< 4 February	6 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 speedy delete (G5). Page created by a disruptive sock of a user in violation of an indefinite block. –MuZemike 01:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burma (Rambo)[edit]

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

Burma as a setting for Rambo movies, delete as not encyclopedic. Melaen (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good page, I created it because it's about the country's (in movie) history and role in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MK and sons (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 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. Non-admin closure. ^walk victor falk^talk 23:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lehel tér (Budapest Metro)[edit]

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

Subject of article does not appear to be notable enough to warrant an article on its own. Strikerforce (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Convention and consensus is that all rail/subway stations are notable. Metro station in a major city. --Oakshade (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. Precedent is that metro stations are inherently notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the arguments above. CoolKoon (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oddball United (Football Club)[edit]

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

Not notable by the standards outlined in WP:CLUB and WP:NSOCCER Xorkl000 (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Xorkl000 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Xorkl000 (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No credible claim to significance or importance. I've tagged it accordingly. Much of the article seems hoaxy. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:27, 5 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 Lords of the Nine Hells. T. Canens (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glasya[edit]

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

A combination of summary material from multiple D&D guidebooks does not show notability. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the character is in multiple sources and articles shows that it is a noteworthy character in itself. Examples of characters who exist in multiple articles that get their own pages is extensive, including Grima Wormtounge (LotR), the Tholians (Star Trek), and Jesus. You need more evidence of lack of noteworthiness. (talk) 10:04 6 February 2012 (PST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is a worthwhile topic for an article. If consensus goes against that, a merge and redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) would be better than deleting. BOZ (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is written with an in-universe perspective with almost no real-world perspective. The topic does not meet the general notability guideline since there are no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject that show notability, the article relies on primary sources, it has no in-line references and it's mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge probably to Lords of the Nine Hells, which itself needs a lot of work but probably can be sourced to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hobit. A non-notable element of a notable franchise should almost always be upmerged into a larger article. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 11 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) 00:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After Midnight (Time-Life album)[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent sources. Allmusic links don't review or discuss the album at all. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is just one of a zillion compilation albums churned out by Time Life with no indication that it is notable through coverage in reliable sources such as critical reviews of the album. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 7 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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super G.[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No independent reliable sources provided to demonstrate notability of this project. No relevant reliable sources found for Gibson Teo. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without references, it doesn't pass WP:BLP, and so needs to be speedily deleted, as a living person may sue Wikipedia for libel. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. - Whpq (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could almost be an A7, lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:21, 9 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) 00:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gregg[edit]

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

Non-notable Actor Fails WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seem to be a bunch of other (semi-)notable Frank Greggs in the United States, but I can't find a single article on this Irish actor in Google News. --JN 466 01:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . The consensus below is clear that most of the references provided do not rise to the level of WP:Reliable sources.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nemerle[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)

Non-notable programming language. The only hits on Google for this language aside from the main website are blogs discussing syntax and a question or two on StackOverflow. Notability tag for nearly 2 years. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enchanting. It's a one of the best languages for beginner developers to introduce the functinal programming paradigm which doesnt require lots to learn from them. I dont realy got the criterias and investigation methods that driving this article to be deleted. --~~Igor Tamashchuk (talk)~~ — 93.72.234.99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:18, February 8, 2011 (UTC).
Keep. As .NET developer I would say that it's the most promising open-source language for .NET. How could it be non-notable? And it is not dead project since a lot of people (about 30 commiters) are supporting the project. http://code.google.com/p/nemerle/ Please, could you call another .NET language that are not from Microsoft and have bigger impact on .NET community? --Sergey Shandar (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Most promising open-source language for .NET does not imply notability. "Biggest impact other than Microsoft" does not imply notability, for all of the other .NET languages aside from Microsoft's could be non-notable. Reliable sources establish notability. Can you find reliable sources to establish this language's notability? Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than 100 questions in StackOverflow where Nemerle is quoted. --Sergey Shandar (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. StackOverflow is not a measure of a language's notability. Specifically, from WP:SOURCE, self-published sources are generally unreliable.
  - Christopher, it was you who started appealing to StackOverflow Enerjazzer (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pages that link to "Nemerle", about 50 or so, including Macro (computer science), Metaprogramming and many others. --Sergey Shandar (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Number of links on Wikipedia does not imply notability. Reliable, verifiable sources, establish notability. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - May be it is not reliable but you have to think about how you will remove Nemerle from that articles as well. So, you need to go through the articles and check: Does Nemerle contribute something new in Macro_(computer_science), in Metaprogramming and other subjects of computer science? Will the authors and readers of these articles happy about your action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey shandar (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What the hell are you thinking about ? Nemerle is non-notable ? Bullshit ! Man, just check the language http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4561524/f-vs-c-vs-nemerle check the project activity. I say : "Don't do it !" You has absolutely no idea about Nemerle. You ! totalitarian programmer, Take your dirty hands off the project. I like Nemerle and sure you can't believe me. So here are the links you did not found : This user has made few or no other edits outside this topic.--rgpk (comment) 00:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Assume good faith. Project activity does not establish notability. Reliable, verifiable sources establish notability. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OK, I've got the idea. We can start from Nemerle. Then we can delete Pure, Haskell, OCaml, SML. We definitely get rid of Miranda, Clean and Curry. All these languages don't seem to be popular enough on StackOverflow. Come on, how the hell Nemerle is non-notable? This is one of the most popular non Microsoft languages on the .NET platform. And one of the most interesting. Try to finish your education first before deleting the languages that you don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorov2 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Most popular, most interesting do not establish notability. Haskell, OCaml, and SML are definitely notable, as established by reliable, verifiable sources. I'm not sure what your argument is. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Microsoft Research is not reliable for you? Or Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where people can learn something new including programming languages that they've never heard before. And you are not the one to talk about Nemerle reliability as you didn't even bother to carefully check which "reliable sources" for this language are truly available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.24.190 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. No, coming out of Microsoft Research does not automatically establish notability. I could put an article about my own pet language on my personal website and say "Princeton University, one of the most prestigious universities in the world, is not reliable for you?" Logical fallacies do not establish notability, inclusion on Wikipedia does not automatically establish notability, reliable and verifiable sources establish notability. If I didn't carefully check which "reliable sources" for this language are truly available, then please, link some here. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. If materials about your "pet language" are official materials published by Priceton University than this is a notable source according to the Wikipedia definition. Article from MSR is an official material. There are also a lot of articles about Nemerle published in press:

http://rsdn.ru/article/nemerle/NemerleIntro.xml http://rsdn.ru/article/nemerle/nemerleMacros.xml http://rsdn.ru/article/nemerle/SimpleReporter.xml http://rsdn.ru/article/nemerle/Amplifier.xml http://rsdn.ru/article/nemerle/NemerleStingFormating.xml http://rsdn.ru/summary/4531.xml and so forth.

There are a lot of references in press: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Nemerle%22 Nemerle is officially supported by Mono (which I hope is enough notable for you?) Nemerle is included in several Linux distributions Nemerle is not even an academic language, it is used in industry.

All these things does render a language as notable according to Wikipedia standards.

I hope that you have good intentions in mind but what you are doing here is *vandalism*. There are a lot really *interestring* academic programming languages here which will likely fall under your "non-notable" criteria. As a result Wikipedia will loose a lot of interesting content.

I am convincing you to stop playing in this "notability" game. Otherwise we will have to report your actions as abuse - and yes, we will have a notable support for such statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorov2 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Comment. Not at all convincing. Your rsdn.ru links seem to be a tutorial. Your news.google.com link references sources talking about Mono or F#, with passing mentions to Nemerle. Mono is notable, but notability is not inheritable per WP:INHERIT. I'm not sure how "included in several Linux distributions" and "not even an academic language" are arguments in favor for this article. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. "Your rsdn.ru links seem to be a tutorial." (c) Christopher Monsanto. Christopher, be not dishonored. It's articles from Russian computer science Magazine - RSDN Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladD2 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You really want to delete 90% of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:.NET_programming_languages? For what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wguest11 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — Wguest11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. I'm not sure what your argument is pertaining to this article. If you're asking why I want to delete THIS article, it is because reliable sources do not exist for it, and therefore it is non-notable according to Wikipedia policy. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Christopher, please define that you mean under "reliable sources".

Keep. Christopher you aren't right. Nemerle is a new word in a computer science. Nemerle it is widely known in Russia and Poland because developed by Russian and Polish developers. Nemerle has are links from http://elibrary.ru/ - Russian index of scientific citation. User:VladD2 — VladD2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Vote for keep. I presume Christopher has very limited knowledge of .NET environment. In this light his actions looks ridiculous - Mr.Nobody wanna clean language list just... just because! Funny, school-boy behaviour. :) Relax, Christopher Mustardo, there is enough clowns without you. Nemerle is a perspective language which doesn't require attention of _close_to_dust_ people in IT like you. /Vincent Thorn/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.152.250 (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — 196.210.152.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. Personal attacks don't add any credibility to your argument. However, I'm starting to feel like most (all) of the comments on this page are from the same person or a group of friends, which is against Wikipedia policy. I think I've said enough on this page -- I'm convinced there are no reliable sources for this language, and you all are only hurting your case by continuing to berate me here/vandalizing my user page :) Christopher Monsanto (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Vote for keep~~. Person is the one stuff behind stupid, useless actions. No clowns - no problems. Nemerle has not only publications (http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Family-Objective-Concurrent/dp/1155461290/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297187432&sr=1-1 , http://www.amazon.com/NEMERLE-LAMBERT-TIMPLEDON-MARSEKEN-SURHONE/dp/6130909896/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297187432&sr=1-2 ), but also it's a student diploma (what automatically assume publication) and has interest as a sciense innovation (Type inference, Pattern matching - sure, you even didn't hear about it). These sources (not mentioning active Nemerle development) is more than enough to keep Nemerle as one of .NET languages. Wikipedia is a source of knowledge and NOT a place for young students (like you) to play "oh, I'm damn smart, let me sh_t somewhere!", ESPECIALLY when you didn't make even cent to improve Nemerle. It's a huge project, which is bigger than all your code at all. Don't you feel stupid, fighting against stuff 10 levels above your mind?? I'm sorry for your future, ambitious boyscout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.152.250 (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nemerle is one of the most promising languages. Although it is less popular than mainstream languages, it has remarkable first derivative of popularity. (I cannot explain it in English, so I have tried to translate it into math, IYKWIM.) And Nemerle seems to be far better than any other language in .NET family due to it's clarity and expressiveness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.58.51 (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — 109.165.58.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Some links[edit]

If you need more you can search for more. And my point is :

How the hell you can tell about programming languages notability if you really just a student, Hell how much experience about languages you can have to desire what languages should be here ?
So you say it's interesting only for developers and I answer. Hell, yes ! Sure programming languages is interesting for developers ? Maybe for painters ? or for 'housewifes' ? Not man. Programming languages is for programmers.
You say "Covering these languages on Wikipedia makes it harder to find *interesting* programming languages". So what is *interesting* programming languages for you ? Basic ? Pascal ? Oh god ! Nemerle makes it harder to find Basic for you... Poor boy , I am sorry for you !

--nCdy (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC) This user has made few or no other edits outside this topic.--rgpk (comment) 00:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. None of those links are reliable sources. Random slides from a talk? A paper cited 29 times, according to Google Scholar, that isn't even about Nemerle? A directory of all the Mono-compatible languages? Free software package directories (that aren't specifically about Nemerle)? None of these are reliable, verifiable, independent coverage of the subject, and they surely do not establish notability of this language. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Comment. You know what ? There is no point to discuss with you about it. Your answers is not so smart. So all that we can say : Your action is WRONG. And I really don't care what you gonna do, delete all other languages and keeping freaking around Wikipedia. We can not control all goddamn inadequate kids in the world.

--nCdy (talk) 9 February 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked nCdy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for threatening to contact CM's Professor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The language has been noted and accepted by the .NET community. Google shows about 40k search results for Nemerle, Bing about 30k. There are a lot of articles, blogs and discussions about. Are you going to claim that all of them aren't independent? Since the language is open-source and free for both commercial and non-commercial use, all facts listed in the wikipedia article ARE verifiable accordingly to the wikipedia rules. Also, again accordingly to Wikipedia rules, not each and every but only questionable articles should be attributed to a reliable, published source. I don't know why are you going to eliminate this page, but you're making an obvious mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.121.61.192 (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — 78.121.61.192 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Only future will show will this language be popular or no. So we must discuss this language at as many places as possible. It will be better if more and more people will know about this language and Wikipedia can help in it. User:Dvorkinp — Dvorkinp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Christopher, from what I see you are the only guy so far who wants the article on Nemerle to be deleted. A lot of people on this page already voted for keeping it alive. You are definitely not a majority here. Please stop fruitless argument and switch to more important tasks I'm sure you have. Thanks. Enerjazzer (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep. Even though Christopher has produced some valid arguments for his case, I believe this article should be kept. Nemerle is one of the few actively developed languages for .NET outside Microsoft's ecosystem. There are at list two published books that talk about the language, and these are listed on the page. There are research papers published that talk about the language. The page should stay up, as the project is gaining momentum. I'd say, it should stay up for at least a couple more years to see if goes to oblivion or continues to exist. Dmitriid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. The language does bear something new and demanded (consider LISP-level DSL/metaprogramming without sacrificing human-friendly syntax). If one's doing any kind of overview/comparison of .Net languages, they will not want to overlook Nemerle — that is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHamsterson (talk • contribs) 10:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — MrHamsterson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. It's only relevant result for google query "functional macro language for .net". Lisp is more notable, but haven't acquired in 50 years such amount of good libraries. You are infringe the right to choose of .Net developers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvgenyLuttsev (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — EvgenyLuttsev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Nemerle is used in production. My customers should be able to know what's that language which brings the money —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.249.189.2 (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — 80.249.189.2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Multiple books, multiple references. here CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete. I really hate to step back from my usual protectionist deletion attitude, but in this case I don't want the "Christopher Monsanto, you are the only one who wants it deleted" argument to be used anymore here, along with lots of "KEEP"s from RSDN-invited Nemerle fans, who are mostly completely unaware of the Wikipedia notability policy. If this language is indeed notable, the language experts should bother to learn the notability policy and provide the sources. Taught in multiple high schools universities / discussed in reliable sources / covered by multiple printed books from independent authors (I've counted two yet, which barely fits the "multiple") / covered by articles in multiple notable printed magazines (RSDN mag fits perfectly, but it's just a single magazine, with almost every article written by the same person)? Come on Nemerle guys, find a bit more sources, improve the article and it'll stay with you forever! Improve the Wikipedia rather than go personal upon Christopher and cry for admins! Honeyman (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, may be my English is not so good but I know the difference between words "delete" and "enhance", "improve". If the article requires enhancements, there should be another tag. I think if the tag "delete" has been made with false comment such as "only question or two comments on stackoverflow", it is just provocation which is only make people angry.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So isn'it kind of blackmailing, making people to write more and more books and articles to allow them to keep their article? It is strange but it seems you are going personal yourself on Nemerle fans right now. The article is medium good. Though it is still a good playground for future improvements. Their personal attack on Christopher is an expressive result of his own ridiculous actions. Nemerle has books, articles, notable importance and also notable attention from the .net community. These sources ARE reliable. Christopher didn't answer the question about his definition of reliability. Deletion of that article is not only a violation of Wikipedia rules but also a damage to Wikipedia spirit. Voting for Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habilis ⊕ 20:59, 9 February 2011 — HabilisRus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  - No, this is not any blackmailing, this is how Wikipedia works. You write an article and you prove it worths to stay, in such terms that even a Biology freshman understands that this programming article is worthy and notable. Maybe there are lots of books and articles in the wild, but the article itself barely mentions any. The sources may even be reliable, but at the moment there is bordeline little of them mentioned in the article. Maybe some people desperate to keep the article even write more and more books and articles, that would be just better for everybody, but I believe it takes quite a time to book to be published, so it may not be in time for this AfD discussion to close. But at the moment, if the community is great and the coverage is wide, I believe it wouldn't be a problem to find some more notable references and add them to the article. Keep it cool people, nobody here wants any direct harm, even to the poor victim article, people just want the Wikipedia to be a bit better. Particularly, this article to be improved to the minimal keepable level, unless deleted. Too bad it took quite a time and an AfD proposal for it to happen. Honeyman (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just look at the Boo (programming language) article. Does it need an improvement? --Habilis⊕ 04:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - A really quick search gives out this book: DSLs in Boo: Domain-Specific Languages in .NET. Somebody should add this to the references. A couple more of similar references and Boo is safe. Honeyman (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        We give to you two link to Books about Nemerle and many links to articles. For example, here (http://www.rsdn.ru/summary/4531.xml) you can find 4 article about Nemerle macro system (and here http://nemerle.org/wiki/index.php?title=Macros_-_extended_course._Part_1 theirs translation to English). Try to ask author of Boo where he get idea of macros. Further, try to compare features of Nemerle macros and Boo. Note: I has nothing against Boo. I not understand why you discriminate nemerle? VladD2 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Regarding the (assumed) idea of macros in Boo borrowed from Nemerle, that may be interesting but still does not count as a argument to establish Nemerle notability; there are well defined policies how to establish notability and what is a reliable source, and the language design inspiration is irrelevant here (nevertheless I should mention that these idea remind me Lisp macros too much to consider the macro idea unique for Nemerle). But as for the books and articles, seems I have to review these sources for their reliability (after it was mentioned below that the articles were not third-part) and count what we have now. I'd suggest to find more sources while we have time. Honeyman (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd suggest to find more sources while we have time. You know it seems you are trolling us slightly. All you say is "I don't think this is RS" and "I suggest you to find better sources" or "This article should be improved or be deleted". When someone points you to the Boo article, stating that there are plenty of bad articles in a wiki, your answer is just a link to a book. So what? Ohh.. you know, I don't think it is reliable source. Sorry, first of all, please, read wiki notability policy and find some better academical sources... while you still have time. Ha-ha.
        
        You know, there is no way to persuade a person if he is biased. And you are. Since when you got the right to decide that all the existing books and articles are not RS? Your polemic with Monsanto about publishers are quite strange. You shouldn't play reliability game on your own personal perception of publishers, sites or articles. If you and Christopher believe that specific magazines, sites, MSDN articles and other things aren't notable and on the other hand books of a specific publisher are notable, so it is your own personal issue. You are just biasing wiki rules for our own purposes. More of that, you are harming people removing encyclopedic data about notable things. Shame on you.--Habilis ⊕ 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems that most people who participate in the discussion on the “keep Nemerle article” side do not properly understand the roles of AfD participants. As long as the AfD is opened, you should not persuade myself, or Christopher, or any other “delete” voters: they won't perform the actual deletion. It is the closing admin who'll judge the discussion in about a week after opening, and it is the strength of the arguments rather than their amount or involved emotions what matters. It is likely that most of the people voting for delete do not want this article be deleted (for example, that's my case). What they do want indeed, is to find out whether in fact it is notable enough or not to stay; AfD time is the perfect time to all the people involved to realize it, find the proofs for their points and try to make the article better while there is the time before the closing admin comes. It is pretty easy to understand whether the article is notable or not, just apply the procedure using the Wikipedia rules. One does not have to “believe” into notability, the notability is easily calculable. Do you believe into the fact that the number 2147483647 is prime? you don't have to, just apply the usual procedure of primality check. The same with the subject notability and the sources reliability: just apply the usual procedure. Everyone can do that, that's very simple: Chris can do that, I can do that, you can do that before posting yet another “reliable source candidate”. The closing admin also can do that. Do you think that if you post an unreliable source, and neither Chris not me warn about its unreliability, the admin won't notice it themselves? No, the admin will likely be smart enough to spot it themselves, and reject the source. Do you want the article be deleted because it has three unreliable sources, the Nemerle-keepers relaxed and considered that's enough for it to stay (and stopped looking for more better sources), but the closing admin thinks otherwise? No you don't. Me don't. Nobody here don't. Honeyman (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The only one person who crying for admins right here is Christopher itself. What are you talking about? BTW, in case of your awareness about Wikipedia notability policy, can you give us an exactly definition of "reliable source" term? Christopher didn't, although we asked him directly :xz:--Kochetkov.vladimir (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I recall there was a mention of “abuse report” above while I believe no reasonably experienced Wikipedia editor ever considers tidying up the articles and keeping the Wikipedia clean a “vandalism”. Honeyman (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Christopher. As all we are know, you have got an own project "Frenetic" - the programming language which built on top of functional-reactive paradigm as well, as Nemerle supports it 'inter alia'. So, our project is directly concurent to yours one. This is the fact and it's confirming by such notable sources as your web profiles. In my opinion, your destructive activity is looks like very shabby act directed against our project as concurent product. Can you prove an independency and sincerity of your intensions via reliable sources with supporting evidences? Or may be you just pursue one's own interests? Seems like this, unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kochetkov.vladimir (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — Kochetkov.vladimir (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Mentioning “concurrent” (while probably meaning “competitive”), you make it think that Nemerle is a priced commercial system. I'd take back your words at your place, as the Wikipedia notability requirements for the commercial products/companies are tightier than for the free/opensource systems. Which one of the two definitions better fits Nemerle? (it is not clear from the article, and while you are here you could probably make the world better and mention in the article whether it is free and/or opensourced). Also, you are mentioning the functional-reactive paradigm, but while were are discussing the Nemerle article here rather than the pet projects of some Wikipedia editor, you should probably notice that the article doesn't mention in any way that Nemerle supports functional-reactive paradigm, I hope you understand what I mean… As you've mentioned Nemerle as “our project”, I assume you are likely a Nemerle expert who could really help to improve the article rather than chit-chat on the AfD page. The votes won't help the article to keep, the article improvement will. Honeyman (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can think anything you want, but I am spoke to Christopher, not to you.--Kochetkov.vladimir (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Christopher. I'm afraid I have to raise a question about your ban due to vandalism and efforts to discredit the Wikipedia Policies in case you can't explain your activities reason and prove good faith right now.--Kochetkov.vladimir (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems Christopher is discriminating Nemerle purely based on its visibility in English speaking sources. Nemerle is mostly developed in Russia/Poland, so it would be worthwhile for somebody with Russian language knowledge to check notability of Nemerle, which could then be easily assured. As can be seen from responses here, it's a very well-known and active project in Russian/Polish CS academic and enthusiast community. The language needs more English exposure not less and what you are doing runs very much against the stated goals of Wikipedia project. --Novitk (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — Novitk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Since the invention of Google Translate, the Russian sources are acceptable in the English Wikipedia if they are reliable at all (proven during a number of other AfD discussions). For example, the RSDN Magazine articles (which are already mentioned in the article now) quite fit the definition. The only problem at the moment is the amount of sources. Why all the Nemerle fanboys keep coming here and writing unsupported "keeps", while finding a dozen of other reliable articles/books would close the topic forever? If the language is indeed notable, it wouldn't be long to find them. Or is it? Honeyman (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The language is a darling of RSDN (probably #1 CS/IT site in Russia) with a forum dedicated solely to its development and evangelism. It's a practical language at the early stages of development, not a scientific toy. While the formal sources are not numerous, please be aware that the language changed owners/maintainer recently. I would also think the current interest (forum posts and commits) and the weight of the current maintainers (RSDN) should give a clear indication of notability. --Novitk (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being a pet project for a huge CS/IT site, having a personal forum, changing the maintainers frequently, having a 7-digit number of commits and even more of forum posts, containing the interesting and unique language features, giving two millions results on Google lookup for “$insertnamehere$ programming language”, being so promising to expect a first place in TIOBE language rating in a couple of years... I have to remind that neither of this seriously counts for the Wikipedia notability. Assuming a good faith in all the voters coming here and giving these as arguments to “keep”, I truly believe that all of them have read the Wikipedia notability guidelines (WP:NOTE, also maybe WP:NSOFT though one need to pay attention to the difference between the official guideline and the unofficial essay) before voting here, because all the high-profile developers are able to find and investigate the information to defend their viewpoint themselves, so assuming a good faith I believe that all of the irrelevant arguments to protect Nemerle notability which are made by these people after they've read the documents are made because they… err… probably… forgot some of the details. In any case, I would like to mention the WP:NOTE and WP:NSOFT again, together with the WP:AFDEQ and WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD to any people who needs to refresh their knowledge in the Wikipedia processes. Honeyman (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can also mention Nemerle 2 project which is a successor of Nemerle. So Nemerle language is a thriving one. --Habilis ⊕ 03:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article definitely has to stay in Wiki. Nemerle is the most advanced new generation programming language of today, and I am sure it will be the first one that will implement the relatively simple way to develop custom DSLs. People should know about Nemerle and I think Wiki is the most appropriate place for that. It seems to me that you are a programmer. However I think it is strange that you are working on your own “secret” programming language, but you do not understand the importance of what Nemerle is. Chris, I can’t bring myself to believe that you would act in such a primitive way for the sake of competition. For your sake, I hope that the deletion of the article will not be the most “notable” contribution in your life that you will make for programming languages. NoAccountNameAvailable (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC) — NoAccountNameAvailable (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. BTW, why only Nemerle? There is another new and interesting .NET language that people should know about called Boo. Be consistent. Go there and propose a deletion. It will confirm your reputation as the real brutal exterminator of non-notable .NET languages and demonstrate your adherence to principles. If you do not, it will be considered as clear evidence of a strong bias against Nemerle. If you do, you can be twice as proud of yourself. NoAccountNameAvailable (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm at a loss for words. If you all *really* want to piss me off, try finding admissible sources. I enjoy personal attacks, they make me feel important :) Christopher Monsanto (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. So, that's why. This is all simply trolling. Enjoy then. NoAccountNameAvailable (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RSDN Magazine articles should not count as independent reliable sources as all of them are written by the person who is both the magazine editor and the Nemerle key developer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.41.211 (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By your logic MSDN Magazine should not be considered as a reliable source for any Microsoft products. NoAccountNameAvailable (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely they should not be, they are not independent of the subject or third-party. And this is not "my logic" but the well-defined Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.41.211 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of the books and articles about new languages are written by authors or developers of the languages. Regarding the RSDN Magazine, the magazine is an official Russian scientific magazine. It has an editorial board with many experts (professors, PhDs, aspirants, MS MVPs, and professional programmers). RSDN is the biggest Russian community of software developers. So your statements are harmful to RSDN’s reputation and should be considered defamatory. VladD2 (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Martin Odersky, inventor of Scala language, professor of programming methods at the EPFL, mentioned Nemerle in his interview: Ten questions to Martin Odersky about Scala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.83.99 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC) — 213.138.83.99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Notability is not inheritable -- just because a professor says the word "Nemerle" in a sentence does not mean Nemerle is notable. Come on, this is an interview about *Scala*, not Nemerle. Why on earth would this source establish notability for Nemerle? Christopher Monsanto (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professor says his opinion about Nemerle in interview about Scala. It's mean, that he know about this language. If Odersky's opinion is nothing for you, than I don't know what is authority for you. If you need interview about Nemerle, there it is: Интервью с разработчиками Nemerle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.83.99 (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RSDN Magazine sources are enough to meet WP:N. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So, what sources do we have at the moment in the article?

1. RSDN Magazine publications. They are almost perfect for the reliable sources, but seems they are indeed not third-party/independent, as required for the reliable source: they are written by (seems) User:VladD2 who is both a developer for Nemerle integration into Visual Studio (though maybe not the "key Nemerle developer", as suggested above) and the technical editor of the magazine. One article is written by a separate person but the fact that one of the developers is the editor of the magazine really spoils the whole party.

Comment. I'm not author of Nemerle. I find this project in 2006 and write many articles about it. Also articles for RSDN Magazine pass to editorial board which has many experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladD2 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree. According to this logic, if I am an editor of a reliable source and I make a contribution to something I like, then my source automatically becomes unreliable. There is something wrong here. NoAccountNameAvailable (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm afraid your disagreement with the official Wikipedia “third party” requirement does not matter here, for the reasons explained in WP:THIRDPARTY and WP:SPS. But I can give you a contrary example to let you better understand why this requirement is so important. According to your logic, if a full-time columnist in a very popular magazine (say, russian Forbes) and at the same time a chief editor in another popular magazine (say, Afisha-Eda) launches up his own restaurant (say, Ragout) and starts to mention it in every his article in the magazine he contributes to, this restaurant automatically should be considered notable. I should have used some disclaimer like the notorious lie-to-me-ous “* The following story is fictional and does not depict any actual person or event” before my example, but for some reason I decided to omit it. Come on, use the logic of the Nemerle defenders and say, should the Wikipedia have an article on that Ragout restaurant or not? Why? It is covered in multiple articles, it is so blogged about (by that chief editor), many people mention it on the Ragout page on Facebook… Honeyman (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. "Ml Programming Language Family: Ml, Standard Ml, Objective Caml, Mythryl, F Sharp, Nemerle, Alice, Standard Ml of New Jersey, Concurrent Ml" paperback. Bordeline good, cause being a 100-page book covering 10 different languages leads to simple math expression with an unpleasant conclusion.

3. "Nemerle", Betascript Publishing. Perfect source, need more this good ones!

4. MS Research articles. One barely mentions Nemerle, and another is the document from the 2005 workshop. There are lots of workshops, public meetings and conferences going all over the world under the patronage of various major companies, so not every project honored to be represented on one worths attention. Does Deluux startup worths its own Wikipedia page? — but this project was among the ten ones selected by the famous Y Combinator business incubator in 2007. Does (LAX) Logilab Appengine eXtension worths a page? — there was a lecture on it during EuroPython 2008. I hope you get my point.

In total, at the moment we have a single good independent book and 10 pages in another one, and a bunch of articles which are not independent. Nemerle people, if this is all what we have at the moment, why are you trying to impress somebody by the votecount on this page, by the words how great and popular this language is, by the size of the community and other irrelevant stuff, while you should be looking for real good sources instead? If the language is so objectively popular as you assert, why you just don't find a dozen more sources and mention them here? Come on, check the printed "Xakep" magazine, check fprog.ru, check Computerra (while it was printed), check Murzilka (maybe it did have an issue fully dedicated to the Nemerle macro programming, dunno). There should be something, I cannot believe that the language with so fuzz inside the community has so little coverage outside. Honeyman (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Xakep" magazine? You joke? It's magazine for very young hooligan. Computerra: http://www.computerra.ru/offline/2007/676/309151/, http://www.google.ru/search?q=site:computerra.ru+Nemerle&hl=ru&prmd=ivns&filter=0 fprog.ru for the time present is not a real magazine. But it' good idea. I think fprog.ru won't refuse the publication about Nemerle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladD2 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... fprog.ru: http://www.google.ru/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=site:http://fprog.ru+Nemerle VladD2 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VladD2, can you please have a glance at the policies/essays I've mentioned above (WP:NOTE, WP:NSOFT, WP:AFDEQ, WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD, maybe WP:RELIABLE cause it is referred anyway) before further suggesting the various links as the notability prove? This will help you understand why there is no need to mention the articles with just the passing reference to the subject, and you'll be able to find out what is needed to help the article and resolve its current issues. This is not a democratic vote, neither a “mention-as-many-occasional-references-as-you-can” competition, nor a “we are important! — no you are not important!” quarrel, this is the quest for the notable sources. As you are the one of the persons most knowledgeable in the topic, your help to find such sources would be most appreciated. (PS I am really curious why there is still no good article on Nemerle in FProg, as this is a real though-a-bit-twenty-firstish-regarding-publication-form magazine, having ISSN 2075-8456). Honeyman (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://fprog.ru/2009/issue2/roman-dushkin-algebraic-data-types/ ? From the point of view of audience it is no has sense. Most of readers of FProg also read RSDN. I think, you know it. But I we can publish articles and in FProg. What will it change?

Comment. I appreciate you taking the time to make this a reasonable discussion, Honeyman. However, as another commenter pointed out, Books LLC titles are reprints of Wikipedia articles, so they are never acceptable as a source. Betascript publishing also sells Wikipedia articles -- every book by them has the authors "Lambert M. Surhone, Miriam T. Timpledon, Susan F. Marseken, Mariam T. Tennoe and Susan F. Henssonow". They do not peer-review or edit external submissions (not even proofreading). Betascript is an alt. name for VDM publishing -- "VDM's publishing methods have received criticism for the soliciting of manuscripts from thousands of individuals, for providing non-notable authors with the appearance of a peer-reviewed publishing history, for benefiting from the free contributions of online volunteers, and for insufficiently disclosing the free nature of their content." "American writer Victoria Strauss characterized VDM Publishing as "an academic author mill"." In other words, neither of the books listed are acceptable as even sources to Wikipedia articles, let alone evidence of their notability. I don't think Nemerle has a *single* reliable source to back it up, let alone the multiple, independent, reliable sources necessary to establish notability. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher, what you so worry? Your opinion here have already heard. I think that it is necessary to be very prejudiced or not to go into details of question to agree with you. VladD2 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher, thanks for your input. I cannot either agree or disagree with your comments on Books LLC and Betascript, as I have no information about it. Nevertheless, it's the duty of the admin closing the AfD to judge them. I'm afraid most of Nemerle fans here do not get they shouldn't impress us with their persuasion attempts, they should impress the closing admin with the page contents, and personally myself is desperately trying to help them to pre-evaluate their page contribution before the admin decision, rather than insulting their language, themselves, the whole RSDN magazine team and the site community, all the Russian software developers, and the whole humanity on the world.

The best way for the Nemerle fans to treat this AfD is… like a commit into the software repository adding a useful feature but introducing a critical regression issue. You don't blame or consider “prejudiced” the tester who spotted the regression (yourself), you don't try to persuade the release manager (closing admin) to leave this commit as is, you don't assume a person (myself) reviewing your fix is trying to hinder the progress. No insults, no prejudices, no emotions, just a typical technical well-defined process: there is the issue in your commit; you either fix it or rollback the commit, period. Honeyman (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lets some people prove that they are not camels because some others do not believe them. That what makes people angry. Especially after all of these links/articles/books/communities are provided. A lot of articles are not notable by people at all and a lot of think that not in the articles are really notable. IMHO, it is always a set of factors. May be one article is not notable, stackoverflow is not reliable but >100 stackoverflow, several articles, communities, books, references and everything else together ARE NOTABLE. --Sergey Shandar (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP just because it hasn't been published academically, or because the article is low quality doesn't meet notability guidelines. With this said, the article needs work, regardless, my vote to keep in the hope that this AFD pushes someone to expand. Trelane (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While well noticed by those with connection to the subject and a small population of enthusiastic fans (who seem to have !voted early and often here), the Nemerle topic has not been noticed to a significant degree by independent sources. The reliable source material I found on Nemerle is: March 16, 2004: "US computer software giant Microsoft awarded Polish students from the IT Institute of Wroclaw University a research grant worth EUR 25,000. The students will work on the creation of the new programming language Nemerle." and October 2, 2007 "Applications created for .net can be modified and run on Linux, Windows, Solaris and other versions of Unix, and Mac OS X. Supported languages include C#, Java, Boo, Nemerle, Visual Basic.NET, Python, JavaScript, Oberon, PHP and Object Pascal. Mono also supports PostgreSQL, MySQL, Firebird, Sybase ASE, IBM DB2, SQLite, SQL Server and Oracle." That is not enought reliable source material from which to maintain a stand alone article. Delete as failing WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some another sources[edit]

Scientific (non-RSDN) articles which bases at Nemerle, or uses it/researches arround it, or have a references to it:

Domain specific language implementation via compile-time meta-programming (PDF)
E-matching for Fun and Profit (PDF) (Fx7 project, mentioned in article was moved here)
Rocket-fast proof checking for SMT solvers (PDF)
Solving quantified verification conditions using satisfiability modulo theories (PDF)
Evolving a DSL Implementation (PDF)
An ECMAScript Compiler for the .NET Framework Isn't freely avaiable (PDF presentation that can be found is not an article itself), but references Nemerle (check the "References" tab at ACM article's page).
Efficient E-Matching for SMT Solvers (PDF)
Using Dynamic Symbolic Execution to Improve Deductive Verification Isn't freely avaiable, but references Nemerle (check the "References" tab at ACM article's page).
Comparative Study of DSL Tools (PDF)
Edit and Verify (PDF)
Fast Quantifier Reasoning With Lazy Proof Explication (PDF)

Some significant projects, written in Nemerle.

--Kochetkov.vladimir (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have time to check all the sources as I don't have the ACM subscription to access the articles directly from the search, but for now I've found the first article Domain specific language implementation via compile-time meta-programming freely available at the author's page (Laurence Tratt) and it seems good to me: nontrivial mention, the source seems pretty much reliable, 9 citations. Finally we've got something! Will try to check the other sources as well. Honeyman (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the authors of E-matching for Fun and Profit, Michał Moskal, is listed among the early Nemerle contributors on the Nemerle.org authors list, a pity. He is also the sole author of Rocket-fast proof checking for SMT solvers.

Solving quantified verification conditions using satisfiability modulo theories is available here, Nemerle language itself is not mentioned at all (though a link to the http://nemerle.org/malekith/smt/en.html is given as an example of another SMT solver). Just a trivial mention.

Evolving a DSL Implementation is yet another source from Laurence Tratt, see his page, there is a paragraph on Nemerle macro system.

The contents of the An ECMAScript compiler for the .NET framework article seem unavailable in the internet, the only available PDF contains the slides from the presentation, which does not mention Nemerle at all.

Efficient E-Matching for SMT Solvers is available here but it contains just a link to the SMT-related document hosted on the nemerle.org site, considering that a trivial mention again.

Using Dynamic Symbolic Execution to Improve Deductive Verification, yet another proceeding from a workshop available at Microsoft Research. The only mention of Nemerle is among the references, yet another link to the nemerle.org hosted document. Just a trivial mention.

I have nothing to say about the "significant projects written on Nemerle", as I am not aware of their notability or significance, and the links given here do not do the third-party establishment of their relation to Nemerle. Is there maybe any press-release in some reliable news source which informs about these projects and establishes their relation to Nemerle?

In total, we have one (or two, though the second one is vague) seems-to-me-reliable source from the single author. Can somebody add the reference to Domain specific language implementation via compile-time meta-programming PDF to the page? Still quite a little, but today is much much better than yesterday (today we probably have a 1 good source, yesterday we had 0, do the math :) ). Honeyman (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help anyway. I have been added direct links to PDF's and yet another two sources --Kochetkov.vladimir (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The article has no inline citations. Kochetkov.vladimir lists a number of publications (thanks!), the next step would be to go through the publications, look at what is written about Nemerle and update the article with that information. Also, the sources should be reviewed for their Impact Factor and the number of citations. If any of them are peer reviewed, then those citations would have more weight. I looked at Domain specific language implementation via compile-time meta-programming and it has a few paragraphs about Nemerle. The only Nemerle specific citation in that paper is the website http://nemerle.org/metaprogramming, which is not a strong citation. Google Scholar at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Domain+specific+language+implementation+via+compile-time+meta-programming&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart indicates 22 citations, but Google Scholar's citation count is not to be trusted. Citeseer has 8 citations, 5 self at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.147.472 . ACM has 22 citations at http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1391958 . The journal is the ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst, which is presumably ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS). I'm not sure about this journal, more research would be necessary, it may have a low impact factor as it does not have a wikipedia page, which indicates that the journal itself is not notable.

I looked into the two books and the Barnes and Nobel Page for Nemerle says it is a book published by Betascript and that the book contains material from Wikipedia. The other book is also suspect. Does anyone have either book and can they compare the information about Nemerle with Wikipedia? These days anyone can publish a book, so books are losing their influence in notability discussions.

Also, I'd like to caution people about personal attacks. A person called for a discussion about deletion about this article. The article could use some work, especially with regard to citations. Let's assume good faith and try to improve the article. I'd happily consider upgrading my weak delete to a keep if there were inline citations. I believe that the person who called for deletion would be happier if we found publications that had more than 22 citations, so looking over the other citations could yield a citation that has more citations. However, remember that merely adding the citation is not really sufficient, someone needs to read the paper and update the article with facts that are backed up by the citations Cxbrx (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The http://elibrary.ru (The Russian index of scientific citing) has 5 citing of "Nemerle". For example: http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=15235436, http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=12835485 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladD2 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It clearly fails the notability guidelines. Nothing anyone has shown on this AfD has come close to changing that. It's not notable to receive significant, third-party coverage in reliable sources. No, tutorials and articles written by the language's author don't count. No, a famous researcher mentioning it in a slide-show doesn't count. Dozens of angry students who are personally offended by its deletion that they create accounts and try to subvert the community process doesn't count. Glaucus (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I realize that there is a Wikipedia procedure about what it calls 'notability'. I wonder if it makes any sense and if what Wikipaedia calls 'notability' has something to do with notability. I am a non-.Net developer in a large Russian IT-company, in no way related to Nemerle. I recently conducted a tiny poll among my nearest colleagues - only those of them who are non-.Net developers like myself. More than 3/4 of them had at least heard about Nemerle, and many even named some of its features. I am confident that if I had polled my .Net-colleagues as well, I'd have got nearly everyone having at least heard about it. Thus Nemerle is, as a matter of the fact, noted by a large share of people in relevant industry who are not involved in the project. How come it is noted while not notable?

This reminds me of a classical Russian joke about a teacher telling little Vovochka that he shouldn't say 'ass' because there is no such word. 'How come' - replies Vovochka - 'that there is ass itself, but no word for it?'--77.232.15.45 (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I simply don't see enough coverage in reliable sources. You can't win by creating tons of single-purpose accounts and voting "keep". Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just cos it makes a change ;) - no, but seriously, as Christopher has calmly pointed out over and over again (you must have the patience of a saint!), there are no reliable sources to prove notability. Giant Snowman 18:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From my review of the discussion only, the only issue that is less reliably referenced to independent, peer reviewed, sources than the programming language are the opinions expressed upon the character and motivations of the proposer. If any of the accounts above who have indulged their lack of knowledge of Wikipedia etiquette in this manner continue to do so, I shall be revoking their editing privileges. If you are unable to reference the reliable sources correctly noted by Christopher Monsanto as necessary, then it would be preferable that you did not comment. I trust any closing admin will note the lack of specific responses to the basis for this nomination, the paucity of reliable sources providing notability for the subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject of the article does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:N includes this: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Further, it may well be the case that Nemerle is a programming language of huge potential, as a number of commenters above have suggested, that will someday be recognised by such coverage. However, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to predict that, nor is it the purpose of Wikipedia to promote Nemerle (or any other programming language) so that more people find out about it (however noble a cause that may be), as has been suggested by at least one commenter above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as insufficient evidence of notability has been shown. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mythryl[edit]

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

Obscure programming language. I can't find any reliable sources. Additionally, this page has had the notability tag for almost a year. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If something seems obscure to you it's not a reason to delete. Moreover there is a book about this language: http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Family-Objective-Concurrent/dp/1155461290 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorov2 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm proposing this language for deletion not because it is obscure, but because there are no reliable sources that cover it. Anyone can self-publish a book, so "having a book" in and of itself does not establish notability (see WP:RELY). This book has never been cited, as far as I can tell. It doesn't have a well-known publisher. It's not even exclusively about Mythryl. Why would this be a reliable source? Christopher Monsanto (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. OK, now I see there is no point to discuss anything with you. From now on I will consider all your changes to programming languages articles as vandalism. And recommend the rest to treat you as troll. Luckily there is a Wikipedia policy against the trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorov2 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Books LLC, which publishes that book, is an imprint that reproduces material from Wikipedia. So that book cannot be used as a source, or to prove notability. William Avery (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No research has been made about notability of this language by Christopher. --Sergey Shandar (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Rather than accusing someone of trolling it would be of greater benefit to establish notability for the article. As it stands the article lacks "non-trivial" reliable sources. A quick glance of GHits and GNEWS offers no independent, verifiable reliable sources. Sergey Shandar you may or may not be right that Christopher has not done little research on the language, but you offer no support to validate the article's notability. Vorov2 you are right that obscurity when applied by an individual is not a reason for article deletion; however, overall obscurity is. Again, what would be productive would be the application of "non-trivial", verifiable reliable sources.

Shall we all take a deep breath and focus on the article and providing the support to establish notability. This will establish a far better outcome that will save the article from deletion. My best to all. ttonyb (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Christopher, you was add page about language (Frenetic) and it have been deleted with the base "no reliable sources"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladD2 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – VladD2, rather than making unrelated comments, you might want to add some reliable sources to the article. You have not provided any valid reason for your keep comment. ttonyb (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable programming language lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. In spite of community support, no one has been able (or willing) to provide reliable sources for the article. ttonyb (talk)
Delete As Ttonyb1 said, no one has been able to provide any acceptable sources to establish notability. The article has been flagged for quite some time, yet there is still nothing. Also, it should be noted that Vorov2 and VladD2 are essentially SPAs whose overwhelming activity seems to be to oppose Christopher's AfD's. Glaucus (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator was indefintely blocked as the sockpupet of Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Alright (Aurea song)[edit]

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

No pages link to it Toolsavoid e (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close No valid rational for deletion. The fact that no pages link to it would rather a valid reason to add ((orphan)) to the article and not deletion of it. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:41, 5 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) 00:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle GunZ[edit]

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

no reliable third-party publications Toolsavoid e (talk) 20:09, 5 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) 20:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator is a sockpuppet of a blocked userCullen328 (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete - no reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. If there were any reliable sources I'd still be looking to merge to Gunz: The Duel. --Teancum (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and no notability. GunZ Private servers have been deemed illegal by MAIET Entertainment. What's more is this article looks like a vehicle for self-promotion, particularly the superfluous section of "Legend" players. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 18:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Boodeny: Trials of a Hero[edit]

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

Not notable Toolsavoid e (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator is a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Cullen328 (talk) 22:10, 5 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 There's a real Danica Jurčová and she's a notable Slovak actress but this piece of garbage was so filthy it shouldn't even be in the edit history. I've deleted the article, with no prejudice against a real article being created. DS (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danica Jurčová[edit]

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

Not notable Toolsavoid e (talk) 19:49, 5 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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Greer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources demonstrate notability for either her or her work Yaksar (let's chat) 20:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We had an AfD debate six months ago, and the consensus was "Keep". Nothing has changed. A university maintains an archive of her manuscripts. Why debate again? Cullen328 (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The archive is a box of two of her manuscripts, which seem to be kept because she is a published author who is an alumnus of the school--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Abrahams of the Associated Press wrote a profile of her that was published in many newspapers in August, 1969. Cullen328 (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is an article of her talking about being single. I don't see how it demonstrates notability. Nor does it even have an applicable place to be cited in the article, by the way.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be accurate, the article is a profile of an author who wrote a book about being single. Of course, it can be cited in the article, since it verifies that she got media attention (what we call notability) for the book she wrote about being single. Cullen328 (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see 1969 book reviews in the Chicago Tribune and the Hartford Courant. Cullen328 (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then add them to the article and explain how they indicate her notability. Also note that book reviews alone are not enough in many cases.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the previous AFD discussion. Edward321 (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify (and don't take this as an attack on your vote or anything) I nominated this after reading the first AfD, in which all (both?) of the keep reasons seemed to be based around the existence of her special archive, since further investigation showed that this archive was a box of two manuscripts, something a bit less notable than it would seem at first glance.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - her non-fiction book Why Isn't a Nice Girl Like You Married? (1969) was a bestseller and seminal book on feminism. There are plenty of sources already in the article. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep/Speedy Keep. As per the above, and the previous AfD. No need to further waste peoples' time -- can someone please close this? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: every single keep argument in the last AfD was based off the existence of a special archive. At the time, I can assume no notice was paid to the fact that this archive is solely a box of two manuscripts. While that's certainly worth mentioning in the article, it in no way is alone grounds for notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forty-one years after her book was published, Salon.com published an article that quoted Greer's book at length: I'm dancing naked in my Ugg boots as fast as I can, by Janelle Brown, September 10, 2010, Salon.com. What percentage of books are quoted in the popular media decades after publication?Cullen328 (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable, could use more of the existing refs out there added to article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say it, but that's almost verbatim from Wikipedia:JNN.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was not aware of that essay. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:42, 11 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword and the Gavel[edit]

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

Non-notable book. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—The book is cited by works on the Nuremberg trial,[1] among others, leading me to believe it is most likely notable and lacks only suitable sources.[2][3] It is being listed as a source in the The Egg and I article.—RJH (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 19:47, 5 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunderland A.F.C. Reserves and Academy[edit]

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

Contested PROD, reason was: We don't generally carry articles about youth or reserve teams - maybe some mention in the first team article at Sunderland A.F.C. would be OK, but I don't think WP:NSPORTS supports a separate article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, we don't go down to this level. Could possibly merge into the main club article. Ged UK 15:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is incorrect to suggest that these articles are not normally carried. A quick scan shows that Man Utd, Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool, Newcastle, Bolton, Arsenal, Spurs, Aston Villa, Birmingham City and West Ham all have articles on the reserves and academies. Sunderland would make twelve, which is more than half of the Premier League sides. Quentin X (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know it's a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but Category:English reserve football teams disproves the nom's idea that reserve team articles don't exist on Wikipedia. I think the article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am clearly mistaken, apologies - I would like to withdraw this nomination. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:00, 6 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, in this case Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Alice_.28programming_language.29). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- most of the keep votes below either attack the nominator or refer to sourcing that's actually for a different language/environment. It appears that there is not sufficient reliable sourcing to maintain an article on this topic.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alice (programming language)[edit]

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

Obscure programming language. I can't find any notable sources. Language has had the "notability" tag for over a year. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obscure? tried a Google search? This is an important language for students --DeVerm (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. I believe you have confused this language with Alice (software), which I agree is notable! Christopher Monsanto (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks like User:Christopher Monsanto decided to delete all languages he does not understand. I found the language are very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey shandar (talk • contribs) 11:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Assume good faith! I marked articles for AfD that I could not find any reliable sources for. This article is about Alice ML, not Alice (software). Christopher Monsanto (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Assume good faith! I'm trying to prevent accidental deletion of good articles when no research of notability has been made by you. It is based on previous experience with Nemerle marked as AfD by you.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are multiple publications about Alice ML in press: http://www.ps.uni-saarland.de/alice/papers.html including respectful scientific magazines. Please remove the deletion tag or your actions will be considered as vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorov2 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Most of these are tech reports or theses, which are not peer reviewed, and therefore unacceptable academic sources. The other papers are barely cited -- the most is "A Concurrent Lambda Calculus with Futures" with 15 citations, according to the ACM digital library (probably the most reliable source of citation counts for academic CS papers). Even *then* this paper isn't actually about Alice ML... it discusses a new language construct, and presents the semantics by extending the lambda calculus. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple books, multiple references. here Obviously, this person's research skills leave much to be desired. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Most of those are about Alice (software). The others that I can see are academic publications, which are poorly cited by the rest of the academic community. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did not even follow the link... did you? What part of Alice PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE did you not read? CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, assume good faith. Second, what exactly is your argument? There are two "programming languages" named Alice -- one developed at Saarland University (this article), and one developed at Carnegie Mellon (not this article). Most of the "sources" on your Google Canada search refer to the Carnegie Mellon one (not this article). How about, instead of just giving a Google search, you give *specific* sources? Christopher Monsanto (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, a big disclaimer. I am not a computer scientist. I don't really understand quite what it is you're arguing over beyond some sort of notability issue. To that end, though, there does appear to be a specific mention of Alice (the programming language from Saarland Uni) in this book and an entire chapter devoted to it in this one. Does that help at all? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple books, multiple references. Christopher Monsanto is a saboteur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladD2 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking the nominator isn't going to help this article remain on wikipedia - finding *specific* reliable sources that cover the subject will. Note that these sources don't have to be in English - they can be in French, Russian, Hebrew, whatever. A lot of people here are clearly passionate about the subject. If you love it, find the sources. You'll get to keep a better article. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the Wikipedia policy nomination for deletion is measure that should be take *after* careful research about language notability. That is the thing that clearly wasn't done here. Even when the "nominator" was pointed to the multiple publications about Alice ML he rejected all of them without investigation. Taking all these thing into account it is pretty difficult to believe in his good faith. As I understand the Wikipedia policy for the "notability" this single publication is enough to be notable: Trends in Functional Programming (volumes 1 & 2) by Greg Michaelson, Phil Trinder and Hans-Wolfgang Loidl (editors volume 1), and Stephen Gilmore (editor volume 2). Intellect Books, Bristol, 2001, 2002, Chapter 6. Alice through the looking glass. It seems pretty reliable to me. Don't you disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorov2 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment on notability as I'm way out of my depth with anything to do with computer science (although I would not have suggested the books I did if I did not believe that they would help establish notability). Regards Christopher, I know a lot of people are upset at him mass AfDing programming languages. However, it really isn't him you have to convince to ensure the article's kept (although if you can persuade him to withdraw his proposal that this should be deleted, fine). The person you really have to convince is the closing admin. Being able to link specific sources, or even better to include those sources as in-line references in the article (and note that you've improved it here so others can comment), is the way to do this. Simply calling "keep" and labelling him a "saboteur" (as VladD2 has done) is an ad hominem attack and not an argument. It won't help your case. "The nominator is a jerk" is not a reason to keep an article (however true or otherwise it might be). If Christopher hasn't done the careful research he should have done before nomination the best way to point that out to everyone is to find the sources and cite them. Sources have turned AfDs around before. This was one where the nominator decided to mass AfD all the individual episodes of an entire TV series for lack of notability. Reviews were found for the individual episode and the discussion closed as "keep". In the case of Alice, the books may be enough to establish notability, I don't know. But you can never have too many sources. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, in my opinion, the "Alice through the looking glass" source is not good enough. Trends in functional programming is an academic workshop, not a book. I don't know why Google Books is picking it up. Trends in functional programming is a third-tier venue for presenting PL research; it isn't even indexed in the ACM digital library, which is arguably the most reliable database for CS related stuff. Because it isn't in the ACM digital library, it is hard to figure out what the citation count is. CiteSeer, a somewhat reliable source, gives the citation count as 12, not counting self-citations. Google Scholar gives 35 citations, but has a tendency to massively over approximate citation counts. For instance, a famous paper in my research area, has 85 citations according to ACMDL, and according to Google Scholar, it has 289.

The other book is about Oz. It mentions Alice on a single page. I don't count a single page mention in a book about an unrelated subject and a ~12 citation third-tier workshop paper as "significant coverage from reliable independent sources". I have nothing against this language, it just simply doesn't have enough coverage. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trends in functional programming is an academic workshop, not a book... it isn't even indexed in the ACM digital library. Very nice research done. It was published by Intellect. And it is available in ACM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorov2 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uh, "very nice research done": re your link to the "book", "It contains a peer-reviewed selection of the best articles presented at the 2009 Tenth Symposium on Trends in Functional Programming held in Komárno, Slovakia." TFP is a workshop. If some company wants to publish workshop papers as a book, that doesn't change that they are workshop papers. Your ACM link is a pointer to the "book" published by Intellect, not a reference to the actual workshop paper, and therefore we can't get a citation count for just the paper. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets wp:gng: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] ^walk victor falk^talk 23:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is NOT about Carnegie Mellon's Alice. None of your sources are relevant. Since this has happened so many times, let me put that in big letters to warn anyone else contributing to this AfD discussion: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT CARNEGIE MELLON'S ALICE: PLEASE DO NOT LINK SOURCES ABOUT CARNEGIE MELLON'S ALICE! DO NOT LINK SOURCES DISCUSSING AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING ENVIRONMENT, BECAUSE THAT'S CARNEGIE MELLON'S ALICE!!! No offense Victor :) Christopher Monsanto (talk) 00:14, 13 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 as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Mhor Nicoll[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for musicians, and very likely an autobiography by User:Unisolit, too. bender235 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. I removed the two sources that were in the article as they were Twisted Knickers and Stolen Scones published in 1998, three years before the release of the album it is used to reference and Rantin' Pipe and Tremblin' String published in 1971, four years before the birth of Nicoll. With sourcing like that (incorectly dated) and the lack of coverage found I don't believe the claims made. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:18, 11 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) 00:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Irfan Ali[edit]

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

I do not see any notability. bender235 (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nor do I. Maybe in 10 or 20 years time. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progression of the single-season MLB home run record[edit]

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

Just a duplicate of information at the far more complete Major League Baseball single-season home run record. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either a delete or merge works, whatever the community decides on. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd lean towards delete because I don't see a need to save the article history or create a redirect, but I agree that either one works. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Major League Baseball single-season home run record. Technically, this article from 2005 isn't a duplicate of the more detailed one that came along in 2009. The '09 version has more information, but lacks three things that the '05 article had-- which is a source, a short version, and a sensible title. I'm going to go ahead and add the table and the link from this 2005 article into the 2009 article, for the benefit of persons who don't want to get straight to the point without the 1,000 word description. With regard to the title "Major League Baseball single-season home run record", the record is "73, by Barry Bonds, in 2001". Progression of that record is what both articles are about. Mandsford 23:20, 5 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) 00:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Safia Farkash[edit]

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

Effectively First Lady of Libya, but has only a very few passing mentions in the media. This is probably a test of WP:NOTINHERITED, which appears to imply that a First Lady is notable in her own right. The only real information I've been able to find is this, an witness statement by Saif al-Islam Muammar Al-Gaddafi (her son), which if it is accurate would somewhat disagree with a description of her as a first lady ("She is not a public figure in her own right, and she is nothing like a First Lady", para 4). ninety:one 16:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The logic of saying that notability is not inherited is that notability is not conferred merely by being a relative of somebody who is. At least in modern times the wife of a US President does take on a public role in their own right, and gains notabilty from that, but other countries, and wives, have different approaches and the role of First Lady is not to be assumed. It needs to be taken case by case, and her son's comment is probably a good guide. AJHingston (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very tricky to be sure one has found all the possible sources here due to language and transliteration stuff. [14] is a Google translate of a Google cache entry that seems to say she was vice-president of the organization for African First Ladies in 2006, but I was unable to find any other confirmation of that or its notability. There's a couple sentences on her in German at [15]. The Internet Archive managed to snag an article on her meeting with the First Lady of Malta here. A few more small things show up if you include Khadafi in your spellings, e.g, [16]. This is a comment on the challenges of this research, not a !vote. --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 17:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In some countries the First Lady is the subject of significant media coverage, in other countries not at all. (I seem to recall that there was some Soviet leader -- maybe Konstantin Chernenko? -- for whom the American government wasn't even sure whether or not he was married until his funeral.) Libya seems to be in the latter category. This article is only four sentences long, and even those sentences are pretty weak. "She married Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the second." (Fortunately, there has been only one Muammar Gaddafi.) "She worked as a nurse in Al Bayda hospital and fell ill in 1971." (Hopefully she recovered sometime in the last 40 years.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was Yuri Andropov who was not known to be married until his funeral. [17] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 5 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) 00:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Luguya[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 06:27, 7 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.

Einstein: Some really interesting fact about E=mc^2[edit]

The result was Speedy delete per G12 - blatant copyright violation SmartSE (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article ([[Special:EditPage/(({1))}|edit]] | [[Talk:(({1))}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/(({1))}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/(({1))}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/(({1))}|delete]] | [((fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/(({1))}|limit=999)) links] | [((fullurl:(({1))}|action=watch)) watch] | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

See WP:NOT for the many and various reasons to flush this ESSAY WuhWuzDat 14:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious personal essay - an IAR Speedy perhaps? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
Speedy Delete G12 it's obviously not suitable anyway, but it's also a cut and paste copyvio of http://scienceray.com/physics/einstein-some-really-interesting-fact-about-emc2/ which was published a week or so earlier. I'll add a speedy tag to the article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:11, 5 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.

Janet Gershlick[edit]

The result was Speedy delete per G12 - blatant copyright violation SmartSE (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Individual of questionable notability. From a google search she appears to be more notable for being a contestant in a cooking show than being on the radio. The only evidence provided for her notability in the article is for a book she has written, and I cannot find this book in any reliable booklists. Article has been tagged as an orphan since its creation in December 2010. role^player 14:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G12, if the years of broadcasting on notable radio stations could be verified then she might be notable. However, the current article is a cut and paste copyvio of her personal website http://janetgershlick.com/. I'll tag the article for a speedy.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:25, 5 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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howling Bells related media[edit]

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

No need for a page for a bands minor radio, TV, and internet appearances, any relevant info should be split into more appropriate articles Yaksar (let's chat) 14:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unecessary content fork from Howling Bells--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft / trivia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a page full of trivia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 7 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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howling Bells related media[edit]

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

No need for a page for a bands minor radio, TV, and internet appearances, any relevant info should be split into more appropriate articles Yaksar (let's chat) 14:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unecessary content fork from Howling Bells--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft / trivia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a page full of trivia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 7 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 per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Stamatopoulos[edit]

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

Vanity article that totally fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG standards. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm amazed that it's survived 4 years without being A7 speedied. No evidence of notabillity, no citations other than a self written vanity piece. Delete--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources are present to verify the article's contents and the subject's notability. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 17:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Wave supplementation program" is the only actual claim to fame, and a search for this comes up blank other than links back to WP. --WTFITS (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He may have built up his muscles, but he hasn't built up his notability. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 06:29, 7 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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Python Lowracer[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:Notability requirements. Can find no sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Qwfp (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notabillity or citations. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find blogs but not coverage in reliable sources.-- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H113 ABV[edit]

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

Non-notable vehicle; prod removed by author. GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 13:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, not sourced, not encyclopedic, and certainly not notable. KnowitallWiki (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm half wondering if its a Hoax, surely someone hasn't seriously put up an article about one specific random bus named after it's license plate? Utterly non-notable--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, fails the GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 17:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not a notable motorised vehicle. Does this sort of article really need to go through AfD? --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a reasonable case could be made to invoke WP:SNOW--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 5 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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edin Dudo[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NSPORTS. Initial prod was contested because he has played in European competition, but as far as I can tell these are only qualification matches, which are generally regarded as not notable. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Neither the Bosnian League, nor the Iranian second league are fully pro, nor are the qualifying rounds for UEFA club competitions. This player also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:47, 6 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) 00:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Evolved[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Little info here, just not notable enough. Previously deleted at AfD. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no indication of significance, couldn't find widespread coverage. Hopefully this will be the last AfD. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete previous AfD's aren't really relevent as they were both technically flawed. Looking at the article now it doesn't appear to assert notabillity and has no citations either. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks relevant coverage by reliable independent sources. Fails the GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 17:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment UE are still going; the 2nd nom was flawed in that respect too, that they were incorrectly stated to be defunct. Also, one possible reason for that belief is that their home page url, h-t-t-p://r.fm , is for some reason included on a Meta spam blacklist, altho it does not show up on the blacklist list itself, and therefore cannot be added to the article. I have appealed the blacklist inclusion, because the homepage seems to be a stylish and well-managed multimedia site. Anarchangel (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed such a site could be useful, and recent activity could be relevant, but the key issue here is unanimously notability. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 13:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Kulisek[edit]

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

I find no evidence of Kulisek being on permanent display in the Orsay (via their own published catalogue, see [18]), no matches in GBooks or GNews and the only relevant matches in Google appear circular. The article fails WP:V and fails to make a verifiable case against WP:ARTIST. The article was PRODded in 2009 and it was rejected on the basis that sources might be found, however considering the continuing lack of sources it seems unlikely that this will be addressed in the near future. Fæ (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notabillity, no evidence she actually is in the Orsay which is the only thing here that might have established notabillity.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See comments by nominator. I can find nothing about her other than the Sun-by-the-Sea web site. Fails WP:ARTIST. --Crunch (talk) 13:38, 6 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. Davewild (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tonto Dikeh[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability - article fails WP:GNG & WP:ENTERTAINER. The article contains no reliable source which establishes notability. Some of the sources on the article are from unreliable & questionable sources (websites operated by one person, such as nigeriafilms.com, modernghana.com, timbuktumedia.com) which do not have a reputation of fact checking as stipulated by WP:RS. Amsaim (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not well sourced, but she is Nigerian. You can't expect the same coverage as you would of an American or English actress. So, keeping that in mind, I say we should keep. Remove that awful lost of movies, too. This isn't IMDb. KnowitallWiki (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The nationality of the subject of any BLP article is irrelevant to Wikipedia's Content Guidelines and Rules. There is no separate set of rules for American & English BLP articles, neither is there a separate set of rules for Nigerian BLP articles. Wikipedia's Content Guidelines and Rules are applicable to all articles, irrespective of nationality. Amsaim (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The standards are the same, but our abbility (speaking personally as an English editor) to find, recognise and appreciate reliable sources and notability in Nigeian culture is a lot lower than for the same kind of person in our native cultures. In the same way a native Nigerian would probably not know about say a well known US soap opera star or appreciate which american websites are or aren't reliable. So the difference of culture is relevent when looking for notabillity.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A reliable source, according to Wikipedia's definition, has no relevance to culture or place of origin. To determine which source is reliable, Wikipedia Editors do not need to be acquainted with the cultural background of the source, but they need to be fully acquainted with Wikipedia's definition of what a reliable sources is. Sites like modernghana, nigeriafilms.com are not reliable sources, they are operated by 1 (one) person, they do not have editorial oversight, there is no reputation of fact checking. Culture and nationality have nothing to do with Wikipedia's definition of reliability and notability. Amsaim (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point was that as a resident of the UK, I can quickly ascertain if a particular UK source is good enough because they are familar. When looking at another culture I can't and would need to do more digging for each source to assess it. As I made very clear above, I am not saying the standards are any different, simply that it is harder for non-natives of that culture to assess and apply those standards. Therefore caution needs to be shown when non-natives are judging notability and what constitutes a reliable source. I beleive this is what Knowitallwiki was alluding to as well.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:RS does not mention anything about "culture" or "natives". In order to know if a source is reliable, Wikipedia Editors should be familiar with Wikipedia's Reliable Source Content Guideline. Once an editor has understood what WP:RS is all about, s/he can quickly judge any source for reliability. Amsaim (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I've made my point cleary twice and it's nothing to do with the WP:RS policy, if you don't understand what I'm saying I'm sure other editors do. Have a nice day.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, your recommendation in this Afd has nothing to do with WP:RS. The point you've made has been fully understood, and the impression is created as if you bypass WP:RS in favour of your own personal way of determining what a reliable source is. Following your way will create BLP articles of lower standard (because they'll be based upon material found in unreliable sources), whereas following WP:RS will create high standard Wikipedia articles that are well-sourced with references from reliable sources. Amsaim (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        My point works equally well in both directions, a source that looks good to me might in fact not be reliable if I knew more about it (a point I believe you were making) whereas a film I know nothing about might be very notable in Nigeria. Incidentaly, the main thrust of my arugument was not about the particular citations on the article, but the large number of google hits from various Nigerian news sources about this person. I don't know which of those are quality publications and which aren't. Similarly, she has appeared in a number of films, but I don't know which of those are notable in Nigeria. In that position, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to keep as I find it hard to believe that all of them are non-reliable one author sources. That's not to say the article shouldn't or couldn't be improved, but it looks likely to me that she is notable in Nigeria, which is the main point to decide here. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Case in point, this ref http://thenationonlineng.net/web3/sunday-magazine/screen/25456.html looks to be decent quality. From the paper's website (http://thenationonlineng.net/web3/about.html) they assert to be a reputable printed newspaper which to my eyes appears to clearly meet WP:RS. The article itself is focussed on her which supports WP:GNG and it validates that she's been in a number of films which supports item one of WP:ENT, assuming some of those films are notable in Nigeria. But you've stated there are no reliable sources in the article so presumably you know something about this organisation that I don't? --ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has clearly appeared in a number of movies which while not notable worldwide, would appear to be notable in Nigeria. Has received quite a bit of press in Nigeria and clearly has some celebrity profile there. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article from "The Nation", "AllAfrica.com" and "Modern Ghana" would all seem to be reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 7 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) 00:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Wildlife[edit]

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

This is a European environmental organization of which notability has not been established. Its name gives many hits in google (which I didn't check all), but do no give immediately to reliable sources for the organization, addition of search terms like "Noah's ark" (1 of their projects) only gives facebook etc and their own website. Also their own website (www.europeanwildlife.org) has no items/links from reliable sources. I (and several other editors) engaged in discussion with the original author 2 months ago and pointed out the sources should be provided, but that also was unsuccessful. L.tak (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, looks like they might be notable (well they have a nice website), but no citations to demonstrate this despite previous requests and good faith assistance (e.g. when the speedy was declined). As a note, what happened to the talk page? The authors talk page references there being discussions there about why it should be kept, but it's a redlink now? Trying to search for refs is difficult as the phrase brings back all sorts of completely irrelevent stuff (e.g. European Wildlife Photographer of the year), most of which needs to be read to discover its not relevent so difficult and time consuming. I'd like to give it the benefit of the doubt, but it's already had that previously and no improvement has been made. If a decent citation could be found I'd be open to switching to keep.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Worker: It is very difficult to discuss the European Wildlife. Because this organization exists, works and I don´t understand the reasons, why it was proposed for deletion. If you see people, whose "Like it" on Facebook, there are many known European scientists and representatives of NGOs. (I'm sorry if I placed the post in the wrong way, but using of Wikipedia is very difficult for me. I don ´t now, how could I sign this post etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny Worker (talk • contribs) 15:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some helpful pointers can be found on your talk page, or just by clicking on the help link in the left hand menu. The standard the article needs to achieve for notability is WP:ORG, and this needs to be shown with reliable sources. Note that just existing does not give notability. If you would like any specific help in this area please feel free to post questions on my talk page. Since you seem a stranger to wikipedia, and have only edited this one subject, can I ask if you are a memeber of this organisation or otherwise directly involved with them? (e.g. PR agency, etc). If so, you should also review wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interest--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. ^walk victor falk^talk 00:11, 13 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. Davewild (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shin'ichi Morioka[edit]

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

WP:N Can't find reliable, secondary sources to establish the notability of this manga artist. (Actually, I didn't see anything reliable enough to even verify it, although I suspect someone could run the credits.) Only pushed to AfD rather than PROD because sourcing through the Japanese language barrier is tricky. j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 08:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability or citations. Searching google doesn't throw up anything outside of other wikis (and precious little of that). Per nom there might be something lurking out there in another language, but it would need a Japanese speaker to find it and in absence of that its a delete.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing particularly interesting in his current credits, and ~0 useful CSE hits. There may be useful Japanese hits, but in their absence, all I can do is concur with a delete vote. --Gwern (contribs) 20:17 5 February 2011 (GMT)
Delete: unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. J04n(talk page) 20:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This gets no reliable hits, notability issues are at hand here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:46, 11 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. The burden of proof of coughing up reliable sources falls on the "keep" side. But the burden for rejecting them falls on the "delete" side, and they have not sufficiently shown the article to be a hoax. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Lam (physician)[edit]

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

Non-notable artist; I cannot find any significant coverage on him other than primary sources. (He is not to be confused with the DJ of the same name.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this edit summary doesn't help matters. The creator tagged the article as a hoax himself? That's a new one. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From looking at the edit history, I think what he is saying is that he now doubts the veracity of some of the citations he's been provided about this person, rather than saying that this is a wikipedia hoax, if you see what I mean? Per below, I've found quite a few supporting citations, so if this is a hoax its a reasonably widespread real world hoax, not a hoax page. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as effectively a ((db-author)). User:Cigarettesmoking created the article and wrote all the substantive content in it, but they later determined that the article was a hoax, so I see no reason to keep this article any more. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having dug about a bit I've found some refs (parked on the talk page for now), including from Business Week and New Scientist, which backs up stuff like the Asia Society man of the year and various other significant posts. Needs working into the article, but I'd say these establish notabillity fairly clearly. Looking at them, I think he is refered to by different forms of his name than is used in the article, which makes it harder to find refs. e.g. Business week refers to him as 'Dr. Man Kit Lam, Dominic, Msc., Phd' (I found it by searching for the Asia Society thing). Not sure how this sits with the claims of hoax, but they look pretty good sources to me? --ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching under the alt name above bring back a lot more, including this which makes some pretty big claims, e.g. appointed by George HW Bush, did work for the Beijing Olympics, has had his work on Hong Kong Stamps?! http://inano.tongji.edu.cn/Nano_Art/modules/en/jxsz_lwj.shtml email and web address at the bottom match, so seems to be same person?. Very definitely notable if this stands up. If it's a hoax (and given the wide range of stuff indicated it might be) its a very, very widespread one that covers a lot more than just wikipedia. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If all this turns out to be true, I'll withdraw (and rename the article). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's definitely a weird one, I've asked the article author to expand upon why they think it's a hoax. I'm going to see if there is a way to independently verify some of the claims as well, e.g. there must be a database somewhere of presidential medal winners?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence that the information in the article is correct. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment there is plenty of evidence that he is notable, and much of it comes from clearly reliable sources. The question is whether some sort of hoax has been perpetrated on those sources? To be honest, unless there is clear evidence of hoax (which there doesn't appear to be), I'm not sure it's wikipedia's job to take that into account? Wikipedia usually just reflects what the sources say, unless something is obviously false. I think at this stage the article should be kept and if evidence of a hoax emerges it can be re-written or removed.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (copied from talk page) I've integrated the four citations I found into the article, and since they appear to be of good quality I've removed both the OR and CITE tags. I also expanded the timeline section based on the timeline provided in the Inano citation. (this is a pretty close paraphrase in places so may need further rewording).

There is still the question of whether all this is a hoax, as tagged by the article creator? I don't beleive it qualifies as a wikipedia hoax, as the info is clearly cited in reliable sources. The broader question is whether those sources have been the victim of a wide ranging and elaborate hoax? This is very hard to ascertain, unless the article author has reason to beleive otherwise, as was suggested by their edit summary when they put up the hoax tag. It has to be noted that if this is all genuine, Dr Lam is a pretty incredible person, having excelled in art, science, medicine and business! I believe that as it stands, the article should stay as it appears to have reliable sources, I can see no direct evidence of a hoax and if the sources are correct the individual is very clearly notable. This should be reviewed in the light of any future information that comes to light. Note, all of this talk of a hoax is pure speculation, based on the article authors comment. I am concerned that discussing such a hoax may itself become a WP:BLP issue if we are not careful.

I think I might kick this to a wider audience for review, as it's clearly an odd case and I am concerned about potential BLP issues here.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look into this, the less it looks like a hoax. I'm still vaguely wondering if there are two Dominic Lams, one a scientist and one an artist, but I can't see any references that distinguish between them so there's no evidence of that. Having gone to the L'Oreal site and independently searched for and found a reference to him winning the award claimed, I find it hard to beleive that this is a hoax as far too many notable organisations would need to have been taken in over a long period of time. I think at this point he should be treated as the genuine article and the citations valid, unless someone can point to an obvious discrepancy that casts doubt on some of this. In that light I'm going to remove the hoax tag, as I can't see anything beyond an unsourced claim from the article author that justifies it. That being the case, this article is a clear keep as notabillity has been comprehensively established with multiple reliable sources. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should be deleted unless its integrity is totally beyond question, which it does not seem to be. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  - Can you show me that policy? Also, what question is there? On the one side you have multiple references from reliable sources that clearly establish notability, on the other a vague edit summary? --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:21, 9 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) 00:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ishat[edit]

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

Very minor God in the Canaanite Pantheon. Listed already at Canaanite religion#Pantheon, and best left there. Contested PROD. Leave as redirect to Canaanite religion#Pantheon. (Note, I added the info to Canaanite religion after PROD was contested, otherwise would have been a CSD A10). Ravendrop (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if that is all that is known about her. The sentence is already in the other article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source is a personal website, which fails the reliable source guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, no longer listed on that article, addition was reverted through lack of reliable source.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reliable sources, in fact even the blog based stuff is pretty thin on the ground and usually talking about something else or a close but unrelated spelling. Must be a really minor god. Unless a subject matter expert can point to academic work saying otherwise, I can't verify the existence of the God so no grounds for an article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would these[19][20][21] be considered reliable sources? Anyway, if you're going to write off this goddess as apocryphal, you might want to remove the reference to her in the Anat article. N3philim (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know anything about this field, but I would suggest those refs are good enough to support putting the line back into the Pantheon page linked above as demonstrating such a God existed. But as all three just quote the same single line with no further detail at all, I can't see there is anything here to support an article, so this AfD is still a delete for me.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those would count as reliable sources, personal website almost never do. If you want to add those in, fine, I'll change my vote to Redirect with the condition that if more information can be found, then I would support a separate article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Article was already WP:BOLDly redirected to Abel Sánchez. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Sanchez[edit]

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

I can't find anything on this person that isn't promotion from his radio station. Fails WP:BIO notability criteria. Fbifriday (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless third party sources demonstrating notability appear. Hairhorn (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected this article to Abel Sánchez, an article I've just created on the famous novel by Miguel de Unamuno. I notice that there's a few erronious links to this article. Raul654 (talk) 02:20, 10 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) 07:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Montgomery (British Fashion Menswear Consultant)[edit]

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

person of extremely questionable notability WuhWuzDat 06:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:25, 8 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) 07:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Carlos Tenorio[edit]

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

CSD declined by non-admin. 0 G-hits, nothing on google news. Even adding team names of anywhere he supposedly played comes up with nothing. I can find absolutely nothing on this person anywhere. I believe they fail the GNG, but most certainly fails WP:PEOPLE and WP:ATH Fbifriday (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel there is a conlfict of interest, as the article creator's username is Jocate25, with the first two letters of each of the article subject's name being used in order, JOhn CArlos TEnorio--Fbifriday (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:14, 9 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) 07:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Ehrich[edit]

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

1. This page appears to have been created purely to attack the subject

2. The subject himself does not appear to have sufficient notability to justify an article Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this attack page. Not only is it completely biased, but the person it is attacking does not have the notability to justify an article. Qworty (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have removed the WP:BLP violations at once from this article, in accordance with the policy. Thank you for bringing this egregious case to the attention of the WP community. Qworty (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The WP:SPA who is using Wikipedia to attack this living person also recently vandalized the AfD tag [22]. If I see any further policy violations on the part of the user I will bring the matter up at AN/I. This atrocious behavior is not what WP is supposed to be about. Qworty (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. AJHingston (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A magistrate (as opposed to a judge) would have to be the subject of a lot more public discussion and comment than this. Obviously created as an attack page and what is left after the attack components are removed is little more than a CV. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The user who has nominated the article for deletion here has done so twice already. The first time he proposed summary deletion, incorrectly alleging that the article contained legal threats and was libellous. When his errors were pointed out and the summary deletion tag removed, he then again proposed deletion, but when I defended the article on the talk page, the user did not respond and attempt to reach consensus as the Wikipedia policy states, when he was given three whole days in which to do so. Now he has started yet another deletion process, effectively his third bite of the cherry. I submit that this is an Abuse of process. The fact that he has not participated in his own deletion process last time means that he cannot then start yet another deletion process. This new process is therefore illegitimate. That is why I deleted the deletion tag. I ask that it be recognised that this process is invalid and that the deletion discussion be terminated on these grounds.

My reasons for the article being kept are contained on the talk page. I stand by those reasons. Apollo1986 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable.--Grahame (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This process is invalid. As per my point above, the deletion policy states that "Pages that do not fall in the above three categories (copyright,speedy deletion and proposed deletion) may be deleted after community discussion at one of the deletion discussions". Therefore, this process can only be commenced if the process for proposed deletion has never been started. The problem is that has been, therefore it fits into the proposed deletion process (which has now been finalised), and it follows that the result being that the deletion tag was removed, as per policy.

Therefore, I propose to delete the deletion tag and restore the article to how it as before. Please let me know if you disagree with my conclusion that this is in accordance with policy and if so on what grounds. Apollo1986 (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any article can be taken to AfD at anytime. It is not up to the article's "owner" to remove the AfD tag.--Grahame (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, horrendous BLP issues aside, there are no reliable sources I can find that would allow us to construct a verifiable article on Ehrich. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Apollo1986 is completely wrong in thinking that this AfD is invalid. He is also incorrect in saying that the material now removed was appropriate under the WP:BLP policy. I have to agree with Lankiveil, Mattinbgn and others. This magistrate is not notable and the article should be deleted. If Apollo1986 disrupts the process again he should be blocked until the AfD has been closed. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At best a news item. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment obvious that Apollo1986 has a grudge against this magistrate. I would say WP:COI also applies here. LibStar (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication the subject is notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as attack page. although the attacks has been removed, the article subject does not pass WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rock & Roll Show[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Basically a reissue minus two tracks, nothing in Allmusic or anywhere else. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient sources, non-notable album. JacksOrion (talk) 10:07, 10 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 Howling Bells discography. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed Night[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements per Wikipedia:MUSIC Yaksar (let's chat) 05:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Howling Bells discography. Tracks, label, etc. are verifiable and would add to the discography article.--Michig (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 5 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 Howling Bells discography. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cities Burning Down[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements per Wikipedia:MUSIC Yaksar (let's chat) 05:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Howling Bells discography. Tracks, label, etc. are verifiable and would add to the discography article.--Michig (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 5 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 Howling Bells discography. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low Happening[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements per Wikipedia:MUSIC Yaksar (let's chat) 05:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Howling Bells discography. Tracks, label, etc. are verifiable and would add to the discography article.--Michig (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 5 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) 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Augustus Pearson Torrey[edit]

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

Professor that does not give any evidence of notability Yaksar (let's chat) 05:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Profiled in the Journal Aesthetic Education in 1979. Several other reliable sources available as well, which discuss how he influenced John Dewey. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any info on what it actually says in this profile, or even better a cite for it and any notable information it could provide? Also, what are these reliable sources?--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dewey in College 1875-79 by Robert L. McCaul, The School Review, Vol 7 No 4, Winter 1962, University of Chicago Press. Cullen328 (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H.A.P. Torrey & John Dewey: Teacher & Pupil by Lewis S. Feuer, American Quarterly, Vol 10, No 1, Spring, 1958, Johns Hopkins University Press. 21 page article, first page visible online, quotes Dewey' autobiography praising and critiquing Torrey. Cullen328 (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that what is being referred to is Shields, Allan (1979) "Joseph Torrey (1789-1867): America's First Professor of Aesthetics" Journal Aesthetic Education 13:2. Unfortunately, Joseph Torrey was H.A.P. Torrey's uncle. The article does refer to H.A.P. Torrey as Josephy Torry's successor at the university, where H.A.P. Torrey also taught aesthetics (although I'm not sure that it was known as that at the time). There are better sources, though, such as Feuer's article currently listed as a source. - Bilby (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the major teacher of John Dewey, Torrey is notable. Cullen328 if you could, incorporating inforation from that article in the Journal Aesthtic Education would be helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cite that he was a major teacher of Dewey who had a substantial and noticeable impact on him would certainly increase this article's credibility. I have not, however, been able to find any real sources that have described him in any depth yet, however.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source is an article entirely about the relationship between Dewey and Torrey. It is real, and it is obtrainable online at least with access to JSTOR.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article can demonstrably use the information from this text to show significance beyond "he was his teacher," I'd probably be willing to retract this AfD. Having a source that may say he's important does not particularly matter unless this important info is actually in the article. At the moment, basically all of the article is simply biographical and does not allude to the notability. If the section on his teaching of Dewey can be expanded this article may very well meet the standards.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - both the Fleur (1958) and the Dykhuizen (1959) papers provide substantial coverage Torrey, and there seems to be quite a few other sources to build on. It seems he was a significant influence in Dewey's career and early philosophy. - Bilby (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very clear keep in view of Dewey. Strange nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. As well as the nontrivial coverage of him already cited in the article, the Feuer paper describes nontrivial coverage of him in Dewey's own autobiography. This seems enough for WP:GNG to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 7 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) 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edythe M. Abdullah[edit]

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

President of a college that seems to be a very minor institution, does not meet criteria for notablity Yaksar (let's chat) 05:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity piece. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Please note that Dr. Abdullah is currently the President of Essex County College Jccort (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I nominated this page only after reading "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society" at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). I did not think that this college could be interpreted as a major academic institution in any sense.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither General notability nor wp:prof is passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete GNG is not met, and I'm going to be a bit snobby and declare that a 2-year community college is not a major academic institution. Ray^Talk 21:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Mari Chan[edit]

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

~~Unsourced BLP, apparent autobio; can't tell if it's a total masturbatory fantasy or merely poorly written self-promotion. Orange Mike | Talk 05:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Gee, Orange Mike, did you try to follow WP:BEFORE, or are you a conscientious objector against its procedures? When I do a Google News search, I see numerous references in the English language press in the Philippines that demonstrate notability for this artist and songwriter going back decades. What did you find? Cullen328 (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy masturbatory close as per Cullen328. No need to lengthen the discussion. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is silly, he's a famous Filipino singer/songwriter, I don't need to elaborate. TheCoffee (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - but I hope some of you will actually contribute to cleaning up the article, which has been heavily, persistently and obnoxiously edited by a user called User:Josemarichan!!!! --Orange Mike | Talk 03:07, 8 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) 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Harding[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ENTERTAINER, and all of the comments addressed at the previous AfD (which resulted in delete) still apply in this case Yaksar (let's chat) 05:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - for the same reason as last time. He seems to be favored to play Smith by the LDS for their non-notable internal-consumption productions; so what? He might (barely) merit a mention in an LDS wiki, if there is one. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 5 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) 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Lord Ozai (Avatar: The Last Airbender)[edit]

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

Completely in-universe article about a character that, though important to the series, barely appears in it. Very few, if any, outside sources due to the character's scarcity. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 05:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No out-of-universe notability. Fire Lord Ozai already redirects to the list of the series' characters, which already contains sufficient info on the character. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is key information which should have been included by the nominator. Thanks for that, TPH. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH, Sadads (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is written with an in-universe perspective and lacks real-world perspective, it has no references independent of the subject from third-party sources, it does not meet the general notability guideline and it's a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 05:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per various violations of Wikipedia guidelines and policies addressed above. --LoЯd ۞pεth 06:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a feeling a deja vu. Hasn't this article, under another name, been through here before? (I checked the history, though, and couldn't find it at a quick glance.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarique Mustafa[edit]

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

Spam by employee of nexTier Networks, possibly Mustafa himself, about non-notable software figure. Orange Mike | Talk 05:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I am not certain that this person rises to the level of Wikipedia's notability standards, I do think that calling this article "spam" is rhetorical overkill. The subject has been CEO of a moderately important Silicon Valley company, and has considerable achievements. We can decide to delete (or keep) this article without disrespecting legitimate entrepeneurs who really don't need Wikipedia attention to supplement their success. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just an IT CV. Is there anything notable in it that I have overlooked? I also think that the article about the company should be deleted. It's an attempt at getting some free publicity. The CEO couldn't be bothered to pay a photographer to take a decent photograph of himself. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 5 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) 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4th Generation Data Leak Prevention[edit]

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

Seems to have been created by an employee of Next Tier Networks to advertise their "solution". My first impulse is simply to delete it as obvious spam, but I don't want to be overhasty if there's anything salvageable. Orange Mike | Talk 05:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence that anyone else assesses data leak prevention technology in terms of these four "generations". Zetawoof (ζ) 23:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DLP is a worthy subject but splitting it into four generations this way is, I think, strictly a method of selling a particular product; and the text goes into details of the specifications about one product rather than covering the generalities of this "fourth generation". I'd be happy with an article that considers modern DLP techniques under a more neutral title, but this isn't it. bobrayner (talk) 03:34, 11 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) 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Festivalism[edit]

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

This article was prodded with a rationale of "huh". While I understand why Ron Ritzman chose to decline the prod, I hardly see why this is a notable concept—it seems to just be a summary of a single graduate student's world view. NW (Talk) 03:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a WP:Neologism or WP:OR as I can find nothing mentioning this term in detail that wasn't written by, or connected to, David Boje. Ravendrop (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suppose a prod rationale of "Huh?" might be taken as facetious, though I personally think it was sufficient unto the article that exists. However, as noted, this seems to be one editor's term for a worldview that is not established to be notable or even shared by anyone other than the article creator. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravendrop. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seeing that I just punched this delete, I feel a little silly. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please don't feel silly, Ron Ritzman. Though this may be a noble concept, it is also, unfortunately, a neologism and original reasearch which lacks reliable, independent sources that discuss the topic in depth. The references offered are controlled by the person who coined the term. Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above and per WP:MADEUP. From this experience I have learned that I don't have the same kind of "cruftdar" as many other editors do. To me this just looked like another article on another nutball philosophy. However, when I pointed this out on IRC, 3 other admins instantly knew that the article needed to go. Therefore, I guess "huh?" is as good a rationale as any to those for which such things are instinctual. At least NW has demonstrated that a descriptive deletion rationale is possible, even for such an obvious case as this.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel S. Stein[edit]

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

While there are a few hits on the internets for this subject, I'm going to propose he's not notable enough for inclusion here. The article is a BLP nightmare (check the history, and see where I removed false accusations and unverified claims to fame), and I just don't think Dan-E and whatever else he's responsible for is that notable. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything about him that meets WP:BASIC. He's a cosmetic surgeon in Florida. Even his own website, http://www.steinmed.com/ , on which he claims he is the "best cosmetic surgeon in Tampa, FL" offers nothing additional to pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:PROF. --Crunch (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, delete He is trained as an OB/GYN but his career is in cosmetic surgery - things like face lifts, eyelid repairs, liposuction etc. Many of the claims in the article are not supported by the references. He claims to be a "member" of the American Board of Laser Surgery, but the reference lists him as merely a certificate holder, not a member of the governing Board. He claims a past association with the University of Florida, but the reference provided is self-referential. Google News Archive [23] turns up mainly instances of people suing him. Amazon [24] lists his book but doesn't name any publisher (self published, ya think?) and ranks it somewhere below three millionth in sales volume. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this WP:SPAM. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best source for this article is a local newspaper that describes a community business award won by Stein, i.e. a "Tampa Bay Business Journal 2008 Health Care Hero" award – clearly not enough. Most of the rest of the "sources" are not WP:RS, for example his website. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:35, 7 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: consensus for keep. Persistent coverage after the event [25], per wp:blp1e. Non-admin closure. ^walk victor falk^talk 01:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Maier[edit]

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

Jeffrey Maier is not really anymore notable than anyone else who interferes with a ball. The story is an interesting one and appropriately belongs in articles about that playoff series and perhaps articles about MLB Instant Reply Lrusso99 (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1996 American League Championship Series. Classic BLP1E as it stands now. Blueboy 96 04:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Maier has been the subject of multiple articles about him both at the time and since. Not possible to insert information about Maier's later life, his work for ESPN and tryouts for major league in an article about the '96 ALCS. And notability does not expire with time.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Incident section should be in 1996 American League Championship Series, what he has done since is not notable. If not for his 1E, we wouldn't care about his attempts to play professionally or his other work. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rewrite as needed to be more in line with the also-infamous Steve Bartman incident. The persons are not notable as such, just the action and its fallout. In fact, Bartman technically didn't even interfere with the ball. Maier did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E says, "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." I believe Maier qualifies on that basis. Ma^t_chups 03:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although I suspect that "we wouldn't care about his attempts to play professionally or his other work" if not for his 1996 event, the fact is that sources continually do care about and write about his activities, regardless of the reason. Rlendog (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Because the New York Times has many alumni from Wesleyan University Jeffrey Maier has continued to be exposed to a national audience well past the 1996 indicent. So to whatever O's fan called for this deletion take your passive-aggressive chip off your shoulder and go home. You lost, deal with it.Sturmovik (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's really not constructive. I'm a Yankee fan and I'm calling this BLP1E. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 11 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) 18:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helena von Schantz[edit]

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

Unelected, non-notable local politician. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Politician Snappy (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HJ, subject is not notable. l'aquatique[talk] 02:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable small-town official. Blueboy 96 04:07, 5 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) 18:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana and the brain[edit]

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

This articles violates various Wikipedia policies - i.e. original research, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTESSAY,.. This article looks like a doctorate thesis to me and not like an encyclopedic article. The subject of the article is already discussed in length in a multitude of other articles like effects of cannabis and long-term effects of cannabis. Spatulli (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copyright violations- I found out that part of the article is an exact copy of an external website : http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1808 . So I guess there are also some copyright issues here. Spatulli (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to Effects of cannabis#Neurological effects. I don't see a need for a separate article at this time per Wikipedia:Content forking. -Atmoz (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Let me begin by noting that the article was created by a group of students as part of a university class project, and we ought not to be too cavalier in handling such things. I agree in principle that the material should be merged, but this should be done by somebody with a thorough understanding of the topic. The article certainly has problems, but it contains significant material that is not in the Effects of cannabis article and gives plenty of sources. I feel that it would be better to leave the article alone than to hack and slash at it -- but the best thing would be for a proper merger to be done. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is so heavy with persuasive rhetoric, that all the sources would need to be carefully read and evaluated, to see what the authors really meant. After that: decide whether they are good representative studies. Then decide which articles, each snippet might be squeezed into (providing they survive the preceding steps). Moreover, just because this essay contains material that the other articles don't have, this is not the same thing as saying: the other articles are in need this information. Therefore, the effort of a lot of the experienced editor's analysis will be wasted for every snippet that eventualy turns out to have no where to go. Then, reconstruct the sentence structure and syntax as to be NPOV..... Phew! Writing a good article is a bit like building a house. One doesn't start by going out and buying an assortment of used doors, windows, septic tanks , etc, and then trying to assemble them into an aesthetically pleasing and practical home, whilst all the while hoping that it complies with all the local regulations. Rather, one starts with definite plans and sources materials to suit. Trying to savage something from this article will just soak up valuable time from experienced editors that would be better invested elsewhere. --Aspro (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First off, this article isn't about Marijuana and the brain it's about the Effects of cannabis - it includes coverage of its effects on behaviour, pain, anxiety etc... Also, it's full of POV. Take the sentence in the lead "Despite cognitive, social as well as neurological evidence to the contrary, the existence of marijuana addiction and conversely marijuana dependency has been disputed and it is not as of yet included as an addictive disorder..." Merging a poorly referenced POV-pushing article into a good exisiting article is likely to be a time-consuming and unrewarding exercise. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:45, 5 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) 18:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bad Religion concert tours[edit]

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

Useless article, it lists only the dates and names of the tours and each of them doesn't even have an article. Wikipedia is not a fan site, so I request this article to be deleted. OttoBR (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The nomination was incomplete - the AFD tag had not been added to the article. I just added it.--Michig (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is already a similar list in the Bad Religion article. There's no justification for a separate article but this list appears to be more complete. I would suggest merging into Bad Religion to replace the existing list.--Michig (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though I created this article four years ago, there's no reason to keep it anymore and besides, the tours are listed here. I even agree with OttoBR that Wikipedia is not a fan site. Alex (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and request of the original creator. Carrite (talk) 20:08, 5 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) 18:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jose E. Sanchez[edit]

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

This article has been WP:PRODed twice and yet it still violates WP:RS, WP:BAND, WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:BLP and WP:SPS. It has survived with a misused ((newpage)) template which has kept us at bay for a while. Note that the primary editor has been warned about the need for improvement of the article on his/her talk page and the article talk page.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any reasonable third party sources establishing notability - an audition for the Blue Man Group does not make one notable. This is thinly and badly disguised vanity and spam. If the main editor can bring this up to par with reference to the nominees concerns I can change my mind. Probable WP:COI here as the talk page of the main editor refers to "my IMA championships" as being relevant criteria for establishing notability. --Quartermaster (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I am the editor and contributor for the page Jose E. Sanchez and I apologize for not complying quicker. I was unaware that this page existed, thus not responding sooner. I understand my page was not notable, but as I have stated before, it is still pending third-party resources that have been requested from outside sources months ago. My Blue Man Group band audition may not be notable, but my hour-long performance at Warped Tour (national tour), and legit state championships should be considered. The IMA is a major competition in Illinois where the state's best musicians perform pieces and judged by a panel. I do not have online resources because the IMA did not have a website until just recently, but I have hard copies of documents that I can scan if needed. No one seems to want to positively guide me to bring this page "up to bar" and I believe TonyTheTiger is harrassing me by giving me "hours" to prove myself. I believe that conduct is means for report and I won't hesistate to do so. I am not here to make enemies. I have stated before that I want to contribute as best as I can, but like I said, no assistance from anyone. Please do not get me wrong and insist I am just spamming, because I am not. Jose Sanchez 17:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC) User:EXI — Preceding unsigned comment added by EXIx2 (talk • contribs)

I have suggested that you userfy your page until you can properly document notability. I have not been harassing you, but rather warning you that ((newpage)) is not suppose to be used as a shield for mal-sourced WP:BLPs. Yes, I gave you a 72 hour warning before AFDing this after you challenged two WP:PRODs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:OWN and WP:COI regarding wikipedia policies regarding ownership of pages and conflict of interest. I think one of the reasons you are not getting any assistance on "your" page is that nobody else finds you particularly notable. Your notability may change over time, but right now there is nothing that exceptional in my opinion. --Quartermaster (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (still). Sources used to cite tenuous notability are still deficient. And, auditioning for the Blue Man Group backing band is STILL not impressive). One of three "awards" listed is 1995 Cicero Boys' Club (CBC) basketball, first place? This is an article about a musician. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:47, 6 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. No sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenan (son of Noah)[edit]

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

Original research, only primary sources. Kenan does not appear by name in the Qu'ran, and, apparently, there are no secondary source saying that the son in that passage is called "Kenan". For context, see WP:ANI#Seeking_3_month_topic_ban_for_User:Imadjafar. Enric Naval (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Kenan is simultaneously "mentioned in the Qur'an but is unnamed". A clear oxymoron. Doesn't make any sense Someone65 (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's no question that this is a figure discussed in the Koran; it's mostly the name and some of the details that are disputed. We actually do have some lengthy articles on Biblical figures with a similar situation, such as Saint Dismas - a Biblical figure of some significance who is given no name in the Bible, who has a traditional name and biography originating from outside the Canon. Likewise with the traditional names of the Biblical Magi, and with other material we cover that originates from the Golden Legend as opposed to scripture. The naming issue here is of the same character as these, and ought not to be a bar if it is not in those cases. Having said that, this article is sorely in need of real sourcing, and in particular of secondary scholarly sourcing rather than quotes from scripture; while I dispute that the reason listed in the nomination is sufficient, sources must be found and added in order for the article to be genuinely supportable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavia immer (talk • contribs) 18:50, 2011 January 28

Keep and (of course) improve, if only because minor characters in notable stories are usually deemed worthy of articles. As stories go the story of Noah is just about as notable as they come. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters are kept if they have RS talking about them. Star Wars is very notable, but many of its minor characters were merged in List of Star Wars characters. The mother of Anakin was merged into Skywalker family (relevant AfD) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Anyways, if it's kept as a minor character then it should be renamed. Anyone got a good idea? I can only think of Son of Noah in Islam). --Enric Naval (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Methinks, as the article currently stands, with no source reference for the name Kenan (since the Qu'ran does not mention the name), the title of the article could be something like The illegitimate son of Noah in the Qu'ran. Otherwise it will be an illegitimate article about an illegitimate son. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of now this article has nothing in the way of sources to prove that it is notable. I have found very little (in English) that uses the name 'Kenan' to reference the unnamed son of Noah in the Qur'an. There may be (and I believe likely is) material relating to him in Qur'anic commentary, but the article is in dire need of an Arabic speaking expert in the area. Unless sources are added, due to WP:V, I think this will have to be deleted. And as a side note, the mention of him in the Qur'an doesn't satisfy WP:V as it does not mention him by the name in the article. Ravendrop (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any Arabic-fluent participants on Wikipedia who can verify if Kenan is mentioned in Arabic language references? Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did a search for "Noah" on Greek Google and got the names of three sons as Ham, Shem, and Japheth. No Kenans. Also get the same names on Google.com. I've worked out where the "Kenan" name comes from. Ham is the father of "Canaan". I suspect that the Islamic transliteration is "Kenan". That would make sense. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 03:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Clarification You are confusing persons, and making connections where they don't exist. The person in question of this article is Noah's son. The Qur'an makes this very, very clear (see Sura 11:41-46). Islam does not have the exact same characters as the Christian/Jewish Biblical traditional story of Noah. Yes, in the Jewish/Christian tradition Noah's son Ham had a son name Canaan, but that is a completely different person to the one in this article. The name of the person in this article is not mentioned in the Qur'an, but rather is (from my understanding, though lacking the reference we need as the sources are all in Arabic) a later Oral tradition addition. Ravendrop (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect with a new article called Canaan (grandson of Noah). i.e. include mention of this Quranic transliteration of Canaan's name which appears to be "Kenan". Also, he isn't the son of Noah. He is the grandson of Noah. Noah's son Ham had a son called Canaan. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 04:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (see above also). Unless you can provide reliable references for this 'error' in transliteration that you claim, your proposal is entirely WP:OR and is not valid.Ravendrop (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Undecided~~ I have not suggested that there is an "error" in transliteration. On any search on Google the names Canaan/Qinan/Kenan are noted as common transliterations. I will also note a coincidence. In the Bible, Ham had an illegitimate son called Canaan/Qinan (from Hebrew)/Kenan (from Arabic). The Qur'an says that Noah had an illegitimate son but gives no name (the Bible doesn't mention that son). However, it should be noted at the top of the article "Not to be confused with Noah's grandson Canaan/Qinan/Kenan". However, I also note that the Qu'ran does not mention a name for the illegitimate son of Noah. Whatever the source is that gives Noah's illegitimate son the name Kenan must be disclosed. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with you completely then. Anything unreferenced at this point is just pure speculation on our part, and therefore violates WP:OR. Ravendrop (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Completely unsupported article. There are no sources and the ones provided are falsified, because none of them supports anything. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 23:40, 7 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 Ex post facto law. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In mitius[edit]

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

This is a dictionary definition. It is an orphan, cites no other sources, and the current content of the page is about as much as can be said about the topic. Thus, I see no rationale for keeping this page. Nat682 (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ex post facto law which links to this article and requires some explanation of the term. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per CW.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 7 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khairul Khalil[edit]

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

With greatest respect, Mr Khairul Khalil appears to be a relative, but possibly not part of the royal family, of His Majesty, Hassanal Bolkiah, current Sultan of Brunei. Notability is not inherited. In the alternative, this article fails the test for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable enough, and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Tooga - BØRK! 14:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is married to a daughter of the Sultan of Brunei. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:05, 5 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) 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M'Balia Marichal[edit]

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

Mexican singer of minimal note - as yet not wikipedia notable -perhaps redirect to a notable band she has been in or to a hit record she has had. Off2riorob (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. SanchiTachi (talk) 22:06, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kefalianos[edit]

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

This article falls short of WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO standards. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a notable bodybuilder. Have added a number of references to the article which prove notability. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do these references meet WP:RS guidelines? Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which references do you think do not meet the guidelines and why? The IFBBpro.com and Bodybuilding.com references are probably the best. Are you concerned about the Greek language references? They are all independent citations. None are pointed to the bodybuilders' own website. Probably the least good references are the part-time specialised bodybuilding radio station and the local island newspaper. But they are both independent of the bodybuilder. Although I suspect that everyone at the local newspaper will be fans. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 04:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Bodybuilding.com site appears to be fan-driven. The IFBB site just mentions his placement in competition - there is no significant coverage of him. Most of the Greek-language sites appear to be amateur media. The fact that Mr. Kefalianos has never won a major tournament would also call into question his alleged importance within this fringe sport. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some portions of Bodybuilding.com are user created, others aren't. The articles and bios are rendered by employees, not users. Look at it as similar to the IMDB. Items like trivia or goofs are not considered RS because they are user generated. Items like producer, cast etc are reliable because they are produced by the site. The IFBB site, which is a reliable source, shows that he is not only a professional, but has competed in the sports equiv. of the Super Bowl. That easily puts him past ATHLETE.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just the fact that he ranked joint 16th at Mr. Olympia is notable in itself. He is the best bodybuilder in Greece, one of the top bodybuilders of Australia, and by ranking at Mr. Olympia he is a globally notable bodybuilder. Bodybuilding is not a fringe sport. Arnold Schwarzenneger is probably the best known bodybuilder. There are bodybuilding clubs all over the world and there are many kinds of competition. Michael Kefalianos has competed at the blue riband event of bodybuilding at Mr. Olympia. Have added more references to the article and there are many more available on the Internet. He is not invisible on Greek Google. Tagged for rescue. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 18:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Sorry, but the subject is far from notable. Real problems with WP:RS. I am uncertain if he qualifies for WP:ATHLETE. SanchiTachi (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^communicate 22:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The relatively reliable sources mostly only contain stats and such, no significant coverage. The rest of the sources don't appear terribly reliable to me. SnottyWong ^communicate 22:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "relatively reliable" sources are in fact reliable sources that are backed up with other sources. We are talking about a bodybuilder and bodybuilders tend to be extensively photographed instead of extensively written about. I think that this individual qualifies for WP:ATHLETE because he ranked 3rd in the 2009 Australian competition which automatically qualified him for a Pro entry to Mr. Olympia and WP:ATHLETE. This individual is extensively photographed. If you take a look at the photographs in the references you can see that this is indeed a notable individual. Any bodybuilder who ranks at Mr. Olympia is notable and that bodybuilder specific rules should be accommodated within WP:ATHLETE for ranking athletes at Mr. Olympia (which is the equivalent of the bodybuilding Olympics). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Qualifies for WP:ATHLETE no question. Just found another international tournament that he came 1st in in Germany in 2008. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, WP:ATHLETE is not exclusionary [[26]]. Whether or not you consider that Michael Kefalianos meets WP:ATHLETE he is still an exceptional athlete who is being sponsored because of his exceptional ability and who has come 1st in International Competitions (against Professional Bodybuilders) and has qualified as a professionally recognised IFBB pro bodybuilder. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As little time as I have for ATHLETE, I don't see how it can be argued that he fails it, given that Mr. Olympia is the highest level of the sport. The real question is whether he passes the GNG. The depth of coverage here is a lot better than for the typical half-a-dozen-games Football League player, so I see no issue there either. —W F C— 03:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with WFC and per Μιχάλης Κεφαλιανός ο Κορυφαίος Ελληνας Bodybuilder Translation: "Michael Kefalianos the top Greek bodybuilder." INews.gr, 17 June 2010. This guy is called the top Greek bodybuilder and we want to delete his article? Further, bodybuilding is not usually covered by the mainstream media so the reliance here is more on specialist websites and other trade publications. Given the inherent coverage constraints of Greek bodybuilding as a whole, the existing sources provide adequate evidence of notability. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is a professional. That is verified by the IFBB website. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to House of Anubis#Main Cast. Redirecting on the suggestion from MQS. However, with one "keep" vote this falls just a little short of a consensus so consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Simon (actor)[edit]

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

unreffed (IMBD does not count), unencyclopedic, prob. not notable Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- pablo 13:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- pablo 13:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~Delete~~ without prejudice per WP:TOOSOON#Actors. Short career[27] and the youngster has no coverage (yet), but as the House of Anubis series is only "just" released and is itself finally getting press, when he gets some himself we might consider a return... but WP:NotJustYet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably right. Or perhaps just redirect to House of Anubis#Main Cast for now? pablo 00:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A redirect serves just fine until such time if/when this actor merits an inpendent article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Also starred as Gerald Durrell in My Family and Other Animals, a significant British drama series. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May well have been, however Simon was in the TV film, not a drama series. pablo 19:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - I'd forgotten it was a one-off drama and not a series (although I'm sure I remember it being shown in more than one episode). However, the point is still valid. Focusing on a single role as above just because the article says it's what he's "best-known" for (which often merely means the creator is a fan of that particular film or series and doesn't know the actor for anything else) is a mistake. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I don't put much stock in anyone's opinion of what someone's 'best known' for.^diff But Michael's point that Simon has had little coverage (ie there is little to be found that discusses him as an actor) is a valid one; google +"eugene simon", +"My Family and Other Animals" for some reviews for instance; not a lot there. I suggested House of Anubis as a redirect because that's current; looks like it may have some run left in it, and a redirect means that this (albeit tiny) article can be retrieved from the history if and when needed. pablo 20:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 5 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) 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TSO Restoration Project[edit]

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

Non Notable Company (notability is attempted in article so it fails CSD). One outer source, however the rest aren't reliable. Dusti^*poke* 04:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only third-party source is from an unreliable blog. --Teancum (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bsisith[edit]

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

Obscure programming language; can't find any sources. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No-references, no search results. Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't provide any information beyond that in List of BASIC dialects. Google hits seem to be nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. --Carnildo (talk) 02:19, 11 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) 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poetrywala[edit]

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

FAILS WP:ORG. Non notable publishing house.Wiki is not for advertising.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 22:36, 7 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. Davewild (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ming C. Lin[edit]

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

Associate editor in chief for an IEEE journal, professor. Impressive, but I don't think it quite establishes notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:CREATIVE. Qworty (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The nominator and Qworty need to re-read WP:PROF, because it's very obvious that she passes criterion #C5. Aside from that, with Google scholar citation counts of 1592, 618, 355, 309, etc. (skipping the 456-cite paper that appears to be a different MC Lin) she also passes #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep on arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep on #C2 - she received IEEE VGTC Technical Achievement Award 2010 and #C8 - she is the Editor-in-Chief of IEEE TVCG. Wedit2011 8:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Good points. I have updated the article to state that she is EiC. And of course, even just one of these criteria would be sufficient reason for a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep Ray^Talk 21:06, 8 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. DeVerm's !vote is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cullen328's !vote has been refuted enough for a slight consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XE166[edit]

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

Non-notable product, reads very close to advertising. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It's just advertising. Zero notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert provides no evidence for notability. Edison (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Electronics Weekly published an article about this family of devices on November 15, 2007. Many other electronics publications have also covered this product line. Lack of references in the article does not mean that references do not exist. They do, and the solution is normal editing to NPOV language, not deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spam Electronics Weekly and similar mags just reprint product announcements. EEng (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Electronics Weekly is a reliable publication going back decades with professional fact checking and editorial oversight, published by a company with a long and respectable history. Calling it "spam" is inaccurate and unfair, in my view. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said this article is spam, not E.W. Jeesh! EEng (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Infinion is a Siemens spin-off company with 43,000 employees; they really don't need to create advertisements or spam on WP. This article is about a microcontroller just like PIC microcontroller. Deleting this article would be the same as deleting an article about a new Intel CPU etc. --DeVerm (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Breaking the Habit. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the Habit (video)[edit]

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

Undiscussed split that goes against all precedent in articles about music singles. The video for a song essentially never receives a stand-alone article, basically under the consensus that it is undue weight to one aspect of the single. The only exception to that I can find is Michael Jackson's Thriller, and I don't think this even begins to approach the level of independent notoriety that that video has. My efforts to redirect this article back to Breaking the Habit#Music video were reverted, so here we are at AFD. Since the material in the main article is quite sufficient, this extraneous article should be deleted and a redirect installed in its place. —Kww(talk) 14:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I do not think the article falls within the scope of WP:ANIME. – Allen4names 20:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It gets ample news coverage. Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, and the first of the three results that appear goes into detail about it. [28] References are in the article pointing to different news sources also. Dream Focus 01:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a high-profile music video and it definitely should have its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.115.154 (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any well sourced info from this can and should be put into the music video section of the song's page, and this should be deleted. This page defies all precedent; as discussed by the nominator, only the most notable music videos (such as Thriller) need to have articles separate from the song itself.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete Music videos are only given their own articles in exceptional circumstances. Very, very few have their own page. Tis one certainly isn't notable enough for one. KnowitallWiki (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Dream Focus 16:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 5 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) 18:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011 lahore bombing[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Yes it has coverage in the news. However short-term coverage does not prove or imply long-term notability.

WP:EVENT states that "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." This is unfortunately the umpteenth bombing in Pakistan in the last couple of years and this particular bombing has nothing that makes it more notable than the many others.
To further quote from WP:EVENT "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." This particular bombing is very unlikely to receive any attention once something new comes along. Simply put: While the attack should be noted on a list of events of the year or a list of all terrorist attacks of the year, it is simply not notable enough on its own. Travelbird (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "this particular bombing has nothing that makes it more notable than the many others" - yes it does; it happened in Lahore. Mar4d (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Definitly needs a complete rewrite and expansion. But notable event.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment How ? Why ? Travelbird (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At the moment we have two keep votes with the reasoning "it happened in Lahore" and "notable event". We really need a bit more for this to pass an actual notability test! Travelbird (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. However, this information does need to be preserved somewhere in which the context can be seen, and the solution is better organization. Although this is not individually notable, the pattern of bombings that have occurred in Lahore is notable, and should be tracked in a single page. Sad to say, suicide bomb attacks and mass killings have been taking place in Lahore frequently, once a month or more in 2010 [29], 2009 [30], and on back. Ideally, there should be an up-to-date, well-sourced and informative repository for this ongoing series of terrorist attacks on civilians in Lahore, Baghdad, and other places. Without somewhere to place that information, people contribute individual articles about events as they happen-- in this case, a bombing, but we've seen the same with earth tremors and airplane incidents, each one with the myopic perspective that it's never happened before. There are some that stand out from the pattern of misery, such as May 2010 attacks on Ahmadi mosques in Lahore. For the most part, however, events of this nature are part of a series of tragedies. Without a framework, it comes down to an "all or nothing" choice for individual events, and usually ends up as the latter. Mandsford 23:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal I completely agree. Any suggestion for such a page. I'm having difficultly finding one as this isn't really a campaign by just one group or in one area (such as the Waziristan problems) so the scope is a bit difficult to determine. Plus Bombings and terror attacks in Pakistan in the 2000s and 2010s doesn't sound all that great so we need someone to have a better idea for a name. If we do find a better name we should link it at other pages such as 2010 in Pakistan to pre-empt the creation of further news-type articles. Travelbird (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with the above commentors. At this point its best that some sort of list be created so that the important data have some sort of home here on Wikipedia.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete relatively minor attack. usable info should be preserved in List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan since 2001--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above comments. This incident is already covered in List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan since 2001 better than it is here. There's nothing to merge; if some scholars in the future explore all of these attacks in depth, than notable incidents can be split off from the list article. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:05, 7 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber-Duck[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. It is a company with 18 employees that won some awards. So what! Ok, it may meet WP:COMPANY but that just means that our notability guideline is set too low. If we let this one remain we will get all sorts of otherstuffexisting and WP will turn into a business directory rather than an encyclopaedia!. Delete it and change WP:COMPANY to prevent every CEO and market department setting up an article about their company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is notable as shown by plenty of references and Alan Liefting concedes that it meets WP:COMPANY. If Alan thinks that our notability guideline is too lenient, then please gain consensus for a stricter guideline before nominating such articles for deletion. Don't put the cart in front of the horse. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said that it may meet the notability guideline. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They're a "digital agency", and I gather that they've made websites, but I still have no idea what they make or do here. This kind of evasive description is typical of spam. At any rate, there's no indication that any of the petty trade awards they've listed equate to the sort of historical, technical, or cultural significance of the kind that gets you remembered in encyclopedias. ("When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.") So no, it doesn't even meet the current notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems like a case of WP:ITBOTHERSME to me. While they may or may not be advertising on Wikipedia, they have won awards for their work. Criteria in WP:COMPANY is non-existent, so it's hard to say whether or not it does or doesn't meet that criteria. Credible news coverage, awards....sorry, it stays in my opinion. --Fbifriday (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Notability_of_commercial_organisations. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petra Ecclestone[edit]

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

Appears not to pass WP:NOTABILITY for WP:BIO. Non-notable fashion designer is not made up for by being the daughter of a notable person, the later of which seems the only reason for inclusion Trident13 (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently she has her own successful label of menswear ("Form") that she sells through Harrods. How is that not notable? --Hegvald (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It did sell through Harrods - label was closed after 14months of operations. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Regardless of the reason for her fame or infamy, she has received continued coverage in major newspapers as evidenced by the sourcing present in the article. My own search shows that there is lots of coverage like this and this. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reliable sources such as The Guardian and The Mail indicate she passes the general notability guideline. There are also lots of other possible sources online. Please read WP:BEFORE. I don't care if she's cynical or not, rich or poor, and a genius or talentless, but she is surely notable. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. I added information about her viral meningitis attack and charity work from The Times. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 8 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 Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. WP:UNDUE emphasis on the Canadian aspect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo[edit]

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

My initial prod was disputed, so I'm bringing this to full AFD instead. The core issue here is that fundamentally, this isn't so much an encyclopedia article as it is an exercise in public service journalism; the article's creator readily admitted on my talk page that they created it in response to an online debate about whether the Canadian business community should or shouldn't divest itself of natural resources investments in the Congo. What the article fails to do, however, is to demonstrate that "Canadian mining companies operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo" actually constitutes a uniquely encyclopedic class of thing that's identifiably distinct from what other countries' mining companies are or aren't doing there; instead, the point seems to be to collate original research into a journalistic source that can inform and contribute to an active political debate in Canada. Which, admittedly, is a valuable project to take on — but given that we're an encyclopedia, not a public journalism hub, Wikipedia isn't really the place for it. I still believe it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author may have a point of view, but the article largely avoids that issue and AfD isn't the place to deal with NPOV issues anyway. Certainly, the subject of this article is a detailed topic, but I don't see a huge distinction between this and a hypothetical article on, say, Democratic Republic of the Congo-Botswana relations. It's somewhat esoteric yes, but it doesn't seem unencyclopedic. Furthermore, WP:OR doesn't prohibit research; we do research all the time when writing articles. What it prohibits is research not backed by reliable sources and synthesizing sources to make a point. I don't see either happening here. The article doesn't set out to prove a point; it sets out to describe Canadian mining interests in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. To the extent that it does prove some kind of point, that's an NPOV issue that can be addressed through editing. Zachlipton (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is synthesizing sources to advance a point not already established in existing research: the idea that "Canadian mining companies operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo" constitute a distinct class of thing, with a unique and distinctive context as a separate topic from the DRC's mining industry as a whole, that warrants independent attention in an encyclopedia. Saying that we need a separate article about this, essentially, is like saying that red M&Ms constitute a distinct topic, warranting their own independent article, from other colours of M&Ms. An article on mining in the DRC, absolutely. Maybe even a separate omnibus article on international investment in DRC's mining industry. But the fact that some of the companies that are doing it happen to be Canadian doesn't make those companies a distinct topic from the ones that are American or the ones that are British or the ones that are French, because there's no properly sourced evidence that they're doing anything differently than other countries' mining companies are. It's dividing the topic on a distinction that isn't relevant to the topic's encyclopedic value. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Zach - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, what is salvageable minus the POV issues, to Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the governmental Canada/Congo relations to that appropriate page. I agree with the nom that the article doesn't prove why Canadian mining companies/issues in the Congo are notable enough to have their own page, when they can just as easily be covered on already existing pages (that have slightly less NPOV issues). Ravendrop (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the amount of purely factual content in Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, wouldn't such a merger pollute Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo with too much information about Canadian interests? Such a merger would have to strip most of the content in order to avoid giving undue weight to Canada, so a merger would essentially be a de facto deletion. Canadian mining in the DR Congo is apparently notable enough to produce 25kb of readable encyclopedic prose with copious references. Zachlipton (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my disagreement with this, is that most of the info on the page is useless/unencyclopedic anyway. For example, the entire Canadian & Multilateral Public Investments section as presented in tables, the quotations section, most of the listing of the extremely detailed info of what compnay bought what and did with what when in terms of mineral exploration, etc. Ravendrop (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am a mining correspondent, specialising in Africa and I found this rather an interesting read. I fail to see how the information contained is "useless" or represents someone's point of view or constitutes original research. If any content with in the article is judged to be one of these three things then why not simply remove it, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater and deleting both good and bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.54.90 (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The core inclusion criterion for Wikipedia content isn't whether it's interesting, but whether it's encyclopedic. And I never said the information was "useless", either; I said that Wikipedia isn't the right place for it. There's certainly a place for this information on the web — Wikipedia just isn't it. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Wikipedia is not a directory. The tables found throughout the article and the links to random mining companies in the Minerals section don't need to have their own encyclopedic article. I feel that the article has a definite POV against these mining companies (even if it is a deserved POV). I think it's interesting to note that Canada as a whole is not mentioned once in the article, Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Seems to be a fringe topic. Nomader ^(Talk) 06:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There is nothing about Canadian mining that is notable enough to merit its own topic on the subject. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 17:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. SanchiTachi (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while impressive, this article appears to consist mostly of original research. I'm not saying an encyclopaedic article on the topic can't be written, if it can be shown that this is a notable concept; but this is mostly just a directory of information gathered from primary sources. Robofish (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's been easily sufficient news coverage to merit an article per wp:n. Article as of now may need wp:cleanup, which AfD is not. ^walk victor falk^talk 01:35, 13 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) 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Seeberger[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS (has tennis records but they, being at NCAA Division 3 level, fail WP:Notability) Mayumashu (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The subject of the article fails notability criteria for tennis. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Harrison[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject of the article fails notability criteria for tennis player, as a junior player, who wasn't ranked in the top 3 and never won junior Grand Slam event. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all reasons above. Just cause his someone's brother doesn't mean his notable KnowIG (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely fails notability criterion Bill william compton (talk) 13:18, 7 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) 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AudioFile (TechTV)[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable tv show. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was unable to locate any coverage in secondary sources beyond a trivial mention. --Pnm (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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