangel (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the book in the preview but regarding all of the sources cited below that, I don't see how they are independent of the subject or topic being they are Islam or Muslim-related.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing the root of the 'independent' argument; I have grown accustomed to editors being unable or unwilling to identify or put forth their rationale. However, I must now show that its logic is flawed. The subject is Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari. They are not his websites. It is not logical, and therefore not part of WP rules, to assume that there is necessarily a conflict of interest between an institution an individual, who are assumed to share the same religion or are pertinent to that religion.

Anarchangel (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great point and I understand your argument along with ISs better now. It can be hard to tell whether a subject/topic is affiliated with the sources which makes news and other "neutral" sources better. How do you weigh his coverage in Islamic sources compared to secular sources? I think secular carry a heavier weight and add more to the nobility cause if he is recognized outside his field. In WP:GNG, "works produced by those affiliated with the subject" can be stretched. With that, I am still not all too convinced. --NortyNort (Holla) 01:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Urban[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Assistant football coaches-even at the professionall level--typically are not considered notable for our purposes here. Subject does not appear to achieve notability through any other measure. Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found one non-trivial article about Urban here that can be considered "significant coverage." Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepArticle about Urban's NFL Head Coach aspirations. http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnewssports/2011/02/mechanicsburg_native_james_urb_1.html Go Phightins! (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ There are dozens of hits on Google News for Urban following his exit to Cincinatti Go Phightins! (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please !vote only once. You may leave comments, but please do not repeat your stance on this article. Thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:04, 22 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) 00:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep position coaches in the NFL probably are notable. MLA (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tomlinson[edit]

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

non notable musician WuhWuzDat 00:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self promotion. Clearly fails on notability, nothing on Google except his website and this article.Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Canadian Chemical Company[edit]

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

Lack of any reliable, secondary sources establishing notability. Very few ghits, and no gnews results. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the A7 decliner; I was actually going to PROD it myself. The claim of notability is enough to pass A7, but I agree with this AfD nomination. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article suggests that they might have been involved in a 1996 distribution of tainted cough medicine that killed a bunch of people in the slums. I couldn't find any other reference to this though, so there role may have been only minimal. A french/creole search may turn up more results. Ravendrop 13:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 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) 00:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The poisoning incident is also covered in a short chapter in a book about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Epidemic Intelligence Service program: Inside the Outbreaks: The Elite Medical Detectives of the Epidemic Intelligence Service, pages 300, 301, Mark Pendergrast, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Anarchangel (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per other arguments, non-notable, no real substantial coverage in reliable sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alma-0[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

(I tried to re-open the last AfD, but I was told to open a new one) This language doesn't meet the general notability guideline. It is an academic language, with only one cited-paper, according to the ACM digital library. Even then, one paper with 15 citations, 3 of them from the author himself, isn't enough to establish notability for an academic project, and it doesn't have any other coverage. Even although it was created in 2004, it appears in no newspapers, no magazines, no books, and it only has one paper that has been cited. Enric Naval (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Procedural SpeedyKeep This article just went through AfD three days ago. The result was unanimous, with the nominator withdrawing the nomination. I don't know why the admin changed the result from "SpeedyKeep" to "No consensus". I think that this nomination fails WP:BURO, including the procedural irregularity of modifying the previous AfD, marked twice in red, "Please do not modify it." Unscintillating (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it went through a previous AFD, the nominator withdrew and the AFD was properly closed as "nomination withdrawn. Eric Naval then reopened it 3 days later and added a "delete" !vote so I couldn't have closed it as "nomination withdrawn". Technically you can't do that if there are outstanding delete !votes. Even if the original close stuck, a close of "nomination withdrawn" does not bar a speedy renomination. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - as above, shouldn't nominate again so quickly after another AfD. Neutral - withdrawn as per Lambiam below Bienfuxia (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator of that AfD withdrew after procedural objections, which were the basis of most Keep !votes. Then we had a non-admin closure, followed by a non-admin re-opening, followed by an admin closure explicitly stating that the proper thing to do in cases like this is to renominate. It is a bit strange then to object against this renomination on procedural grounds. --Lambiam 12:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any significant sources about it, other than forums, how-tos or promotional stuff. Also, it should be noted that the previous nominator's "withdrawal" was not almost definitely not an endorsement of the article. The fact that the previous nominator withdrew, and consequently that this is back at AfD, should have no bearing on the discussion whatsoever. Ravendrop 11:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator withdrew all his nominations because he got a lot of hate mail and nasty comments on the internet . --Enric Naval (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it started with this reddit mob. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above link is to an off-wiki site, which I decline to read, and of which I have no knowledge. Unscintillating (talk) 22:58, 21 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) 00:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable and verifiable sources establishing its notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What? —Ruud 22:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple search on CiteSeer revealed several well-cited paper on this language. —Ruud 22:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Vincent Partington (1997). "Implementation of an Imperative Programming Language With Backtracking".
- Jacob Brunekreef (1998). "Annotated Algebraic Specification of the Syntax and Semantics of the Programming Language Alma-0".
- Krzysztof R. Apt, Jacob Brunekreef, Vincent Partington, Andrea Schaerf (1998). "Alma-0: An Imperative Language that Supports Declarative Programming".
- Krzysztof R. Apt, Andrea Schaerf (1998). "Programming in Alma-0, or Imperative and Declarative Programming Reconciled".
- Krzysztof R. Apt, Andrea Schaerf (1998). "Integrating Constraints into an Imperative Programming Language".
- Krzysztof R. Apt, Andrea Schaerf (1999) . "The Alma Project, or How First-Order Logic Can Help Us in Imperative Programming".

Comment Not a single one of those sources are independent though. Each is written by one of the language's developers, and thus are not very helpful in establishing notability as they can all be viewed as promotional. Ravendrop 23:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, these papers have been cited by others. If you would have bothered to click on the link to the academic search engine I provided, you would also have found several papers, not written by one of the authors, referring to the language. Why do I have to spell this out in such excruciating detail to you? —Ruud 23:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did have a look at those. The problem is of the 20 articles well over half are still written by the developers, and of those that aren't, I can't find one whose main subject is this language. They all appear to mention it only if passing, but not to dwell on it in depth. Ravendrop 23:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why impose such draconian inclusion requirements? We need the notability/independent mention requirement to keep out all the, impossible to write verifiable articles about, programming languages invented in high school on an afternoon, but if several well-known researchers found this language interesting enough to mention in their publication, it's interesting enough to mention on Wikipedia. —Ruud 00:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IDsec[edit]

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

This article had more than a fair chance. The project has been abandoned; the last IETF draft is from May 2002. On the brink of speedy deletion but I'll put it up for AfD anyway. Nageh (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 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) 00:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources establishing notability--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article was also c/p'd from this 2002 memo.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stiff Dylans[edit]

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

~~Article about a band that implies only WP:ONEEVENT notability.~~ Zakhalesh (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Oh dang, forgot to strike the nom. Done so now. No reason to not keep the article. Zakhalesh (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only have the band performed several songs in a fairly major film, they have had two UK chart hits ([20]), and several examples of coverage exist: Peterborough Evening Telegraph, FemaleFirst, Channel 4 (links to several video diaries the band made for Channel 4), MTV. --Michig (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find. I still think the individual members don't need their own articles. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed - only one had an article, which I have redirected to the band.--Michig (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually Matt Harris had an article too - I nominated it for speedy as well, until I spotted that it had been a dab page and restored it to that state. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 21 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) 00:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep coverage in reliable sources exists.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Arnold[edit]

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

Poorly referenced BLP. No indication that this individual passes WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^spout 15:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 20 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) 00:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced BLP. No notability asserted. Carrite (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America World City and World city corporation[edit]

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

Just a conceptual company with a grand vision but without any claims to notability or any substance to the article. I am also nominating the following related pages because it is just an unrealized concept/idea only:

-- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly, we have two different articles that are being nominated for two different reasons. I don't think there will be any dispute over deleting the unsourced stub about the corporation, but there would be larger discussion over the longer article about the unrealized concept/idea. I'm Changing the layout, including "find sources", to reflect this. Mandsford 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. The main article is about a proposal to build a very large cruise ship. I did find some references in reliable sources. A 1997 Cruise Travel magazine mentioned that this was an idea that "resurfaced" in 1996.[21] Other sources reappear from then to the present, all note that this is a "speculative" idea. Cruise Travel notes that it failed to obtain financing in 1998.[22] The bulk of the instant article is a verbatim statement of the plan taken from the official website, which raises a copyright issue. Given the fact that the plan for this ship has been kicked around for at least 15 years, this is crystal ball material, without any particular significance in history. The information in the article does not jive with the sources I found, all of which seem to suggest that this project is in indefinite hiatus and likely will come to naught. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:11, 21 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) 00:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds really cool, but unfortunately no notability is established.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Non-article nomination (redirect) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Altonia[edit]

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

Is not a real town, rather an "alternate forme" of the town. Really can find little information about it. Sucks. Themane2 (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you nominating the redirect for deletion, or the actual page for the town, which is Altônia? If you are nominating the redirect, a) this is the wrong place, and b) a redirect of this type with an alternate spelling is perfectly fine, and is in fact encouraged due to the town's use of dialectics. Ravendrop 08:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The town certainly exists, as the 4 references prove (and it has a home page too!), and vast consensus is that any populated, legal entity is inherently notable. Can't help but assume, due to the "sucks" comment, that this AfD wasn't made in total good faith. Ravendrop 08:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are legit and something weird is going on. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:16, 27 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.