< 31 December	2 January >

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) 01:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Martial Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

How this poor article has survived so many AFD's is beyond my understanding the only third person sources available only have trivial mentions of the organisation which do little or nothing to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I see little substantial mention of the AMA - it just appears in listings, mirrors of this article, and other organisations that mention an affiliation / competition in passing. I did find one adequate independent source, have added a ref to the article just in case others think it should survive... bobrayner (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the independent sources that show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Added to the correct dated log on 04-Jan-2011. Jarkeld (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until keep arguments and evidence presented in the 2nd nomination are addressed. --Abd (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes no real claims of notability and has no independent sources. The only notability claim I see in the previous discussion is that it's a large organization and that's insufficient for notability. Astudent0 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe a case has been made that the organization is notable or that the article is reliably sourced. Papaursa (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In a brief search for sources, I did not find anything to suggest that this subject is, in itself, notable. Janggeom (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the nom the first time, I didn't, and still don't, see the notability. Like Bobraynor said above, listings and mentions, but nothing substantial. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:38, 8 January 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 as redirect, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure RoninBK _{T C} 19:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gynophagia[edit]

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

Considering the meager results of a Google Book search, here, I can only conclude that this is not much of a word. The OED concurs. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I was going to speedy this one straight away but sadly a Google search confirms this is not a hoax. However the article is completely insufficient and the topic is well covered at Vorarephilia already. Can we pile on and WP:SNOW this quickly? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was tagged on this AFD because, years ago, I apparently moved the article from Gynophagia to the "gender-neutral" Vorarephilia. It is on AFD because, in the last day, someone has created an article there without references, links, or proper writing. This should be speedily closed and simply reset back to my edit of 2007, redirecting to vorarephilia. --Golbez (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know, didn't look closely enough at the edit history. I have removed today's material and restored the redirect - I know it doesn't work because of the AfD tag but I felt it was worth it to get rid of that text until this AfD is closed. I didn't feel I could close it myself as I feel too strongly about the material. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To any passing admin: I concur with the arguments above, but since I nominated it and it hasn't run very long I don't want to close it. Please do as you see fit: the redirect is perfectly fine with me. Thanks, and thanks to the editors who weighed in, Drmies (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Golbez's note made me realize that the 'real' creator had not been properly notified, though they should be aware of this AfD--they edited the article after I nominated it. I left a note on their talk page, if only for form's sake. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 2 January 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) 01:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaoxiong Daode Temple[edit]

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

Is this temple notable? Nothing I see indicates that it is. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've not been able to find any significant in-depth coverage of the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. No Gnews hits, the 3 GBooks hits are all published mirrors or Wikipedia, and the site linked in the article appears to be dead. Edward321 (talk) 00:14, 8 January 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) 01:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Blake III[edit]

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

Non-notable "up-and-coming" actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Claim to fame is "Demon Spirit #2" in a nn film. Should be a CSD candidate. ttonyb (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless more work is done, this article probably qualifies for deletion as a non-notable blp. As a side note, this was a speedy delete (a7) candidate. I chose not to delete it because for A7 specifies that no claim to notability exists- in this case such a claim did exist, ergo no speedy delete. l'aquatique[talk] 23:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's arguably a speedy as WP:SPEEDY for A7 includes the condition that the claim for notability be a credible one, and this isn't really a credible claim. But since it's here at AFD, we might as well cross the t's and dot the i's. There is absolutely no coverage of significance in reliable sources to establish notability. There is no indication that his role as "Demon Spirit #2" has won him major critical notice or awards. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. A7 might be a stretch as it "does" kinda make an assertion of importance (and an A7 assertion is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability)... its just that in the light of more stringent notability criteria, the assertion fails. Short career fails WP:ENT, "Up-and-coming" fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSICIAN, and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:27, 5 January 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. Will userfy or incubate upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian provincial Acts[edit]

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

Subject is better served by existing categories rather than this list, which is terribly incomplete; it doesn't even list NB, NT, YT or NU, and shows nothing for SK, NL and PE. Article was prodded, which has been contested. PK T(alk) 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More in the nature of a directory of unrelated items, rather than a useful list. Better served by a category. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Skeezix1000's comments. Also, as commented elsewhere, this would have hundreds of entries, at least, for any one province, and a better title - worth considering for a category - would be something like "Acts of provincial governments of Canada" or "Legislation of provincial governments of Canada" (not all are Acts, I think, as doesn't an OiC have to go through the Legislature before it's a capital-A "Act"?). "Canadian provincial Acts" seems very awkward.Skookum1 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. It's potentially viable but would be too long in its current form, covering all Canadian jurisdictions. A list of each Act for each State would be a better way of doing it. Ideally every piece of legislation in every jurisdiction would have an article explaining the history and effect of the legislation. Lists like this (or broken down into jurisdiction-specific lists) would then be viable. But WP is a long way from being there. Userfy it to see what the creator can manage. Expansion not deletion is the preferable course but this is just too far from viability at the moment to sit on the mainspace. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's news to me that Canada has "States", but aside from that gaffe, there are simply far too many such Acts to be viable as any kind of list; Skeezix is quite right; this is far more viable as a category.Skookum1 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Provincial categories would be more appropriate. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:03, 2 January 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. Tone 12:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Watchmen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GROUP. No reliable sources to demonstrate non-trivial coverage Goodvac (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is two (2) direct newspaper articles/web links not reliable sources?? Johnthewatchman (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Midnight Watchmen" doesn't even appear in [1]. Goodvac (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though they do appear in the DVD you are correct that they are not listed in the link. I will correct that. I still say that ur above statement of sources are in accruate sounds as if all the sources credited are wrong, when its just one that needed to be corrected. Johnthewatchman (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both [2] and [3] are published by Bucks County Courier Times, which is based in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Bucks County is the setting of the news report, which thus constitutes local coverage. Is there any wider coverage of Midnight Watchment? Goodvac (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put because the articles were also published online which means its global as well, in your thought process. As they are accessible anywhere in the world to read. Johnthewatchman (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it was published online doesn't mean that it is not a local source. There are no sources from elsewhere—outside of Buck County. The fact that no other sources exist means that this group is merely of local interest: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." Thus, Midnight Watchmen does not meet WP:GROUP. Goodvac (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial coverage doesn't meet requirements of WP:ORG. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage is local only -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 5 January 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. Tone 12:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Wrestling Federation[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 21:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 21:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 21:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regional organization which has gained no notability; per a Google News search it has never been mentioned anywhere except the non-notable publication Indy Wrestling News. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 7 January 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) 01:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Steam Railroad[edit]

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

Prod removed with no improvement. No 3rd party sources that address the notability of this organization. Gbooks and GNews hits refer only to the generic "American steam railroad" or to an early 20thC "American Steam Railroad Company". Fails WP:N. Tassedethe (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a rail fan, I wish this organization well. However, I've searched using every combination of key words I could think of, and was unable to find reliable, independent sources necessary to show notability. Cullen328 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Their choice of name means that searches for sources turn up lots of false-positives. I haven't found any relevant wheat among the chaff. bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete, per Cullen328, although I've searched for better categories to replace with red ones, for what it was worth. I thought there would be a category for railroad preservarion organizations, but I couldn't find any. Before it is deleted though, I want to save the article on a word file, just in case there's ever a reason to revive it again. ----DanTD (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. --Polaron | Talk 19:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable organization. Should also think about deleting the Frisco 1352 article; it's non operational, nor on display. I wouldn't call it a notable preservation case. I'm not even sure if I'd call it preserved at this point.oknazevad (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd be more willing to keep that article, but the indivdual category ought to be dumped. How many locomotives have their own categories, really? It appears that ASE wants to preserve the Frisco 1352 locomotive. ----DanTD (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Admrboltz (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article on the locomotive. Mjroots (talk) 14:05, 5 January 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. Tone 12:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next American City[edit]

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

spammish article about a non notable publication WuhWuzDat 20:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and was simply trying to update Next American City's page -- I don't understand why this entry merits deletion. It's a serious magazine and a simple trip to americancity.org would give the administrator plenty of reason to maintain the page. Why do this? It's an important publication for the urban policy world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardandlorimer (talk • contribs) 21:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree it is a little spammish, but that warrents cleanup considering how many references there are that are from good primary sources and the number of magazine awards, Sadads (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The publication has been noticed by mainstream media sources and has received several minor-to-moderate awards. The New York Times article alone should confirm notability. I have to wonder what the nominator was thinking. --MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 7 January 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) 01:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hopkins[edit]

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

Unremarkable second-division media personality with no substantial references and nothing that establishes notability. Biker Biker (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oops. You can see facebook page in the reference links. There is no points I could find other than a simple TV presenter's life. Soewinhan (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nom says all. Dewritech (talk) 18:18, 5 January 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. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hop model[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Videogirls

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

Blatant personal opinion. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic; I don't see how personal opinion fits into it. Any problems with the article should be resolved through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the talk page you will see that some suggestions have been made but nobody is quite sure how to do this. If you want to tag for rescue then go ahead. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there probably is a subject in here somewhere but it is rather hard to say exactly what it is. I don't think Hip Hop is part of it but there probably is something to be said about the use of models in music videos more generally. I don't want to !vote Keep given the poor state of the article and the fact that nothing much happened to improve it after the last AfD. I will start off neutral and switch to Keep if anybody can come up with a good suggestion for sorting this mess out. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [or merge to Sexuality in music videos ]: topic appears to have garnered little (if any) depth of coverage that "address[es] the subject directly in detail" -- just its occasional usage as a label. In fact it would appear that "hip hop model" is used more frequently as 'other band that this hip hop band models itself upon' or 'style/format of hip hop' as the eye candy that this article is describing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update !vote per comment below. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. The news media uses this term, so it is a real thing. Dream Focus 11:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but many (most?) of the uses are in a different context to the one described in the article, e.g.: "break-dancing for the camera, Talib was reenacting a prescribed hip-hop model" "But Nelly's St. Louis -- Nellyville -- doesn't quite fit the hip-hop model." "Tony puts it down to the use of Ableton, which means that rather than working from “one basic beat and building off it” (the standard hip hop model)" "He threw it all away because he bought into the self-destructive, immature, hip- hop model of 'keeping it real.'" "Yet the band's hip-hop model remains Run-DMC"
And even where the WP:GHITS you alluded to do use it in the article's context, the coverage does not "address the subject directly in detail" -- it simply calls somebody a "hip hop model", and then goes on to discuss other stuff, more important than that superficial, ephemeral label. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest not to get too hung up on the specific phrase "Hip Hop Model". I think that is not the right name. The real question is whether there is a notable subject here and, if so, what it actually is and should be called. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was once called Videogirls but that AFD ended with them renaming it to Hip hop model. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Videogirls. Why not just list models who got famous for appearing in music videos? Alicia Silverstone's career really took off thanks to the Aerosmith videos she was in. Of course sometimes people are famous before appearing in music videos. What do you call those who appear in music videos, just to "sex it up?" Heather Graham got coverage in the media for her work in a Lenny Kravitz video. [4] Perhaps rename the article to List of famous people who have been in a music video to flaunt sex appeal. It is a notable and well documented aspect of the music video industry isn't it? Got famous before or after the video appearances, but got coverage for being in the music videos. Dream Focus 02:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: based on the discussion above, the related topic that is most likely to have garnered coverage that "address[es] the subject directly in detail" would appear to be Sexuality in music videos. I'm fairly sure that that topic will have garnered some coverage from sociologists, marketing theorists, etc about its effect on society, how "sex sells", etc. (Oh look -- it already exists.) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^converse 17:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sexuality in music videos per Hrafn. Doesn't pass WP:GNG on its own, and the merge target could use more content. SnottyWong ^converse 17:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If VH1 determined that the subject was notable enough to produce an entire documentary on the matter, it should not be that difficult for Wikipedia to come to the same conclusion. -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, when did Wikipedia redirect WP:Notability → VH1 (is the latter even a WP:RS?) And how is "sexploitation on the set" not part of Sexuality in music videos? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even remotely close to what I'm saying, (and I don't appreciate the reductio ad absurdum). My point was that there is an article to be had here. -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then be clearer about what you are saying. And whatever your "point" may have been, your evidence points to an article over at Sexuality in music videos, not here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:43, 7 January 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. Keep, nomination withdrawn. WP:N has been satisfied (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 04:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Hyperion[edit]

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

Cannot find third party reliable sources that talk about it -- should probably be merged into HarperCollins, if sources can be found. If sources can't be found, should probably just be deleted for now. Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but move to Hyperion Books). Reasonably prominent publisher which has been in existence almost 20 years. [5] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Metropolitan90. Here are a couple of Los Angeles Times articles about the company[6][7]. Lots of other sources out there (almost 2,000 hits at Google News Archives[8]).--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -- As nominator. The LA Times/NY Times articles clearly satisfy WP:NOTABLE. Sorry -- I don't know why nothing came up for me when searching. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan,Sadads (talk) 02:01, 2 January 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. Tone 12:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards receive by ABS-CBN[edit]

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

Listcruft information. This is obviously created by ABS-CBN fanboys. Article has been nominated for WP:PROD but an anon user removed the prod tag with no explanation. If I may add, the creator of this article (User:3Dnoy) has a history of creating listcruft articles about ABS-CBN. WayKurat (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —WayKurat (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the fact that ABS-CBN is a major network in the Philippines and probably receives awards every single day for something, probably even unsolicited trophies. You can say the same for CBS, NBC, ABC, BBC, ITV, Network Seven, Channel Nine, NHK, NTV, RTL and on and on and on...this is really not needed at all as the criteria is absurdly too large for any sense of a maintainable list. Nate • (chatter) 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW and withdraw of nomination (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 22:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unst Bus Shelter[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a bus shelter. Bus shelters are in general extremely non-notable. This one appears to be a little unusual but even so there are no references to confer notability. There is already coverage at Unst but author reverted a redirect to that article. Delete per WP:N and WP:V. I42 (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added four refs (two from national newspapers in the UK and one from Canada). Can find more if needed, probably. Peridon (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new refs. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 18:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The vast majority of bus shelters are non-notable. This is among the small minority that are notable, based on the references added to the article. Cullen328 (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominated for AfD within 30 minutes of article creation [9] and it seems WP:BEFORE was not adhered to. The refs indicated passing WP:N. The "per WP:V" is curious as a topic only "fails" WP:V if it is unverifiable, which is not the case with this topic.--Oakshade (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. Look again at the article history and see WP:BEFORE point number 4: "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article". I redirected to Unst where the topic is already covered in greater detail; I did not - and still do not - see any point in fragmenting that article. However, the author of this article contested the redirect, and only then was the AfD raised. WP:V is appropriately cited: the article contained no references. See especially WP:BURDEN within WP:V. Note that despite WP:BURDEN I did Google for some suitable sources but none were easily found (the BBC page which is referenced on the page now did turn up but it is a blog; it is not suitable for use as a reference and should be removed again). I42 (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE also states in point number 9: "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." It took me less than two seconds of a g-news archives search to find several reliable sources establishing notability - [10][11][12] and including that BBC article you claimed wasn't "easily found" [13] You've completely misunderstood the basic concept of WP:V. It's about verifying the content, not notability, of articles as opposed to using original research. We have WP:N to address notability. A topic doesn't "fail" WP:V if there are currently no references but if the topic is unverifiable in that it's impossible for reliable sources on the topic to exist, ie a bus shelter on Mars and a Wikipedia editor claiming he's a Martian writes an article about it. A famous bus shelter in the Shetlands is easily verifiable. You jumped the gun on this one. --Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered responding, but we are straying away from the subject in hand and towards personal comment. This is not the place. Let's draw a line under it and agree to disagree; it's fairly clear which way this AfD is headed anyway. I42 (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands#Articles listed for deletion. --Ben Mac Dui 09:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was going to go straight for my delete button, but this bus shelter has defied expectations and been written about. Might be a case for a merger to Unst, but that's firmly in the realms of a merger discussion rather than a deletion debate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK 2.4 "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". The nomination tells us that a redirect was preferred but redirects are a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't count that as a speedy keep. My reading of 2.4 is that this was for cases where there's a dispute over what's in the article and the party who doesn't get their way going to AfD, rather than a disagreement over whether there should be an article at all. I can't see why dispute resolution would be a more appropriate course of action in this case, and it's illogical to insist on a completely different forum just because someone suggested leaving a redirect where the article was. Yes, keep is the correct outcome here, but this was clearly an AfD debate where participants were entitled to their opinions. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen328. One of the most well-known Shetland eccentricities and hard to imagine anything like it would survive long anywhere on mainland Britain. Ben Mac Dui
Comment It is clear this is headed to keep and I am happy for someone to close it early per WP:SNOW. I remain surprised by the responses - perhaps the nomination was misunderstood: I proposed to delete the article because there is better coverage already at Unst; I did not propose to delete the subject entirely from Wikipedia. To me the subject seems intrinsically to be part of the Unst article: as noted above, its something peculiar to the area so it really belongs with it - and it's not something that is likely to form part of a series of such articles. Never-the-less I will go with consensus for a separate article and merge in the existing content from Unst, and replace the existing text with an internal link. I42 (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not proposing deleting any of the material, it's better to do so through a merger discussion. (Sometimes an AfD is appropriate, but that's normally when the proposed merger would involve deleting most of the material, or when the destination article already has the information.) If you want input from beyond the article talk page, you can list the proposed merger at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I noticed there's a proposal to introduce Articles for Merger, and that might be a better long-term solution for situations such as this one. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new refs. They are from national newspapers. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:39, 2 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tainan (disambiguation)[edit]

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

It is my belief that this disambiguation is no longer needed as a result of Tainan City's and Tainan County's merger. However, why I didn't directly delete it myself is that I do think this should be subjected to a discussion. But my own opinion is delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Tainan if it's desirable to maintain incoming links. Disambiguation doesn't seem to be required any longer, hatnotes should suffice. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, there were no incoming links (in article space) to the disambiguation page. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete seems like an uncontroversial housekeeping move. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tainan City and Tainan County may have merged as political entities, but they have not, as near as I can tell, yet merged as Wikipedia articles. Is that correct? --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. I don't think the articles should merge because Tainan County should be talk about the historical entity. But at this point, no one will refer to the historical entity of Tainan County as Tainan any more since Tainan County no longer exists — and that is my reason for believing that there is no ambiguity left to disambiguate. If anyone needs to refer to the historical Tainan County, surely they will refer to the county itself as Tainan County and not as Tainan. --Nlu (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahhh, I see, my bad. Thanks for the response. With nothing left pointing at this disambiguation, I agree this qualifies as a ~~speedy~~ delete, perhaps speedy. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC) (There are now more than two targets as the article has been edited, see below.)[reply]
Keep more than two things to disambiguate and a third similar sounding entity for a see also. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC
- Except there are only two articles Tainan and Tainan County (Tainan City redirects to Tainan) so hatnotes will suffice. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

peek again, that is not the case. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't think it's necessary to convert it to a redirection as long as no link points to it. Laurent (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that there are more than the two hatnoted entities here. You have to do a little research before you vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the additional links you've added should be in the disambiguation page because there's no ambiguity between them. Also I wonder in which context this article is useful. If someone is looking for "Tainan airport" or "Tainan station", why would they type "Tainan (disambiguation)"? Laurent (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per additional items to disambiguate introduced by Richard Arthur Norton since my previous comment. At the time I previously commented, there were three, not ten-or-so items on the disambiguation page, and two of the three directed to the same page, leaving only two vaild targets. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe that those items are likely to be referred to as "Tainan." --Nlu (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have for that statement? When you are flying into an airport and someone asks you what airport, do you say "Kennedy International Airport", or just say "Kennedy", I know what I say. Here are examples for Kennedy Airport and I would say it goes for all airports and train stations.

"I flew into Kennedy to find all of Long Island had been turned into the Great White Way. Only one runway at the airport was open. To get to Manhattan was another scene. Even to get from the street to the entrance of the building at ..."
"Toshio flew into Kennedy on his way home to Japan, and I took a Pan Am flight to meet him at the airport. He had to wait for me for six hours. Toshio wasn't used to waiting for anything, though he was definitely in the habit of making ..."
"We flew into Kennedy and Lisa picked me up. I offered Sue a ride with us into the city, which she accepted. Lisa drove through the rain and talked non-stop about the parties her daddy was planning and the big reception at Lion's Gate. ..."

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People might indeed say "we flew into Tainan" but does it really matter in the context of an encyclopedia? On Wikipedia, we would write "We flew into Tainan" with a piped link to "Tainan airport" so the disambiguation would not be necessary. Likewise, if someone hear this sentence in the real world and wants to know more about the airport they would search for "Tainan airport" and not "Tainan (disambiguation)" which again makes the disambiguation page useless. Laurent (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a machine that lets me read the mind of every user and why they would look up anything in Wikipedia. I can just make reasonable guesses and follow Wikipedia guidelines, and this page is fully supported by the guidelines. Your argument for deletion can be used at every disambiguation page. You asking the reader why they are not looking up the proper name in the first place instead of going to a disambiguation page. I am really not sure how you can judge any disambiguation page useless without being able to read the mind of every user from this point until the end of time. I will however have that ability in the future, by seeing how many hits that page gets a year from now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a good faith answer, Richard. It still comes down to this: how many people are going to think of just "Tainan" when referring to one of those entities that you've added to the disambiguation article? I think it's highly implausible. If it were a redirect, it would fit under the "implausible redirect" category. "Kennedy" is not a good example, because New York has multiple airports, and therefore one may be more likely to refer to the airport as opposed to "I flew to New York" (which I would still find to be much more likely). That simply doesn't happen with Tainan. Even though it has multiple train stations now, "I took the train to Tainan" is still going to be referring to the city, and not Tainan station. The argument — but more so, your response to the response — smacks at least a smidgeon of WP:POINT. --Nlu (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example: Los Angeles (disambiguation). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are mostly about other places named "Los Angeles." Is there any other "Tainan" in the world? I am unaware of any. Had there been no other "Los Angeles" in the world, I would have also found all those other claims that "Los Angeles" can refer to, for example, "Neighborhoods of Los Angeles" extremely strained and unbelievable. No one is going to refer to the neighborhoods of Los Angeles as Los Angeles. But given that a disambiguation page is clearly necessary for Los Angeles given the presences of the other places named Los Angeles, I wouldn't be asking for deletion there. The situation is quite different for Tainan as there is no other Tainan. --Nlu (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let us just agree to disagree to save time, and let others decide for themselves. I think at this point you are just arguing for the sake of entertainment or wikilawyering. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you're simply being ridiculous. Come on — are those other things that you put on the page ever going to be referred to by themselves as "Tainan" in isolation? Use your common sense, please. --Nlu (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the existence of the city, county and other articles with the shared prefix, a disambiguation page is appropriate. Alansohn (talk) 19:05, 6 January 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) 01:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rumble[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP for minor-league local radio and TV presenter mostly on night-time gameshows / premium rate call in TV channels. Fails notability test. Biker Biker (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any reliable, non-trivial coverage of this topic. There seems to be coverage of at least two other persons by the same name who, based on this article, are clearly not the same person (one is a BBC reporter, for instance...the other has something to do with criminal investigations), so for anybody else reviewing this topic be careful that you actually look at the results returned by Google! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 1 January 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. Tone 12:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lottie Mayor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced BLP for minor-league TV presenter mostly on night-time gameshows / premium rate call in TV channels. Long list of theatre work, but no sources to show whether any of these are true. Non-notable, should be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNews reveals some extremely trivial coverage of the topic, but nothing that seems to pass any of the relevant notability guidelines. Interesting that she is chiefly known for Quizmania, given the total dearth of reliable, independent coverage of her activity with the show. Anyway, I should hope this won't be a "speedy keep" as it was in 2006! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 1 January 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. Tone 12:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Porter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP for minor-league TV presenter mostly on night-time gameshows / premium rate call in TV channels. Fails notability test. Virtually unreferenced - one to artist's own myspace page. Biker Biker (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing beyond the most trivial and/or unreliable coverage imaginable, at least as far as I can find via Google and GNews. Amazing that this was judged a speedy keep in 2006. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 1 January 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. Tone 12:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Frances[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP for minor-league TV presenter mostly on night-time gameshows / premium rate call in TV channels. Fails notability test. Biker Biker (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google and GNews return nothing that, to me, represents anything other than utterly trivial or plainly unreliable coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 1 January 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. Tone 12:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Creek, Mechanicsville, Virginia[edit]

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

This page does not discuss any notability, and is a stub that is only linked to by user sub-pages. Fails CSD A7, and needs more than significant work to justify keeping at this time. PROD was removed by an administrator after the 7 day period with reason that it needed to be discussed. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 15:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect to Mechanicsville, Virginia. Subdivisions are not automatically notable, this article makes no claims to notability and a quick google search doesn't reveal any either. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subdivisions aren't automatically notable, and there aren't any sources which indicate this one is notable. It's not even in the GNIS. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline advert and fails the notability guidelines. It does not "fail A7" though because it A7 clearly covers only certain specific articles. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worth a redirect. Just a neighborhood of a few hundred homes, nothing remarkable about it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 7 January 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) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War Wastage rates[edit]

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

This article was created in rather poor shape two months ago, and has remained unimproved since. The statistics that are quoted are unsourced, and the title indicates that "wastage" (casualty) rates for all wars should be discussed. This, clearly, is a daunting task that is unlikely to occur. Rather, the article about any given war could include a section on casualty rates should a user care to add such information; but it seems unlikely that this article will ever contain the information the title intends. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "War Wastage" doesn't even appear to be a correct term in the English language. We have List of battles by casualties, and everything in Category:War casualties. I don't see a List of wars by casualties which this could be, but isn't. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, wastage is the correct term in English. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more. It is at the least somewhat archaic, having not been in any form of regular use since prior to the second world war, and seems to refer variously to deaths, the sum of deaths and discharges from the services, and includes non-human losses. The correct term to refer to the current content of this article would be "casualty rate".--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ugh. For one, it's wildly incomplete, and unlikely to ever be even close to comprehensive, since war had occurred since time immemorial, and very few have had casulaty rates well-recorded. The scope is not defined, and as with any other article that touches on casualties, the criteria must be very clear, and even then, the accounts a fraught with controversy. The whole thing is unreferenced, and what is there already smacks of OR (what defines "average" and "intense"?) and POV (are these just military rates, or are civillians included? What about other branches and service corps? How are these percentages defined?). Even the well-established List of battles by casualties is organized in a manner I can't really agree with. And then, even if this article was improved, it would be pretty close to redundant to the aforementioned list anyway. It seems like this article is not going to get improved even a fraction of what it would need to be kept, though if somebody wants to userfy it and put in the months to make it respectable, I would laud that kind of initiative. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Horrible attempt at an article. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 5 January 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. Tone 12:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Šćepanović (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep– he is a member of Canada U-20 men's national soccer team, which (I believe?) makes him notable by clause 1 of WP:NFOOTBALL. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 23:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the part that says "any officially sanctioned senior international competition"? As you have said, Šćepanović has represented Canada at under-20 level i.e. youth level - and he is therefore not notable. Giant Snowman 23:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... didn't see that... you are correct, therefore delete away. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 23:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly strike out your keep !vote then - it looks like you're contradicting yourself otherwise! Thanks and regards, Giant Snowman 23:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No guarantee of professional football for this guy yet Spiderone 13:18, 4 January 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. Tone 12:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Braletić[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Canadian soccer league is not the top professional league in Canada. LibStar (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Never played professionally Spiderone 09:07, 8 January 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 Kalpataru Day. Davewild (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpataru Diwas[edit]

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

Declined CSD as not obviously promotional, PROD removed by author. Poorly written/translated piece, seems to refer to a religious celebration but no significant Ghits confirm its notability. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and non-neutral. andy (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve poorly written article through normal editing. The article states that this religious event was described in The Life of Ramakrishna by Romain Rolland. Rolland won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1915 and the Wikipedia article about him lists the book in question. There are other sources, so I conclude that the event is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ramakrishna was a giant in 19th century Hindu philosophy, and his life is documented in many notable books by both westerners and Indians. His followers helped spread Vedanta worldwide. It should be possible to find sources, perhaps under a different spelling. Cullen328 (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment "Kalpataru" is the important word here. A Google Books search with terms Kalpataru Ramakrishna yields many references describing this religious festival in India. "Diwas" just means "day" in Hindi (or Benglai), I gather. If kept, the article should be called "Kalpataru Day". Cullen328 (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Cullen328 (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the article may claim notability but a quick search on google for "Kalpataru Diwas" -wiki gives only 9 hits, which kinda makes you think, doesn't it? In fact the article is mainly about Ramakrishna and the article on him does not mention Kalpataru Diwas even once. andy (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does make me think, Andyjsmith, and what I think is that you are using the wrong keywords in your search. Please take a moment and use the Google Books tool at the top of this page. Change "Diwas" to "Day". English language sources call this event "Kalpaturu Day". The author of this article clearly is not a native English speaker, and transliterated the Hindi (or Bengali) term "Diwas" which I believe would be applied to any festive day, such as what we call "Independence Day" in the USA or "New Year's Day". Searching with the term used in most of the English language sources shows that this is a notable festival among members of the Hindu Vedanta movement inspired by Ramakrishna. As for the article on Ramakrishna not mentioning the festival, it commemorates an event that took place just a few months before he died, and the festival became notable only after his death. That's what I think, based on what I've learned today by using Google selectively. Cullen328 (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A solid reference Please read page 260 - 261 of Kālī's child - the mystical and the erotic in the life and teachings of Ramakrishna by Jeffrey John Kripal, University of Chicago Press, readily available on Google Books, which describes the profound significance of the original Kalpaturu Day, January 1, 1886 in the life of Ramakrishna, as well as the horror of his final months that followed, as he died of cancer. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Events were described in Ramakrishna article That article says: "According to traditional accounts, before his death, Ramakrishna transferred his spiritual powers to Vivekananda and reassured Vivekananda of his avataric status. Ramakrishna asked Vivekananda to look after the welfare of the disciples, saying, 'keep my boys together' and asked him to 'teach them'." Although this section of the article does not use the term "Kalpataru", it is clearly describing the events that inspired this festival. One of the three sources for these sentences is - surprise - Nobel Prize winning author Romain Rolland. Cullen328 (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Article I have written an article called Kalpataru Day, which I believe to be more neutral and better referenced. If other editors agree, I would suggest a redirect from Kalpataru Diwas to Kalpataru Day. Cullen328 (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely agree with Redirect - thanks so much for doing that, it was quickly clear the topic was indeed notable but well beyond my area of expertise to rescue the original article. Will withdraw my nomination and close this AfD later after work (unless someone beats me to it!) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:58, 4 January 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. Tone 12:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Leekx[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUMS, mixtapes are not generally notable, unless they have received significant coverage. Other than music sites reporting that it was going to be/has been released, I cannot find any significant coverage of this free online mix. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - information is verifiably cited by reliable sources. I think it just needs expansion. Also, the same amount of coverage has kept other mixtape articles, including her first.Lifebonzza (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well... I created this page because I knew the mixtape would create a buzz on the Internet. The "problem" is that it was announced/appeared on Christmas/New Year's Eve, so the media coverage was not as important as it would have been if it was in another moment of the year. Wait, and you will see. Official reviews are already appearing, by the way (e.g. Sputnik [14]). Clif (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All it needs is a good edit and time for the information to be fleshed out. Demos Demon 19:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 2010 was a pretty crazy year, not just in music but in life events as well. The title is an obvious play on the site "wikileaks". Part of history I say, keep it. - Kobe101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobe101 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hard to predict these things, but I'd consider the coverage significant over the past couple of days. I say give it some time to be fleshed out first. OzW (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, Pitchfork just made an extensive review of it. Even got a decent score: (Pitchfork:[15]). I thik this must be included in the general page as a ref; I will try to do it. muertecaramelo (talk)

8:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nabil al-Marabh[edit]

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

Notable only for being arrested then released without significant charges, WP:BLP1E applies. --Misarxist 11:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Misarxist has it right. We don't keep articles on people known only for one event. Cullen328 (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist 11:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist 11:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist 11:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. PK T(alk) 19:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm concerned that while the article says he was charged with terror offences which were then dropped, this article has been tagged 'Millitants in the War on Terror who have lived in Canada'. Also, as a BLP, the information regarding who he lived with and what offences they were charged with seems unfairly prejudicial. ManicSpider (talk) 10:59, 8 January 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) 09:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip McCluskey[edit]

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

no actual notability. The only remotely acceptable source is a local newspaper in Connecticu, & I do not think it enough to verify the claims made. DGG ( talk ) 09:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Mentioned in this book, but not much else found.--Michig (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please do not delete this article. McCluskey is a well-known figure within the raw food community, with a notable following (as an example, over 600,000 people have tuned in to his YouTube videos, and over 6,000 are subscribers to his channel). While traditional media coverage for this person may not be extensive, he is widely cited by peers and covered frequently within raw food circles (please see McCluskey's own press page at www.lovingraw.com/press for a more extensive list). --User: Irenadj (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a quick search of him shows only blogs, twitter tweets and self published materials with no major third party sources that meet the standards of WP:PSTS. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:46, 6 January 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. There is a clear consensus of established editors here that this article does not meet the notability guideline. The sources provided have been considered and there is agreement that they are unreliable/insufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Burton Lumpkin[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)

Everything in the article seems true, but I'm having a very hard time finding independent sources. All books seem to be self published and his degree looks to be from an unaccredited school that might be a degree mill. Due to the lack of independent sources, I don't think the subject meets WP:N or WP:BIO but I'd be happy to be proven wrong... Hobit (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks to me like this article is a copyright violation of material on the copyrighted website of Fifth Estate Publishing. The subject is CEO of that company. Even if an acceptable free license was provided, I have been unable to find any independent, reliable sources needed to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and Gents, this discussion was brought to my attention and I wish to weigh in. As the owner of Fifth Estate, I grant permission of use and thus there are no copyright issues. Fifth Estate has published more than one hundred books, which are distributed world wide. At the writing of the note there are no less than 5 books in the top listings of their categories according to Amazon.com. The question then is, at what point does a small publishing company make the leap from self-publishing to main stream? Fifth Estate serves several hand picked authors, all of which are considered experts in their fields. To address the last issue, I have to say that if my degree was from a diploma mill I would not have the knowledge to produce books, which have been given good and positive reviews. Sadly, Battlefield Baptist was not a diploma mill, but it not longer exists. It was a Christian school, which attempted to expand to quickly and failed. If I can provide further information I would be happy to do so. Please contact me via our website. Thank you for your time. Joseph Lumpkin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.168.158.164 (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect a higher level of writing skill from someone holding a doctorate. Yopienso (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- What we are looking for are sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Things like articles or radio shows or whatever that discuss the subject (or perhaps his works) but don't have a vested interest in the subject. So a review in Christianity Today of a book or the author would help a lot. So would reporting done on the martial arts stuff. I couldn't find anything out there, but I'm sure someone closer to the subject may have a better idea about where to look. As far as copyright stuff goes, if this article gets kept, we'll need you to formally give permission in a confirmable way, but that can probably wait for now. Hobit (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only cited source is a web page that cites this wikipedia article. Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I understand. Please look to LA Talk Radio, Max and Friends (show name) for the last 3 interviews. Also look to "Rain Making Time with Kim Greenhouse - LA radio host- for a series of interviews. I have also had interviews in the UK. These are all on the website http://www.fifthestatepub.com

http://www.latalkradio.com/Max.php (Look toward the bottom of the page for downloadable archives of the shows.)

http://itsrainmakingtime.com/?s=Joseph+Lumpkin

An interview in the U.K. is located at http://www.bbsradio.com/host/connectingthelight/archives/connecting_the_light_archive.php?begin=12

Book reviews were done by Diglot, a scholarly review. http://diglot.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/review-the-books-of-enoch-joseph-lumpkin/

Also see other reviews at http://diglot.wordpress.com/?s=Joseph+Lumpkin

Several martial arts articles, both written and video, may be found at

http://www.gmaf.org/gmaf_newsletters.html

http://www.akayamaryu.com/wintercamp2011.html

http://christianmartialartist.net/?page_id=2045

http://www.isamartialarts.net/News.html

Several years ago Taekwondo Times did 3 articles on Shinsei Hapkido, however, I could not find them listed. If you need them I can copy and send.

Lastly, if you would please search Wikipedia you will find at least three citations in your own articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yagy%C5%AB_Munenori

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ari89/Sandbox

http://www.maa-i.com/who/vv/JOSEPH_LUMPKIN_/hauptteil_joseph_lumpkin_.html

And several more if you need them.

http://www.tigersociety.com/ShinseiHapkido.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.168.158.164 (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The author appears to have a significant body of work, largely on apocryphal literature. The problem is that Biographies of living persons are required to be fully referenced, and this is not. The list of publications should present no problem as they presumably appear in library catalogues. What I have no idea about is their merit. I suspect that the article is capable of rescue. The COPY-VIO issue has presumably been dealt with, assuming that the release is in fact by the person claiming to release it. This needs to be referred to the appropriate WP workgroup. References to other WP articles are not really adequate citations, but some of the others may be. Neutral for now. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If any other release documentation or information is needed, please contact me at my personal email address. josephlumpkin@hotmail.com

Major book sellers have catalogs posted as follows: Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&unfiltered=1&field-keywords=&field-author=&field-title=&field-isbn=&field-publisher=Fifth+Estate&node=&field-p_n_condition-type=&field-feature_browse-bin=&field-binding_browse-bin=&field-subject=&field-language=&field-dateop=&field-datemod=&field-dateyear=&sort=relevanceexprank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=17&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=10

Barnes and Noble http://productsearch.barnesandnoble.com/search/results.aspx?store=book&TTL=&ATH=Joseph+Lumpkin&WRD=&PRC=&FMT=&AGE=&USRI=Joseph+Lumpkin&CAT=&PN=Fifth+Estate

Books-A-Million http://www.booksamillion.com/search?id=4941507784117&query=Joseph+Lumkin&where=book_author&search.x=0&search.y=0

Other chains also carry our full catalog in Canada, India, South Africa, and other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.168.158.164 (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is yet another Wiki link referencing the author and one of his books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watcher_(angel)

Delete. Lumpkin's participation on this page confirms it is primarily a self-promotional piece. Yopienso (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which isn't a reason to delete. I don't find that any of those sources meet our requirement for a WP:RS (though 3 articles on in the TKD Times might if they discuss Mr. Lumpkin in any detail), his involvement isn't really a problem as long as he discloses the WP:COI...Hobit (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I misunderstand these guidelines: WP:COI, WP:NOTE. Yopienso (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so. WP:NOTE certainly applies here and it's why I'm sticking with my deletion nomination. But WP:COI/Autobio indicates that one should "avoid, or exercise great caution" deletion debates on one's self. Given that he has only provided sources, I'm not seeing any kind of a problem, and certainly not a reason to delete the article. Now if he _wrote_ this article, and he may well have, then we have a problem. But I've not seen evidence of that yet. Hobit (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to believe me, beyond the first premise of WP, which is to assume good faith, but I did not author the article. If I had, the sources I am providing you now would have been included and we would likely not be involved in this subjective character trial. I have in no way attempted to influence the outcome other than to provide sources, which was the request stated in the banner of the article in question. Fulfilling the last request for information is where my involvement will cease now. Regarding the request for the specific articles in Tae Kwondo Times, I found only two of the three articles, which are May, 2003 and June, 2003. The first article states that a group representing Shinsei Hapkido had qualified to compete as part of the U.S. National Martial Arts Team in the World Cup event held in Mexico. The June Article states that the Shinsei Hapkido Team brought back multiple championships. These articles did not in any way dwell on me, only my students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.168.158.164 (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — 209.168.158.164 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Can't see notability here. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Gratitude to Mr. Lumpkin for attempting to provide sources, but none of them rise to the level of Independent Reliable Sources as required to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: if the result is "Delete", the redirect page Joseph B. Lumpkin should also be deleted, and the current dab page Joseph Lumpkin should be converted back into a redirect to Joseph Henry Lumpkin. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a certain amount of controversy about the legitimacy of Mr. Lumpkin, his books and martial art background. Mr. Lumpkin is a Christian Martial Artist and Author. I have personally attended Mr. Lumpkin's martial art seminars held across the country (Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, North Carolina and Alabama), and have used both books and martial art videos authored and produced by Mr. Lumpkin as a martial art teacher myself. Under the realization that my personal attestation carries little weight, I would also like to point out Mr. Lumpkin is a Karate for Christ International Hall of Fame Inductee. This aware is sited at their website http://www.karateforchrist.com/HallofFame.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmilliken (talk • contribs) 06:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC) — Rmilliken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as a creation of a sock of a banned user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs)

List of restaurants with free wifi[edit]

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

Non encyclopedic / notable --cocomonkilla ^{(talk) (contrib)} 06:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopedic, not notable. I don't know any coffee shops or diners that don't have wi-fi these days, so it's like listing all restaurants that serve grilled cheese sandwiches. Still, maybe if some sources could be added... --Kleopatra (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A quick Google search gave me 57 restaurants with free wifi- just in South Jersey. It simply isn't practical to have this list, and it doesn't serve any point. --Slon02 (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as highly impractical and non-encyclopedic. —focus 07:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Looking at this it's more describing national chains which have wi-fi in a majority of their stores, not random places like Flo's Diner in Beehive, Utah. I'm seeing that this is on a rescue, so maybe if this is changed to List of American national restaurant chains with free Wi-Fi and it is sourced well, we could be talking a keep. Nate • (chatter) 07:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [16] lists quite a few fast food chains that have wifi, and I'm sure that plenty other sources could be found. However, that brings me back to the point I was making, would such a list be needed? --Slon02 (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment I changed the title to the more descriptive [[List of restaurant chains with free wikfi DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a how-to-guide. --Soman (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not information of lasting value, since the policies of restaurants will change all the time. Besides I am not sure that every Denney's or McDonald's does offer free WiFi since many are franchises.Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would be like List of eating establishments that have publicly accessible toilet facilities. Useful but not encyclopedic.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The topic may be notable, but is probably not encyclopedic. Kleopatra's example of grilled cheese sandwiches and Pontificalibus' example of toilets are appropriate. I don't see any distinction that would allow a free wifi list but would not allow a free toilet list. YardsGreen (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no sources, and even if there were, it is highly unlikely that every single McDonald's in North America has free WiFi, so this is an impracticable list. :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 15:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry for hopping on a bandwagon full of snow, but this is not encyclopedic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As others have pointed out, this list is trivial and unmaintainable. Reyk _YO! 22:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting and closing discussion. It was created by a sock of a banned user. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:18, 2 January 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 per A3 by Kim Dent-Brown. Non-admin closure. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 10:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suzie Eads[edit]

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

Non-notable person, only thing in article is a link to her website. Bhall87 ^{Four Score}_{and Seven} 05:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. It already has a tag on it for speedy deletion, and I think that it will almost certainly be speedied, so this discussion isn't necessary. --Slon02 (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's pretty obvious that this will be speedied soon. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sorge[edit]

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

This is a paid-editing project as a result of this bid on elance dot com where it is obvious the subject has paid an editor to write about himself on here. This is in violation of our conflict of interest guidelines as well as our policy that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion. Furthermore, this person doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines as he has only been referenced by reliable sources in passing... none of them provide the in-depth coverage required by WP:N and WP:BIO. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJ Bombers Them From Space 14:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:Spam Keep - Improved with reliable third party sources. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2010 (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) 14:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I punched delete on his restaurant's AFD but I'm not sure about him. Google news is showing some coverage such as this and this. COI/paid editing aside, I think this one needs a little more discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link appears to be local coverage. The second link must have moved since it no longer works. Them From Space 15:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but rewrite. Based on the links supplied by Ron Ritzman (and they both work for me), the man appears to have at least local notability. Both articles are about him specifically, they are not passing mentions. (UPDATE: The second article appears to be about his family's restaurant in New York, founded in 1951, rather than about him. His father's name must be Joe Sorge also.) However, the article itself does not cite any reliable sources; if "Joe's work" earned him national recognition from CNN, the New York Times, etc. as the article claims, then let's see the evidence. In any case the article needs a thorough rewrite; it is written in a chatty, unencyclopedic style. ("Joe was practically born in a restaurant.") Incidentally, Melanie's Law ("articles in which the subject is referred to by first name instead of last name almost always turn out to be non-notable") would suggest that the article should go. --MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hate myself for it (since this was a paid article) but I just did a complete rewrite, getting rid of the unencyclopedic stuff (and the Melanie's Law issue) and adding references. I'd still classify it as a Weak Keep but at least it meets Wikipedia guidelines now. --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 1 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, Courcelles 05:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep sources aren't great, but meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newlyweds produce stage play(theatre)[edit]

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

Delete. Unremarkable play, notability not established. References are either self-promotion or press releases. Fails WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wikified it to see if anything wasn't a red-link and it doesn't seem any are. It ran twice for two weeks, off-Broadway. I suspect that the article was written to gather support for Aditi Pictures. --Habap (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources provided don't establish notability, as they are mostly reprints of press releases or don't even mention this play. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:24, 1 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tokio Uchida[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable musician, Google doesn't turn up more than is in this article, excepting self-published sources. Jayron32 05:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article because I thought Tokio Uchida's association with Stefan Grossman and John Renbourn makes him notable enough to justify an article. I'd vote a weak keep for the article...it's not a self-promotion (I've no association with the subject) and it looks pretty harmless and has enough information to be helpful, for example, to someone who had read about Renbourn's Japanese tour and wanted to know who the other guitarist was. Bluewave (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the creator has justified the usefulness of the content so Wikipedia should not be wasting his effort and frustrating the search for information. Opbeith (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2010 (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) 00:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited from those he has played with or learnt from. It's Useful is not a good reason to keep. The search for information did not find enough coverage about Uchida in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INHERIT and WP:MUSICBIO. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:24, 9 January 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) 09:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Boston[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable magazine. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I recently removed a substantial portion of the article text. The text was copied from here. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 01:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a legitimate magazine with significant Google coverage. Qworty (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although lacking inline citations, the article shows that the magazine has generated considerable coverage by the Boston Globe, a major news paper and Reliable Source. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 7 January 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 Corruption Perceptions Index. Tone 12:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption by country[edit]

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

This overlaps with Category:Corruption by country, Corruption Perceptions Index, and Political corruption. Not really helpful as a navigational tool. Banana (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything in this article is already covered by the three articles (well, 2 articles and 1 category) listed in the nomination. --Slon02 (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I forgot to put in the nom that I'm interested to hear any other ideas people have about organizing this topic. --Banana (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And I'm pleased to see that someone is prepared to deal with this topic. I'll see what I can do to help out. SilkTork *^YES! 08:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not seem to add any functionality to the existing categories. __meco (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article creator, although I think there may be use for an article of this topic to tie things together. Am on summer holidays at present so time and internet availability is hard to find. Comparisons between countries on corruptions would be a good thing to document in an article on this topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Corruption Perceptions Index. Soewinhan (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Combine. Of the three “Corruption by country, Corruption Perceptions Index, Political corruption”, Corruption by country is the single most appropriate title to combine all the information into. The map is aggregated by national boundaries so the 'by country' is meaningful. However, a 'perceptions index' is not relevant to most people, and 'political corruption' is too normative. I like this page best of the three. Andresswift (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's the most appropriate title but I think most of the content is in Corruption Perceptions Index. We should delete this and rename Corruption Perceptions Index to Corruption by country. But, the official title by Transparency International is Corruption Perceptions Index.

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Horley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability mainly. There is nothing outstandingly notable about anything in the article. Sporting achievements are well below what is considered notable. The newspaper clipping and the link to a register of engineers does not establish any form of exceptional notability. The you-tube links do not back-up claims in the article associated to the references. The article is largely self-promotional (reads almost like a CV) and some edit-warring over additional references of a negative connotation have been removed. This article only just passed the original AfD with most of the keeps dependant on notability establishment. The achievements as listed are quite below notability threshhold I feel. Falcadore (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond 2000 - now that's taking me back! Horley does appear in this clip, but it doesn't verify him as the inventor of this technology, only a driver in the team that did develop it. I usually like to err on the side of keeping, but there's not enough here to pass WP:GNG. If he were somewhere verified as the inventor or co-inventor, that'd probably satisfy me. But he's not, and the balance of the article is also completely unsourced. So, Delete. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. The only thing in the article that would suggest notability is the invention of motorsport telemetry, but this claim isn't backed up by the available references. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTRESUME. also a lack of third party sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as a racing driver, or a businessman/engineer. Suitable quantities of refs on the claim to the first in-car telemetry system might support the subject's notability, although 1987 seems a little late for the invention of this technology. 4u1e (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 14:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon (guild)[edit]

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

Delete Wikipedia does not work to specifically discuss World of Warcraft guilds, as well as advertise them gratuitously and create a database for their players. Yes, Paragon has been accomplished, but the real-world bearings that they hold have absolutely no profound influence or sub-culture that deserves its own article. Furthermore, there is next to no information on the article. I also find it disconcerting that those who would promote the guild would include them in the Warcraft infobox. All of this must be remedied immediately. DarthBotto_talk•cont 04:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above Little Professor (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There was no template on the top of the article notifying interested editors that an AfD was in progress. I have just fixed this, so the debate should not be closed until 168 hours after the following timestamp.—S Marshall T/C 12:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia isn't the place to list every WoW guild. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Note that this page has already been included in the World of Warcraft template. Ezhuks (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not anymore. :) Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The world champion e-sports team for the world's most popular MMORPG sounds notable. Article should be cleaned up of any unneedeed promotion, but it alone is not grounds for deletion; rather a chance should be given to refactor the article. Also, the nominator did not notify the article's creator, which I found particularly odd. --hydrox (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This really, really must be some very bad joke... I mean seriously? The Paragon website is notable enough by itself, since it's one of the most visited .fi -sites in the world. I really don't understand what's going on here. --Pek (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs sources that meet the requirements of WP:N. So if there are news sources or other reliable 3rd party sources that have covered the guild the article would stay. Given the language issue I can't easily find anything. Hobit (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are 20 sources at finnish version of the article (link to sources), most of them are on finnish language, which however in my opinion should not effect on the notability. --Pek (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And by the way, someone told me (don't remember who), that even 1 good source should be fine, the current article has two sources, which another of them is 100% 3rd party source (WoW-lehti, which is a only World of Warcraft -themed magazine in Finland and which also have a article of it's own in fi-Wikipedia: link to article). I also have two real magazines and both of them talk about Paragon, I can post more info about that if needed. --Pek (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, then go ahead and post them. But what I am reading right now is a total of three sentences, two of which are sourced by WoW fan sites, a "see also" sub-section that simply says "Ensidia", (which doesn't have an article), a very sketchy infobox used for an organization that compliments a WoWpedia infobox and a guild roster that lists character names. If there is something that would establish its notability beyond a fan page, then by all means, update the page. I do, however, believe that hosting Wikipedia pages for guilds is not terribly appropriate. Nihilum has a page, but it is only a re-direct page for a major eSports organization that owns the brand. This isn't a bad joke, aside from a page that looks like it was copied from a deleted page on the Warcraft Encyclopedia. DarthBotto_talk•cont 05:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with you that the page isn't in very good "situation", but that doens't have anything to do with the notability argument, in which i mean, that the article should not be delited just because it has bad info or it's not done well. To add that, there are other articles which are in even worse condition. And about Ensidia, it should also be enough notable to get in to Wikipedia and I'm working on it next after we get this argue to final. --Pek (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources do seem to exist per Pek. It would be nice if they got added to the article though. Hobit (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once you remove raiding history and roster (neither of those sections being ~~scientific~~encyclopedic), the article is reduced to merely three sentences ("best guild", "formed from two guilds" and "must speak Finnish"). Unless there is more information than that stub, the page does not provide useful, encyclopedic information. --Habap (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is in better shape now, but I still don't think it's notable. --Habap (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As much as I love WoW, I cannot think of ANY guild, (save for Leeroy Jenkins' "PALS FOR LIFE",) that would garner any form of notability that someone outside of WoW would recognize. Stuff like this belongs on WoWWiki. -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, "Leeroy Jenkins" has 558 000 hits in Google, "Paragon WoW" or/and "Paragon World of Warcraft" has 2,3 million hits, so yeah, lets just keep Leeroy Jenkins and delete Paragon... --Pek (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - GHits are not a reliable indicator of notability, a search term that includes "World of Warcraft" will obviously return more hits than one that does not. See WP:GOOGLETEST -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I added "World of Warcraft" to that because there are other things called Paragon, not because it would get more hits, in fact, only Paragon gets more hits then "Paragon World of Warcraft". But okay, since Google hits don't count I would like however to point out (this is a quite different thing then hits) that in Google.fi when you type "Paragon" the first page which appears is Paragon guilds website, doesn't that mean that the site has lots of traffic? And what about YouTube videos/hits, are they also not valuable? --Pek (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now I'v found some evidence: Oindex.fi, is a website which lists the most popular (highest traffic) Finnish websites and as you can see from the list Paragon.fi 39th website on the list, which is pretty high. --Pek (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, none of that is valuable at all in making your case. Website traffic is not a condition of notability. It can suggest that there is a possibility that sources exist, but that's about it. It can't prove that all those hits are actually talking about the Paragon guild itself. Or even if they are, that they're not listings on sites like the Armory or other WoW-specific blogs and websites. Now that news report you linked below can be a quality source, and if you find more like that and edit them into the article you might have a shot at keeping this article. -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well here for example Paragon is interviewed by Finnish radio channel called YleX. I'm sorry but the radio show and the text is all on Finnish language. --Pek (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also to add: Finnish media (not just "World of Warcraft media") knows Paragon quite well, especially in gaming communities. Here is Paragon in news for example. --Pek (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't put that here, put it into the article where you might have a better chance of saving the article! Sheesh! -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The topic of the AfD is the topic, not the article as it exists. "Sheesh". Hobit (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not entirely true. The topic of the AfD is that the article fails the WP:GNG, which requires that there be multiple non trivial sources in the article. -- RoninBK _{T C} 16:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:DEL says a reason for deletion is "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". So this is about the subject, not the current state of the article. In other words, the potential. If we were going to delete anything without sources, we could assign a bot to the task. Hobit (talk) 22:44, 2 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) 23:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS, plain and simple. --Teancum (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats not true, tell me what part (do you think) fails there? I don't see any to be honest. --Pek (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not-notable guild. Nakon 18:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By non-notable do you mean per WP:N? The Finish sources seem to meet that requirement. Hobit (talk) 22:46, 2 January 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 described in WP:OUTCOMES#Education, the common outcome has been that elementary and middle schools are not inherently notable enough for their own individual articles. Instead, they are usually written about in an article about the school district. In this instance, we don't have an article about the schools in Battle Creek, Michigan, despite it being fairly well-known for a town its size, and there is room to write about the schools there. As it is, the content is limited to a few sentences. Mandsford 18:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fremont Elementary School (Battle Creek, Michigan)[edit]

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

Non-notable place as per Wikipedia policy (WP:N) BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 04:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "In practice articles that are about an elementary or middle school (or equivalent) will normally be merged into the school district article they are associated with, or locality article (such as a village or town) if this is not available. Exceptions to this are when a school article of any level does, or can be shown to clearly have the potential of, meeting the Wikipedia:Notability guideline." from WP:WPSCH/AG#N. Racepacket (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which leads us to a merge result, not a delete result, correct? Hobit (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per cited policy above and for lack of article content -- Lord Roem (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:WPSCH/AG#N is a subpage of a Wikiproject, and not yet a guideline as such as Racepacket states, much less a policy as Lord Roem states. To establish it as a guideline, publicize it widely to get input from a wide cross section of Wikipedia editors, and see if there is a consensus for it as a stand-alone guideline. Some see new standalone guidelines such as this as WP:CREEP and would prefer a sentence in a more general notability guideline. Edison (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I believe it is a very easy guideline in which to follow. I certainly have no qualms for the article to be 'merged' at a later date, but what more could you include besides a single sentence or two? This article has nothing to stand on alone. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said below, merge it to the district. Then get to work to announce at the Village Pump and elsewhere the desire to promote the proposed guideline to official consensus guideline, since it reflects practice at AFD. It can be a difficult process, since many hate new guidelines, and there have been several crushed efforts to set up a guideline for schools. The most promising prospect is to add a short section in WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are we not allowed to have consensus in absense of a formal guideline? I agree with you as to this AfD, but I'm curious as to why you want this to be debated as an all-out WP guideline. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article about the school district or locality, as has been past practive for hundreds of similar articles about elementary schools. Edison (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to an article about the school district or locality, as has been past practice for hundreds of similar articles about elementary schools per (WP:WPSCH). This does not need an AfD discussion. Kudpung (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The dleete side has not responded to the sources found. I have deleted the uploaded images of paper coverage as they won't be allowed under our copyright policies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insoumise bookstore[edit]

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

Notability issues: Non-notable place (WP:N) BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 04:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This bookstore is quite visible downtown and has many references to it online. There has been an anarchist bookstore at this location since the late 1970's, so there is a direct continuity with the original project of having an anarchist reading room/ space/ bookstore at that location. signed by article author, 4ravach — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4ravach (talk • contribs) 04:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing any significant coverage, either in reliable sources or unreliable ones. All I can find online is that you can often buy tickets to local events here. That it is on the same location as a previous bookshop is not evidence of notability for this bookshop, but perhaps it could be mentioned on an article about that previous bookshop if that's notable, or an article about anarchism in Montreal if there's enough to make that notable. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching for this subject isn't helped by there being at least one other of the same name (in Rouen). I can see quite a few ghits, mostly in places normally considered unreliable on Wikipedia, but does one really expect to find sources in whatever is the Canadian equivalent of The Telegraph or The Guardian for this sort of establishment? Peridon (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable place, socially, historically, Location-wise and to City's counter-culture The article was written in English first, but much of the importance and coverage has been in French, over the years. It is Librairie L'Insoumise in French, and it was mentioned (in English) in an article on Anarchism in Canada. The largest newspaper in the city, La Presse, wrote an A section article the day after the bookstore opened on Nov 13, 2004. Le Devoir, the newspaper of record, has also written several articles over the years about the bookstore. (see ledevoir.com and enter "L'Insoumise"). Social notability: The local events that sell tickets here include a Theatre festival that regularly has attracted upwards of 500 persons per night to performances, for a week in May. The city's anarchist bookfair is the largest one in North America, (surpassing San Francisco, but less than London, UK) and that draws 3000-4000 persons, many of whom hear of it through the bookstore; it's a bookfair after all. A significant number of customers are from the USA or Europe, and heard of it from various sources and want to come browse when in Montreal. This is especially the case in the summer. The weekly "cultural/alternative" press has several times mentioned the place in a "Best of Montreal" listing, or one that is aimed at students. Historical notability: The bookstore is in continuity with the previous Alternative bookshop, in the sense that the NPO that owns the building since 1982 is the same as for the Alternative bookshop. So, since the 70s, this has been continuously the location of a specifically political bookstore, where a political community of perhaps a few hundred radicals own a downtown building. This makes this store one of the oldest continuously running anarchist bookstore in the world. Location: St-Laurent blvd is a central artery of the downtown, so the location is prominent. Thousands of persons pass by daily to use subways, to go to university, to work, etc. So to the thousands of persons who have seen the bookstore, but haven't come in, there is at least the possibility now to learn about it online, on Wikipedia.

How is it that far less visible projects (one even located in the same building!) can have a page, and yet this unusual downtown icon is going to be denied a page?!? It seems arbitrary and makes very little sense. I suppose if certain Wikipedia editors want to remove this page, I will want to mention this problem to local news, and to sites that are looked at by bookstore customers. I should mention that I do not work at this bookstore; I am a customer and supporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4ravach (talk • contribs) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Visibility is not a quality looked for here, and other articles are irrelevant to the one here. If you feel they aren't up to it, please tag them. Please look at the notability policy WP:GNG, the reliable sources policy WP:RS and just in case, WP:COI as well... Peridon (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to other Wikipedians, I'm learning -for better or worse- a great number of details on how this project works.
" received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent " As explained, this bookstore was written about in two mass circulation newspapers, in French, in 2004 [[17]] Le Devoir has a readership of about 350,000, according to figures cited on French Wikipedia [[18]] The article in La Presse, which has a daily circulation in the high hundreds of thousands, does not seem to be online on the newspaper site, but the text exists digitally online, as well as a newspaper clipping. (La Presse, November 14, 2004 Après Alternative, place à l'Insoumise by journalist Émilie Côté ) In book reviews, theatre, cultural and ideas sections and in author readings, The Montreal Mirror (weekly mass circulation newspaper), La Presse and especially Le Devoir has made repeated mentions of the bookstore, giving its address, etc. The mainstream English newspaper, The Gazette, has done far less coverage, but -I think it's fair to say- it is certainly not as in tune with French cultural life in the city, and it is more conservative politically.
I would argue that the Quebec equivalent of Indymedia, CMAQ (Centre for Media Alternatives in Quebec) [[19]], is a reliable source, since there are hundreds of contributors and fairly clear, open and detailed publishing criteria, etc, modelled like Indymedias worldwide. There are articles there mentioning the bookstore.
As for conflict of interest, I doubt that persons without any interest in this bookstore would know a great deal about it, or would bother to make a contribution about it to Wikipedia. I've added information to pages about Montreal neighbourhoods, because I've either lived there, or like them. I think it both serves the interests of the neighbourhood, and of Wikipedia readers to get better, more detailed information. As for Wikipedia's aims not being trumped by outside aims, referencing this unusual bookstore can't help it be more profitable, since it is non-profit by law and volunteer run. Surely one of Wikipedia's aims must be to have comprehensive and accurate information about wide domains of places and subjects, especially if they are at the margins or undercovered. If contributors have specific experience and knowledge about subjects, how does one distinguish between simple promotion of a subject, vs sharing this information in the hopes of making it available to Wikipedia readers? Since having a Wikipedia page promotes a subject, it isn't clear how to objectively assess COI in this case. In any case, as a long-time user and fan of Wikipedia, I think I hold it in high enough esteem to not use it as a vehicle for unworthy objects. This bookstore is of a modest historical, (counter-)cultural and book-distribution interest in Montreal, and to anarchists generally. Wikipedia has many articles on anarchism, on Montreal, so why not on one more notable place in this city?4ravach (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being for-profit, non-profit or charity are all one here. Basically, if there isn't independent coverage of a subject in reliable sources, it's a no-go. We get 'articles' from furniture removers, computer repairers and personal trainers (to give three examples that seem to be amongst the commonest). One or two trainers have made it. Otherwise, firms like Pickfords do, but Pripet & Sons (est 1990) of Downby-in-the Swamp (branches in Sunquern and Wetleigh) doesn't. Wikipedia isn't particularly for things 'undercovered' (although there are quite a few articles about porn performers...). It's an encyclopaedia, not a directory. Distinguishing between 'information' and 'promotion' is not always easy. "We offer the best possible to our clients and you are welcome to contact us at..." is speedy deletion material. (Why don't they look at other articles first?) "Hangon. We put this article up to inform people about our company not to promote it." Sure, yes. The cheque's in the post, and of course I love you, darling (oh heck, what IS her name?). This is where we are coming from. It's up to you to show you aren't in one of those (only slightly) exaggerated positions, and that there is notability (by WP standards) to show. You have until about the 7th or 8th on this discussion. If it goes before you get the necessary stuff, you can try again when you do. (Advised is to put it on a subpage of your userpage and seek comments from one or more regular editors.) Peridon (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunately true about Wikipedia I see that it's going to be a no-go and that this lovely project (its English language version at least) has fallen under the control of persons that have appropriated it for agendas contrary to open publishing. I can list and relist the independent, reliable sources, as I did above, but you choose to ignore them. It's too bad if you can't read them in French (why not get French collaborators to confirm their veracity?) If you are wary of any sort of promotion of commercial activity, I agree with you, it's why I didn't see fit to include the bookstore's hours, address, phone, or internet info; it's not the role of Wikipedia to carry these things. The bookstore does not have a primarily commercial mandate, but a cultural-political one: to distribute local and international written materials produced by anarchists and persons of interest to them. If my aim was to promote, I'd of tried putting this article five years ago. A Wikipedia article isn't going to bring new customers, and the bookstore doesn't seem to need any more than it can handle. Maybe you just don't like anarchists, or maybe it's contrary to Islam? I have no clear idea what has motivated this particular negative attention for this very modest entry on an unusual landmark in my city, but since I'm not in your friendly clique, I see it won't pass. I can spread the word, so others don't waste their time. If you were to choose to look at the Ledevoir site, and run it through google translate, for example, you'd understand that this bookstore has been properly covered, and not just as a passing mention for a place to pick up theatre tickets. If people here insist on having a copy of the La Presse article, I will get it to them somehow, scanned or otherwise, but only if it's clear that these are considered by persons here as a satisfactory source. I can't provide coverage from the Guardian, New York Times, Le Monde, El Pais, etc... sorry, the bookstore just isn't (and will never be) in such leagues. 4ravach (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about large bookstores' pages?? To my astonishment, big stores like Chapters, Indigo, Archambault, Walmart have Wikipages with lots of information about them. How is this not promotional? Who's interests are better served with Walmart having a page; Walmart or Wikipedia? 4ravach (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've looked at Le Devoir - it's a brief mention that establishes that in 2004 the shop was there. There is more, but as I'm not a subscriber, I can't get at it. (I'm not signing up at $9.20 per month for the internet version. Sorry.) Walmart - if someone put that up at AfD they'd be laughed off. Some small things do get articles - there's one just been kept at AfD about a bus shelter (the Unst Bus Shelter) on a Scottish island (but which has been reported on in the national press, and even had a Canadian shelter twinned with it). I can't see a clique here - if there is, I'm not in it. Here at Wikipedia AfD one can find biased opinions - which usually get ignored by the closing admin. You will find the regulars willing to help - most of us, anyway. We don't care if you are anarchists or Tea Party, Islamic or shamanistic, or even Martian (but you'd have to produce extra-good evidence there...). We do ask that WP:GNG is complied with in WP:RS (notability in reliable sources). Read those again and have another look on Google. Hard copy and foreign language sources are acceptable so long as they are genuine. (Between us, we can read quite a few languages and some of us have even edited on other language Wikipedias.) I'm too tired (been struggling with a problem in steganography...) to look further tonight, but I will when I get a moment. Peridon (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deux poids deux mesures/ Double standard? Walmart's being here isn't the problem, however, I find it irksome to read that even putting that into question would mean "being laughed off". What it looks like is a sort of property qualification: featherweight places or organisations can be dismissed or scrutinized, heavyweights are accepted as unquestionable reality. Even Walmart was once one guy (Walton) selling his stuff in one store. Aside from this, were I to want to, I could easily find several pages from outfits or groups or places that present themselves untruthfully, or in an unbalanced, self-promotional way, citing heaven-knows sources (self-referential ones). I wouldn't propose that they be removed, though. As someone who's "been around the block" in political things in this city, there are a few fly-by-night operations with less notability that have made it under your radar. I figured that English language wikipedians could get by in other languages or liason with others. "Steganography"? I'm not sure what you're referring to; it's cryptic to me ;-) In any case, I find it exasperating to need to produce detailed apologies. As a new contributor, it's like I'm considered as malicious and poorly-intentioned until proven otherwise. I would like to make contributions to Wikipedia; I've been a regular user for years, I have specific sorts of experience and knowledge (like lots of people) that I could share. I have worked as an editor for a community paper, a freelance journalist (Hour and Mirror) had published dozens of letters in the papers, done translation work, and I'm fully bilingual. That's not bad for a contributor. I will make no pretense of being a Phd in chemistry (my dad can do that ;-), or in plenty of domains that I know very little, or far less than specialists. Sorry to toot my horn, but I'm on the AfD Wiki-hot seat for the faux-pas of contributing a small first article. Gosh, I could have taken a picture of my local Walmart and put it up, instead. haha.69.196.139.87 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh It's cryptic to me too, that's why I was struggling... 8-( You are not being "considered as malicious and poorly-intentioned until proven otherwise" by me, at least. I'm just doing what I often do in these cases - push. The article is well enough constructed, but we have a very brief and rather unhelpful nomination here. OK. Show him he's wrong. Gather references from things you think might be considered unreliable (but not inside ones, blogs or forums - they definitely are unreliable). Slap them down on the table here, and let us see. I get around the UK a lot and I can't recall meeting up with an anarchist bookshop (although the anarchists in a small town near where I live used to have a bookstall on Saturdays in the main shopping road - not selling anarchist material, but ordinary books to raise funds; the definitely not left-wing locals looked at the black flag, said 'Anarchists' to each other, and quite happily bought books just as they did from the Hospice stall and others). It could be notable. BTW - click on the 'remember m' thingy when you log in; this will help to keep your posts under your name. It saves hassle sorting out who said what. Peridon (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found copies of original press coverage[edit]

Hello Peridon, I dug around and found copies of the newspaper clippings from 2004. Also found some coverage in a weekly (Hour magazine) and a student paper at Concordia U (The Link) But these are of the conflict between the group that created the Insoumise bookstore and the previous one, Alternative. I plan on scanning these pages, and I can send them... but to who, where? Please indicate. Yesterday, I emailed both Le Devoir and La Presse. The La Presse email bounced back, so I'd need to find a better email address, and ultimately, I might need to go to the Quebec national archives and library (BANQ) if I wanted to obtain the article that way. With Le Devoir, they'll likely get back, but it takes a few days. I have a paper subscription, but it apparently isn't the same as an online one, or I don't have a pass for online archive access. Far easier right now would be for me to get what I found scanned and send it along. Where can these scans be sent?4ravach (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Search me... An admin who frequents AfD would be better to ask. Someone like User:Athaenara, User:Ron Ritzman, or User:JohnCD for examples - lots more around. Peridon (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will add references to the article page I'll get what I have scanned and incorporate it into the article on Insoumise bookshop. I assume there's a way of uploading documents, just like there is for pictures? Otherwise, I'll need to get it up on the blog of the non-profit that owns the building, which I assume they'd accept and appreciate.4ravach (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage of the bookstore's opening is now added This is very reliable coverage from mainstream, mass media sources (La Presse, Le Devoir, Hour magazine), and the principle student paper at Concordia University (The Link). Not sure if the formatting is done the most conventionally, but scans were made of newspaper clippings, and uploaded as jpg or pdf files. 4ravach (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The press coverage 4ravach is referring to is apparently contained in File:La Presse Le Devoir nov 04.jpg, File:Concordia Link 14 sept 04.jpg, File:Hour Aug 04.jpg, and File:Hour Aug 04.pdf. 4ravach, you cannot upload scanned images of copyrighted news articles here—that constitutes a copyright violation. To indicate coverage in the press, you just need to cite sources; don't copy them wholesale. —Bkell (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources/ copyright infringement I'll remove these newspaper article images soon, and put citations. However, the Sword of Damocles still hangs over this new Wikipedia article, and I assume that my having found these reliable news articles about the bookstore meets the criteria issues that were raised above. After my efforts, I'd like to know that someone won't try to delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4ravach (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 January 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. Tjhe sourcing on the article is nowhere near RS standard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 Walking Bout Company season[edit]

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

Contested PROD. PROD was removed for no apparent reason. Original concern was "This club is not sufficiently notable to have individual season articles." My concerns have not changed. – Pee Jay 04:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 04:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the team is notable enough for an article; the individual season(s) is not. Giant Snowman 13:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just noticed that the team also has a 2009–10 season article, which should also be deleted. – Pee Jay 14:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Has all the needed sources proving each match was accurate and true. Their recent success in league play, as well as performance in international competition is enough to have a season article. I also wouldn't like all the research to make the articles noteworthy go to waste. 72.219.227.230 (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you do a lot of research doesn't make a topic notable. I'm sure all the info is accurate, but we do not need individual season articles for teams in tiny countries like Suriname. – Pee Jay 18:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Perhaps if this club had qualified for a competition such as the CONCACAF Champions League, or had a rich history of championships, then there's no reason not to delete it. I wouldn't go ahead and delete it only because it's a club based in Suriname. Twwalter (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not necessary for articles on each season for this club Spiderone 13:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why not? --Jimbo^[online] 01:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no audience for it. There would be no need for season articles for Sutton United would there? Spiderone 08:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is there not an audience for it? What proof do you have that no one would ever look at it? What does Sutton United have to do with a club from Suriname? We have season articles on Manchester United? --Jimbo^[online] 12:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton United is seventh-tier English club. I think it's an understatement to brush off Surinamese first-tier clubs, any first tier club, regardless of location. Twwalter (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's suggest an alternative route. This article clearly fails WP:GNG. There is no evidence of large third party coverage. All the juice in this article could easily be put into the main club article, if any juice is present. Spiderone 13:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be plenty of information regarding results, not a whole lot regarding information of the club itself. Twwalter (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge(?) - Perhaps we could Merge the article with Walking Bout Company? Maybe a subsection under recent history/events? Twwalter (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would that not make the article a tad recentist.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 7 January 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. Tone 12:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Taipei New Town[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, and the claims in the stub are themselves extremely untenable — certainly neither Chen nor Ma lives there currently and there is no evidence I can see that either actually ever lived there. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified, or redirect to Xindian District. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 7 January 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) 09:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KOJEN English Language Schools[edit]

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

Horribly written, unsourced, and I am not sure that there is anything there that can be sourced or salvageable. On top of that, notability is extremely tenuous if existent. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to have been written for the purpose of warning potential overseas employees of alleged poor working conditions at this English language school on Taiwan. It violates the neutral point of view, lacks reliable sources for its allegations, and violates our policy that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands it is blatant advertising. I have placed a CSD-spam on it. Kudpung (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag, because it could be fixed by rewriting if it should be considered notable. I do not see it as an attack page, but the material on the wages etc. is not really relevant content, and I have simply removed it. It's interesting that the exact same content is viewed by one editor as attack & another as promotional, so it needs a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting theory DGG :) It's still a non notable chain of small commercial language cram schools - not a mainstream high school, university, or college as per WP:WPSCH. Kudpung (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I tried searching both in Google News archives [20] and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find anything to help support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find anything at all at Google News. Google finds only self-referential sites and directory-type listings. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 7 January 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) 09:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hardin[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet notability requirements for musicians} and songwriters --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability standard for musicians says a musician is assumed to be notable if a member of at least two notable ensembles. According to the article, he's been a member of at least two and maybe more. Cullen328 (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Cullen328. This artist also meets some of the notability requirements for composer, having written country hits for Glen Campbell, Tanya Tucker and Waylon Jennings. Lumdeloo (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen and Gene - easily meets WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 5 January 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 Bless the Martyr and Kiss the Child. Tone 12:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis Will Be Laid to Waste[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSONG criteria for separate article. Needs to be incorporated into the album's article. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bless the Martyr and Kiss the Child. This song (pretty sure it wasn't actually released as a single as the article claims) fails the general notability guidelines. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bless the Martyr and Kiss the Child. AfD is not needed for merging with the album article, since that seems to be the nominator's intention. Rlendog (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna M. Cienciala[edit]

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

Delete: Does not appear to fulfill WP:NOTABILITY.Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I do understand and respect her academic credentials, but, aside from apparently just one published work, what distinguishes her from any other university professor in the nation? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In fact this should be a snow. "aside from apparently just one published work" - what? Before nominating this, did you even bother to check her publications? The fact that the article on her cites only one work does not mean that she's published only one work. And one doesn't get to be a Professor Emeritus at a major research university based on a single publication. Seriously it's not that hard to check. Here's google scholar: [21]. Here's google books showing how widely cited she is [22]. Here she is as both an author and subject on jstor [23]. This obviously fulfills #1 under Notability (academics) [24]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whoever created the article should have made her notability clear and credited her writings, etc. and not just done a quick stublike job of it. I hope the article is fixed as Volunteer Marek describes because it was simply not notable as written when I made the nomination. I'll be more than happy to withdraw the nom. ("Emeritus" just means essentially being retired from the rigors of daily academia, no?) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of incomplete stubs on Wikipedia. That's not a reason for deletion. Note that when you nominate an article it provides links to "news · books · scholar · free images". You can click these to see if the subject is notable. It is up to the nominator to check these. Also, the criteria for deletion is not whether the article is stubby or fixed but whether it is on a notable subject. I don't know if I'll have time to fix it, but that doesn't affect the fact that it shouldn't be deleted.

The title "emeritus" is used differently in different places. Sometimes it can just refer to a full professor who has retired but remains active in some capacity. In other instances the bestowing of the title is more rigorous and reserved for the most important/contributing retiring faculty. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS cites are 25, 11, 8, 4 .... Inadequate to meet WP:Prof#C1. Emeritus does not help; by that time achievement should be apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

GS cites are 25, 11, 8, 4 - I'm sorry can you clarify what this means? The GS shows a plethora of published works as well as lots of works citing her. ~~All in all there's almost 11,700 hits on google scholar. The Nobelist Robert Aumann only gets 7,610 hits on google scholar!~~ Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please check google scholar with just "Anna Cienciala", without that middle "M.". "Cienciala" is a rare enough name that there shouldn't be too many false positives out of those 11,700 hits. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC

Just look at the GS link you created yourself above. The cites are extremely low compared to most that come to these pages. What counts for scholars are cites, not hits. We normally expect around 1000 cites for a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. There may be special reasons here. If so it would be useful to know them. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

For History Profs? Note she was also on the Board of Directors of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences of America, and received the Polish Cross of Merit. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:PROF is fulfilled by a festschrift in her honour: Andrzejewski, Marek, ed. Gdañsk, Gdynia, Europe, and the United States in the 19th and 20th Centuries: A Festschrift in Honor of Professor Anna Cienciala. Gdañsk: Gdañsk University Press, 2000. --Hegvald (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which criterion of WP:Prof are you referring to? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Couldn't you just search the WP:PROF page for "festschrift"? --Hegvald (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implicitly referring to the point made there that this will only count as a "contributing factor"? I think the fact that there are a number of reviews covering her work should be enough, but a festschrift supports the claim that she is notable in her field. (I do not have a high opinion of the value of citation indices for measuring importance in the humanities.) --Hegvald (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not implicitly referring to anything. I just asked a question (which is yet to be answered). Xxanthippe (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Can you provide a web link that would confirm this, maybe a link to a library catalog? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Found it here under the English title, but it actually appears to have a Polish title: Gdańsk - Gdynia - Europa - Stany Zjednoczone w XIX i XX wieku : księga pamiątkowa dedykowana profesor Annie Cienciale, explaining why the English title is difficult to find on Google. --Hegvald (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the catalogue of the Polish National Library refers to her as "Cienciała" (note the L with stroke in the name). This should be included in the article (although not in the title, as she appears to have been living in America for most of her life). --Hegvald (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Does this work appear in any other catalogs? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep -- The list of her academic publications speaks for itself to my mind. The Polish version of her name should appear in the lead, but not the title, since she is clearly an American-resident, living where this accent is not used. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Prof#C1 criterion for notability is not how much stuff a person has published but how much their stuff has been noted by others in reliable scholarly sources. This may be ascertained readily from citation databases such as Google scholar, Web of Science or Scopus. In this case the GS cites are anomalously low for a person who has published on contentious subjects as the Katyn massacre. Can anybody suggest why? What are the WoS and Scopus cites? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Looks like a notable author, as can be established even by a Google search. I also checked her ISI citation index. She has 101 journal publications and she was quoted 52 times. That's a lot for someone who works in field of humanities. For comparison, Orlando Figes, who is definitely a notable author/historian, was cited ~350 times in this index (including quoting his books). Biophys (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compare apples with apples. On GS the cites of Orlando Figes are 144, 109, 50, 52, 49, 44, 36, 21, 20... to give total cites of around 600 and an h index of 10. This would be in the acceptable range by our normal standards for WP:Prof#C1 for historians. Also, Figes has a great deal of general notability. The cites of this subject are ten times lower. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The criteria of "highly cited" strongly depends on area of knowledge. In some areas of Biology one need several thousand of quotations to be "highly cited"; in others - only hundreds. You need to first calculate citation indexes for all historians, and then take 10% of the most highly cited to see if this particular author was among them. That's how this is done. h index means very little.Biophys (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this AfD publishes in the same area as Orlando Figes. A factor of 10 is hard to argue away. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, Orlando Figes is a notable author. But it does not mean that subject of the AfD does not belong to 10 or 20% of the most highly cited historians (I simply do not know it).Biophys (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remind Biophys of his topic ban here [25], which still appears to be in effect. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. This article is about Polish historian, and I do not discuss anything related to the Soviet Union, but only notability of a person. Besides, I am not excluded from the "process", but only from editing articles on the subject.Biophys (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text of your topic ban (applied 23 May 2009) runs as: "3) Biophys (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophys may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee. 4) Biophys is restricted to 1 revert per week per article in the topic area for 1 year. This restriction will run consecutively with the topic ban." This might be considered to be a "related article, broadly construed". Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, but I do not see how ISI citation index I was talking about may be related to the Soviet Union. Besides, I did not edit the article.Biophys (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expand and source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:08, 5 January 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 18:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George McCoy[edit]

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

Non-notable author of a guide to "massage parlours" (i.e. brothels) in the UK. Lacks coverage in independent reliable media; pretty much all material online relates to his "guide". The Celestial City (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep plenty of sources. [26][27][28][29] Dwanyewest (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am responding here because I had a note on my talk page that the article was up for deletion. Oddly enough I was bemused by the note, since I had no idea who George McCoy was. I went to the page and remembered that I'd found it in a bad state some years ago and cleaned it up. I'd been watching a documentary on British TV in which Mr McCoy featured, so I'd looked him up. I really don't know if he is notable enough or not, but I don't think the subject of his literary efforts should be a factor in making the decision. It could be reverted to its original title.Paul B (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PIMP. LOL. I mean, WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2010 (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) 01:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added Dwaynewest's links to the article. Someone with more time on their hands might be able to take the information in those articles and add them to the article. Between the links added and Mr McCoy's television appearances, I'd consider this to be qualified article. -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Koort[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP recreated after Prod. No secondary sources to be found. Abductive (reasoning) 12:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... I think. It's a bit hard for me to figure it out because I don't speak Estonian, but it does seem that he's held some exhibitions and there seems to be at least one secondary source in the article. In principle, if an artist has held a number of exhibitions, designed some stages and has some works in art museums, I think an article would not be amiss. Esn (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2010 (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, 1 January 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. Treat as unconested PROD in future. Courcelles 00:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Taqvaee[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as there does not seem to be any independent coverage. Also fails WP:POLITICIAN I couldn't find any reliable sources not even in persian. DrPhosphorus (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2010 (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, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HD (commentator)[edit]

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

I do not think this meets WP:BIO The MLG source is not at all independent, the Youtube page is of course not viable. NPR is fairly decent, but it's a fairly passing mention, even though he is talked to, and it's only one source. The Fourth one is another MLG source, and the last source from thecpl is not at all neutral or established. I don't see enough to satisfy WP:GNG NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 20:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The NPR source is good, and it's not clear to me that the CPL source is bad. The old Cyberathlete Professional League was a significant organization in professional video gaming (we have an article on them), and this appears to be the official news channel of their successor. However, it's not at all clear what the successor organization is. So, based on the one good article and the general buzz of borderline other material, I'm not comfortable deleting at this time. But I won't consider it a great tragedy if it happens. gnfnrf (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a PC Gamer podcast interview with Alex. --生け花 00:52, 29 December 2010 (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) 01:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the NPR source clearly demonstrates notability. This figure is probably the first or second most respected Starcraft II caster in the English Language. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article utilizes multiple independent reliable sources that help establish enough notability for an article. No reason why it shouldn't be kept. Artichoker^[talk] 07:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Nangwala[edit]

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

Seems to be a rather ordinary lawyer. Once involved in what appears to be a notable case, but the coverage is of the case and not of him personally. Also teaches a bar prep course, but at least in the United States this is not anything important or prestigious. I couldn't find anything indicating any particular importance. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The current version of the article doesn't make a good case for notability and hasn't been updated to reflect recent events, but a Google News search shows over a decade's worth of relative prominence in Uganda, so meets WP:GNG. Was the target of an assassination attempt in 1999, so not really a BLP1E. I don't hold out a lot of hope that this three-year-old article will be improved, though, so I won't cry very hard if it's merged with other encyclopedia coverage of the sedition case. THF (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2010 (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) 01:02, 1 January 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 18:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krupa de Tarnawa[edit]

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

This is a page dedicated to the self research of Alfred Krupa. It contains mostly speculation, shamanic dreaming, and is not encyclopedic material. Was there ever a real Krupa de Tarnawa family of notable international status? RebekahThorn (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

STRONG KEEP - DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE - I, Lisa Palmer am the creator of the Krupa de Tarnawa article. It is written in a neutral way, quoting a great number of second and third sources that are encyclopedic in nature and this article is not a glorification of Alfred Krupa’s research. It enlarges a report about information that has been formally confirmed by one of the largest European genetic-genealogy organizations in the world. Therefore, it is not composed of elements of original research.

The Krupa family is listed in all editions of the Yugoslavian Fine Art Encyclopedia. The Krupa family is also listed in the Croatian Fine Art Encyclopedia, in the Croatian Fine Art Lexicon, and in the Karlovac Lexicon. Furthermore, the family has been recognized by the all Polish-Lithuanian nobility institutions and the CoA. Also, the family is listed in the Burkes Peerage and Gentry.

The article is not based on speculations and shamanic journeys. It is based on dry facts behind iGENEA’s verification. Shamanic dreaming is a very important and legitimate spiritual process. This belief is very important to Asians and Native Americans. This article contains only small reports regarding shamanism. There is no reason not to talk about this subject. Please see that I created this article. The shamanic information is important to many people that I know here in the United States. I do not accept this woman’s reasons for deletion.

It seems that Ms. Rebekah Thorn has objections that are subjective in nature and personally colored. Alfred Krupa Senior was an invited author on the Monte Carlo Grand Prix International Exhibition and was a pre-war amateur champion of boxing in Poland. Also, Alfred Krupa Jr. was a student in Tokyo and invited by the Japanese Government. He was an elected fellow of the RSA, London-Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce. Queen Elisabeth II is also a patron of that society.

Please note that when notability of the article is established, it is not temporary. Notability was established by the awarded administrator on the 29th of December, 2010. (see the revision history) Without any speculation, this article is scientifically confirmed.Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 00:55, December 31,2010 (UTC)

Delete. The article has many sources that don't seem to establish any kind of notability for the subject of the article, often making no reference to the subject of the article at all. The vast majority of the article seems to be off-topic to the actual subject of the article (a family). Nothing, or nothing of any substance, in GNews, GBooks or GScholar. Lots of strange sites in straight up Google searches. The absolute best conclusion I can draw is that it exists (probably), and that isn't an argument to keep. Also: One admin cannot establish notability simply by editing an article. And no admin did that anyway. A bot edited the article automatically. A bot, by definition, makes no judgment on article validity. Nor is a bot an admin. » scoops “5x5„ 23:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without digging too much, I searched the article itself for occurrences of "Tarnawa". There were few, very few. Maybe chunks of the article could find homes in other articles, and the article, seemingly about a not-so-notable family be deleted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. The creation of an article is an ongoing process and many elements are needed to make it sucessful! This takes time and learning. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place that you can feel safe to create an article and have the ongoing time to work on and improve ones creation. However, I do think that this takes time to learn how things work and those that know must give those that are learning how to do it, time to do it. I am in the process of working on trying to improve the article. I ask that it not be deleted and that it be allowed to be improved.Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 08:34, 2, January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't panic or worry. Please feel free to work on the article if you like. Keep the title of the article in mind. Make sure the content is about the subject. You have days and days to do this. But consider, before you expend a lot of energy: If you came across this article in Encyclopedia Britannica, would it seem encyclopaedically written, notable, and on topic? Try not to be subjective because you wrote it. Question the sources. Are they good sources? Most importantly, don't panic. If you need help, just ask. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I meant "Krupa", when I said I searched that string. It just doesn't come up much. Actually, both don't. Try John, King of England and search occurrences of "John" in the article. Do the same for Napoleon I and search "Napoleon". You will see what I mean. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please don't vote more than once, Arielmoonchild33. If you have more to add to the discussion, just add it in. You can also preface it with something like "comment", as I have done. I have struck out your second vote. I should point out that pleading for time won't really help your case. The best thing that can help your case is finding reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the Krupa de Tarnawa family. The sources in the article, as it stands now, don't do that as far as I can see. They mostly refer to facts that are not directly related to the family or its notability (unsurprising, as most of the article is not about the family). The handful of sources related directly to the family are less reliable than one might expect, or hope. The citation of Burke's Peerage, for example, links to a rather different site from the official one; a rather dubious one that encourages me to send them my own family's crest for inclusion. The authoritative Burke's has no records for "Krupa", "Tarnawa", or "Krupa de Tarnawa". A second source seems to only confirm that there is a museum, not that the item in question (a portable steel bunker) is exhibited there. I can find no reference at all that this portable steel bunker, or its inventor, are notable. A third source confirms the existence of a Neo-Templar Order website, but not that the person in question is famous for having led it (as the article claims). In fact, searching seems to indicate that the organization is not notable, nor is its former leader. The last two sources could only establish personal notability, rather than family notability (and they fail anyway). Those are all the sources I see that actually have any direct relation to Krupa de Tarnawa family members. They are all terrible. » scoops “5x5„ 17:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment.Scoops, Thank you for alerting me of the particulars of how to correctly utilize this page. I have changed to comment as you suggested. I am new at this and am learning as I go along. I appreciate your help. I thought that Wikipedia was set up to be an ongoing process for all people. People do not write the same way, nor do they have the same skills of writing. Think about when you first endeavored to create something. Did you want someone to delete it or did you want to keep making it better. I am not pleading, I am asking for it not to be deleted and to have the time to make the article better. Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of this article doesn't even seem to relate to the subject and I don't think it is encyclopedic material. I'm fairly sure that the only part of the article that relates to the 'family' is the opening paragraph. I couldn't find anything about them on Google, which suggests that they are not notable at all. Also Lisa, a good way of avoiding people deleting articles that you are in the process of writing is to create them as a subpage in your user account. That way it is obvious that you are still working on them. Once you have finished an article, you can then move it to the main Wikipedia as a proper article. AndrewvdBK (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - thanks Andrew about the subpage info - it seems Ms. Thorn wanted the article deleted due to the name Krupa de Tarnawa and she being the original person that started this deletion process had an argument against Krupa de Tarnawa being used in the article. Well as you can see the only thing that you see relating to the family is the opening paragraph. Maybe I have my subject line wrong and that I should name my article something else - there is much information in my article that has notibility. I think that would change decisions to delete - please see original reason that Ms. Thorn asked for deletion. I really feel that this article should not be deleted - that it has merit and is encyclopedic material. Given time for working on it, I can prove that all that has been said here can be and will be fixed. I still believe that delete is not the way to go. I appreciate any and all help. I say let me keep my article, work on it and prove to you that my article is encyclopedic. Give me a chance to be as savy as you all are and to learn from you. I would take any help that you will offer. Let's keep this article up and show people that are coming along like I am (newbies) that there is help and that there is hope, that we newbies can learn to write Wikipedia as good as those that have the expertise and experience. Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm also starting to have concerns about the provenance of much of the material in the article. Every block of randomly chosen article text that I paste into Google returns other exact hits. Some are other Wikipedia articles (like these tables), which is fine from a copyright perspective but not great from a project-management perspective (content forking and whatnot). Other bits of text return external, copyrighted sources like this. Note especially that the search text has a lonely closing bracket from where "(see below)" was mis-deleted. This was the first random text I chose. It also mirrors a site with a copyright notice on it. There are citations in our article, but this is a word-for-word copying of paragraphs, not quoting a sentence or paraphrasing. I wonder how much article would be left if all the duplicated info, unsourced info, and copied info was removed. » scoops “5x5„ 22:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE Now the article is more than fine. Coherent. Encyclopedic in all segments. Very important topic for itself. Congratulations.Volvo144deluxe (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you Arielmoonchild33? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Anna, Volvo144deluxe is definitely a sockpuppet AndrewvdBK (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I am not Volvo144deluxe and I don't need such help! I am asking you to read the article again and vote again. Arielmoonchild33 (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first three paragraphs make some assertions about the notability of two family members. They may or may not deserve articles. I don't see anything that establishes the notability of the family. Everything after the first three paragraphs still seems like a misplaced biology/history lesson and does nothing to establish family notability, or even refer to the family in any meaningful way. Compare this article's content to what's written about the Rockefeller family or the House of Windsor, for example. Those articles show why the families are notable. This article shows the family exists. While the article is better than it was at the start of this AfD, there is still a dearth of reliable sources about the actual topic of the article. It's all just lipstick on a pig. » scoops “5x5„ 01:16, 4 January 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 all. Courcelles 00:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States Football Alliance[edit]

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

Failure to meet notability standards (WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT), contains significant original research (WP:OR), possible violations of conflict of interest and advertising (WP:COI, WP:EL#ADV), and miscellaneous violations of WP:RS, WP:GROUP, and WP:NOT. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are members of the league and each page suffers from the same violations noted above, and to an even greater extent on notability.:

These articles are all inter-connected.Paul McDonald (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. [30][31][32][33][34][35] independent news articles I've come across through a quick Google search of the USFA name. The league meets the GNG. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment to me, those seem to fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not really significant sources. That said, it would be nice to add them to the article--but even that was done, and even if that was enough to meet notability standards (which NSPORT seems to indicate it does not), that still leaves COI, ADV, NOT, and OR.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response. If it were only one or two articles, especially if it were passing mentions, yes. However, This is half a dozen, on a quick search of free articles, all pertaining to the same league. Your argument also involves the suggestion that the teams are less notable than the league. Judging by a search of the Google news archives[36], it seems to be the opposite: teams seem to be covered more than the league itself, which invalidates the rationale behind the blanket delete of all teams in the league. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - More than notability WP:OR is an actual policy. The others WP:ADV, WP:COI, and WP:NOT are all separate from Notablity. While yes I do believe the coverage is trivial and notability is not met, you believe it is. That's fine, we can certainly disagree. But a violation of WP:OR is a policy violation and is reason enough to delete. Do you have a comment on the other reasons behind the nomination for deletion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response. I don't see any significant original research in that article-- perhaps a sentence or two that could be excised, but not enough to scrap the whole article. There is some information based on the provided primary source, which is permissible, as long as it is not used to establish notability. (As a side note, I just hope someone besides one of the two of us has something to say about this issue before the end of this discussion.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Primary source when you say "primary source" do you mean the league's official website, or is there some other source on the page that I just can't seem to locate? (Yeah, this is kind of turning into our own personal talk page!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we can keep on kicking the can down the road, but I can't find significant coverage. If the league ever earns an in-depth article in the New York Times or Sports Illustrated, we can always userfy and bring this stuff back. Life is too short to spend it using only primary sources to combat COI. "Sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." Racepacket (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me to demonstrate how ridiculous this quote is. "Sports coverage... is not significant coverage." Then, by definition, no sports organization would ever qualify for a Wikipedia article. Coverage is coverage. There are enough mentions for this to be considered legitimate and notable enough for its own article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NTEMP It's a direct quote, albiet an incomplete one. Here's more, to give you context: "For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage."--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all every source mentioned doesn't even discuss the league, it discusses the local teams which of course it's natural in a local small-town newspaper, without more sources that talks about the league in general it must be deleted. If for some reason it's kept in AFD, the team articles should be merged or deleted. Secret ^account 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, maybe I'm diverting the subject a little bit... but I still don't see a compelling reason for eliminating this page as a whole. The argument seems to be that the sources that are available aren't good enough for a Wikipedia article. I would understand if the ONLY reports were from a self-published source and a few passing mentions in an op-ed (e.g. the New United States Football League), but it's apparent to me that the USFA's coverage in the news, at the very least its teams, are at least notable enough to get press coverage in the markets they play beyond a score listing and a press release. If the teams are notable, then by extension, the league should be notable as well, at least in the context of a summary article of the teams. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course local teams would be mentioned on the small town newspaper, one of the sources listed was about a youth football coach, who is considently the co-owner of one of the teams being arrested for certain crimes. That's typical WP:NOTNEWS stuff. Secret ^account 15:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - A small town newspaper is still a reliable source. Especially if there are several of them reporting on the same thing.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:25, 7 January 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 List of recurring characters in the Front Mission series. Mandsford 18:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Front Mission 2089-II characters[edit]

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

List of non-notable characters, fails WP:GNG. The vast majority of these characters are already covered at List of recurring characters in the Front Mission series. SnottyWong ^confabulate 18:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vast majority? Excluding the recurring cast from other Front Mission entries that appear in Front Mission 2089-II, only five of the game's characters appear in the recurring characters article. Factoring in all characters that have story relevance in the video game, five doesn't classify in my eyes as a "majority" by any means. As it stands, five out of 21 characters (in which a few still haven't been added) is less than 25% of the tally. I realize that the article still needs improvements and I intend to add more plot to the characters presently added in the article, the remaining characters with plot relevance, and add more references where it's needed. User talk:LegaiaRules 21:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content not redundant with the series' list article into the main Front Mission 2089-II article, which isn't long enough to justify a characters split out at the moment anyways. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge significant details (to main list or to game). Unsourced fancruft of characters which individually haven't got media coverage. To me, even the main list is too long. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would combining all of the data and references in the single game articles to form a separate series list of characters, for single game-only appearances, be sufficient? I was originally planning to do a second series list of characters in addition to the one I had made for recurring characters. Or would it be more beneficial to have a more complete listing of characters, recurring and single game? I had a look at similar video game-related pages and found either the articles listed recurring characters, standalone characters, or both. User talk:LegaiaRules 06:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of recurring characters in the Front Mission series. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of recurring characters in the Front Mission series --Teancum (talk) 15:13, 6 January 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. (former-admin close) closing this a little early concensus is clear Secret ^account 21:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Sharpie 500[edit]

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

This is not a notable topic Kazakhnational3millionsbbbbbbbb (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - non-notable event, though part of a more notable series that deserves coverage. Incidentally, there are another 20+ linked articles in the side box that should be included here. Emeraude (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Individual events in top-tier motorsports are generally considered notable, though that seems to be more of a convention than a specific policy. For example, every single event in Formula 1 and IndyCar has it's own article with a text description of the event, qualifying and race results, and point standings after. Example here. NASCAR Sprint Cup races get equivalent coverage in the press (greater in the US), so I'd think the same convention would apply. I will agree though that the NASCAR editors are not as on the ball as in other series. Some of the articles are fleshed out while others (like this one) are stubs. Kuguar03 (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Oppose" is ambiguous. This is not a debating society, in any event. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes for how to express yourselve unambiguously at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the proposal, i.e., Keep. Sorry if I used the wrong term as I've been more active in move discussions lately. But there's no ambiguity there, just as there's none in "Agreed", which is also not one of the proper recommendations, though you didn't feel compelled to call Emeraude out for that. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – The article isn't in great shape now, but I disagree strongly that the topic isn't notable. For any top-level NASCAR race held any time recently, there's going to be plenty of coverage in reliable sources to base an article on. This isn't limited to typical news coverage either; many outlets provide analysis on the races. WP:NSPORTS leaves motor race notability up to interpretation, and to me Sprint Cup races are notable. I'm also concerned about the precedent this could set, considering that nine of the 2010 Sprint Cup race pages are classified as good articles. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article may not be in good condition right now, but if it is brought to the attention of a task force related to NASCAR, it is likely that it can be improved and made more like other pages for NASCAR races. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 15:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All Sprint Cup Series race articles arre notable, as because it is the premier series. I can easily make it a start because I immediately know where all the sources are. Nascar 1996 16:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Found the main reference...the summary for the race. Now the only hard part is probably the news articles, for quotes, but the article can be improved since I found this reference. Also all the practice references, I have also found. This article now has the potential for good article status. Nascar 1996 17:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Nascar1996. WAYNESLAM 17:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that Wayne Slam was canvassed here about this deletion discussion by Nascar1996. It also appears that both The Utahraptor and Tofutwitch11, who have both edited Wayne Slam's talk page recently, also came here because of the note and two of the three keeps have been "per Nascar1996". There may be an explanation, but until one is given, I think the closing admin should have serious concerns about how much weight to give these !votes. Jenks24 (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologise for the above note. Nascar1996 contected me on my talk about it and I can definitely see now why he left that note on Wayne Slam's talk. However, I would ask Wayne Slam (and, to a lesser extent, the two editors below) that if they have been asked to comment on an AfD by an editor, if they are choosing to !vote the same way as editor that notified them of the discussion, then they should provide a rationale, rather than simply giving an as per the person who contacted me !vote. Having said all that, I wholeheartedly apologise for an aspersions I may have cast on any editors in my above (now struck) statement. Jenks24 (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be found. A stub of that size isn't necessarily non-notable. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 17:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nascar1996 and The Utahraptor. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as this was a bad faith nomination to begin with. ArcAngel (talk) ) 14:08, 4 January 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 University of Guadalajara. Tone 12:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Aerobica[edit]

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

Delete or possibly merge into University of Guadalajara. Non-notable event. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into University of Guadalajara. I could not find significant or in-depth coverage of this event, which in itself shows that it wasn't very significant. I also do not see major lasting effects of this event, and there is nothing to show that it acted as a precedent or catalyst for something significant later on. Since it doesn't have a lasting effect or historical significance, and has also receive minimal coverage, I feel that it should be merged into the article of the place that organized it. --Slon02 (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge-lack of notability by itself for sure, and the tidbit won't hurt the university's page either. Passionless (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helen's Trust[edit]

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

No sources, appears to be non-notable local charity. Kelly ^hi! 20:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have removed some 1100 bytes of copyright infringing text from the history section of the article as per WP:COPYPASTE. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 22:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doing something noble is not the same as being notable. No independent sources. Edward321 (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. I found many reliable sources at Google News and added half a dozen to the article. So if you were judging the article in its previous unreferenced state, please take another look. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted since it now appears people after MelanieN's work and those before were examining different articles. Courcelles 00:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the sources that were added- Derbyshire Times, The Star, Bakewell Today- are local sources. In WP:CORP, it indicates that at least one "regional, national, or international sources is necessary". I have not found any evidence of coverage in any non-local source. WP:CLUB, which applies to non-commercial organizations, states that the scope of the organization's activities must be national or international. However, since the organization operates only locally, the secondary criteria also does not apply. Therefore, I am in support of deletion for not being notable. --Slon02 (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MelanieN's rewrite; seems to pass WP:GNG and the coverage seems widespread enough to rate as "regional" (moreover, I'm not sure I agree that regional/national coverage is an absolute requirement for this kind of activity).--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or else change WP culture so that policies are really followed. I think that too hard a task because the mental state of many of WP's most productive editors (I am assuming good faith) does not enable them to understand how policies such as cited here apply to articles they like. This organization is far more notable than some minor rock band or a character in a popular video game. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Clarke (Author)[edit]

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

Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He fails WP:AUTHOR, which clearly shows that an author must have done more than just written books- those books must have been important in some way. There is nothing to show that he is an important figure (on the contrary, there is very little coverage of him, which is shown by only one of the sources being about him), and his works are not significant enough to meet the notability requirements for authors. --Slon02 (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much as I like Andrew's work, he fails notability. Additionally Andrew himself appears to be the primary editor of the article, the lack of other editors making contributions is a problem. Sorry Andrew but there's little or no justification to keep. --Falcadore (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W18BN[edit]

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

Over the air station is not on air, FCC records not up to date. This was my misconception of records. Jmoz2989 (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the subject's favor, they are currently licensed per the FCC database link, and have several thousand people in their reception contour, also per the FCC database. A Google search shows that they transmit a couple of Christian televangelist programs which originate elsewhere, such as Richard Roberts (evangelist) [37] and "Sid Roth's It's Supernatural!^TM" per [38]. The Daystar Television Network has a number of low powered UHF repeaters carrying its televangelist programming. I found nothing at Google News or elsewhere to indicate they are more than a repeater. If they originate no local programming, then they do not satisfy the usually demanded factor of being licensed and originated a portion of their programming. This requirement is to eliminate mere repeater sites from having articles. This transmitter thus appears to have no reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, thus failing WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usually as a member of WP:TVS I would argue for a Keep, but there is a such thing as a station which is so irrelevant that there is no coverage to speak of in any sources at all, no pay TV carriage, a signal area which only rivals that of a wi-fi cantenna setup, and the only viewer of a station might be an engineer occasionally to make sure their automated setup with a DVD player/recorder and cheap Dish Network subscription which gets the religious and free tiers is still running (like WTAS-LP in Waukesha, Wisconsin, an article I will not start because there are no sources, no viewers, and it is treated as a hobby by its owners). Thus seems to be the case with W18BN, which seems to only exists seemingly because of a distant owner in New York City putting it on the air in hopes it may one day get a Class A license to boost to serve Scranton (as the FCC license info suggests). It has no WLH outside links to any other Scranton TV articles and templates. It's doubtful even a hundred people in their service area have watched this station, and despite the goal of TVS being to list every licensed station possible, there are cases where a lack of an article about an irrelevant station would cause no harm to speak of. Nate • (chatter) 21:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 1 January 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. I have given the arguments be single purpose accounts, which did not make arguments based on the notability guidelines very little weight. This leads me to close this as no consensus, as there is still disagreement over whether it meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Oppenheim[edit]

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

Non-notable physician/politician lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Article not supported by secondary sources. ttonyb (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known through out New York and famous neurosurgeon. Recognized mayor throughout various areas.Very notable and should be kept on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC) — Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – The article fails to provide support for the statements you have made here. Without adequate secondary sources the article fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN criteria for inclusion. ttonyb (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I beg to differ the article thoroughly supports the statements that I have previously made and has secondary sources for WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Spinoloricus (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)— Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Per the criteria, the secondary sources have to be "non-trivial". The articles you have added are not about the subject of the article and only mention him briefly. Again, the article fails to provide adequate secondary sources to support the article. ttonyb (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he's been elected mayor, even aside from any neurological notability. JamesMLane t c 22:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Again, the article fails to demonstrate Wikipedia based notability. ttonyb (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no justification for this person's notability outside of his own "small pond". He has a few articles at Google Scholar, not enough or widely enough cited to meet WP:SCHOLAR. He has been mayor of a village of fewer than 4000 people, not enough to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. He has served on some boards of directors and some hospital boards; so have thousands of others, that does not confer notability. Google News provides one item from the New York Times, a 1992 wedding announcement; otherwise all hits are from a local paper, The Journal News, which seems way too local to establish genuine notability. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" perhaps Dr. Oppenheim needs to site what notable achievements he has done for the medical industry, ie articles,lectures.... As a Neurosurgeon in the North East, he is quite notable. Google should not be "the end all be all" to decide if a person is notable. Sorry Google. Vschwaid (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)— Vschwaid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – You have not provided any justification for including the article. Just because he is a Neurosurgeon does not make him notable via Wikipedia. Please advise how he meets the notability criteria listed above. ttonyb (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not said anything about using Google as your only source to see if someone is worthy of Wikipedia. Spinoloricus (talk) 1:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)— Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Coment – What if he were to add medical achievements (articles, lectures...)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Articles and lectures won't cut it. Thousands of people write articles and give lectures. Please understand, the process here is not about evaluating Dr. Oppenheim's worth as a physician or his contributions to the community. I'm sure those are valuable. But to be included in Wikipedia a subject has to be "notable," as defined at WP:N and/or WP:BIO and/or WP:ACADEMIC; the gist of those requirements is that there have to be outside, independent sources STATING that the person is notable, or writing substantive articles ABOUT him, or citing his papers in a way that demonstrates that he is a thought leader in his field. I'm sorry if this seems strict, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. There have to be some criteria for inclusion, otherwise it would be overwhelmed by articles about subjects that are not really encyclopedic. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N states that someone has to be "worthy of notice" and Jeffrey Oppenheim is very "worthy of notice" he has pretty much fixed the town he is mayor of and he had the first case of a spinal cord bypass that facilitated partial recovery from a spinal cord transection, using a peripheral nerve transfer. If that does not make him "worthy of notice I don't know what will. Spinoloricus (talk) 1:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)— Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment – "Worthy of notice" means that someone other than the author of the article or a Wikipedia editor has noticed the subject of the article. Specifically, it means the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." ttonyb (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MelanieN has written a page about a director of the San Diego Zoo from 70 years ago who has no distinctions and a cartoonist, minimally published, who no one has even heard of. The advocates of deletion don’t seem to mind posting their articles even when they are about far less notable persons. Here, there is certainly no reason that this individual is less notable than the people that Melanie has written about. Newspaperwriter10021 (talk) 1:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)— Newspaperwriter10021 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment – Per WP:WAX the existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD. Each article must stand on its own merits. The bottom line here is unless this article is shown to meet the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN using reliable sources this article will most likely be deleted. ttonyb (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Newspaperwriter10021 is right I checked with the two articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) — Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment – Per WP:WAX the existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD. Each article must stand on its own merits. The bottom line here is unless this article is shown to meet the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN using reliable sources this article will most likely be deleted. ttonyb (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tony. I stand behind the articles I have written, but they are irrelevant. Newspaperwriter and/or Spinoloricus, you should read the section Arguments to avoid in AfD discussions. "Look at this other article" is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "I never heard of it" is irrelevant per WP:IDONTKNOWIT. If you can't come up with some REAL arguments based on WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABLE SOURCE criteria, this article is likely to go. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - as a politican, he is laughably non-notable, but reviewing the publications by him as a physician, he might be so. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 5 January 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.