< 8 January	10 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. Courcelles 01:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Abdul Rahman[edit]

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

Referenced BLP of an Egyptian artist, but activity seems mundane and standard fare; nothing seems particularly notable. Significant COI issues. Note without prejudice that the French Wikipedia article was deleted. Step hen 23:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adel Abdul Rahman is listed among the important Egyptian art personalities at the website of the Egypt State Information Service, see the extensive biography and the list of exhibitions here. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starting at the first ESIS link you wrote, I was unable to click on reasonable-sounding links to get to a page that mentions this person. Starting at the second link you wrote and navigating up one level to the "Arts" link, I do not see this person listed (actually I also checked all other topics in that row too...no match). DMacks (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, the link is not entirely convincing, but it should be mentioned here. Starting at the ESIS main page, you click on the little banner "Egyptian Figures" at the right bottom corner, then the "Art" section, and you can find the list of Egyptian art personalities. You can go also through the "Culture & Arts" link (left column), then "Egyptian figures" (right column) etc. It is still the www.sis.gov.eg website. Is the link unreliable? Does the ESIS allow to post self-promotional CV's to anyone? ... and what about this profile at www.fineart.gov.eg (brief site description in English)? Well, we can delete the article, as we don't have editors familiar with the modern Egyptian art or language. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see the link now. His bio-sketch still does not seem to provide clear evidence of notability per WP:ARTIST or WP:PROF. DMacks (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Limited evidence of notability and smacks of self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RHaworth (see also my responses to Vejvančický above). I deleted two refs posted in the article because they were WP mirror publications. Only claim coming close to meeting WP:PROF is certificate/medal from two mayors, but do not sound like actual major awards--nothing beyond what any college professor in similar field would expect to have on resume. DMacks (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DMacks. Obvious self-promotion and total waste of time. The two WP mirror publication:
- Lambert M. Surhone , Mariam T. Tennoe , Susan F. Henssonow: Adel Abdul Rahman , Betascript Publishing , U.S. A ,U . K , Germany.2010.
- Egyptian Artists: Hussein El Gebaly, Hassan Mohamed Hassan, Adel Abdul Rahman, Hany Armanious, Suzy Kassem, Mahmoud Mokhtar, Fathi Hassan , Books LLC , USA, 2010.

have been twice removed this month. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judging the importance of art personalities here on Wikipedia is not wasting of time, at least for me. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:16, 15 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 deletion of all three as blatant hoaxes, per WP:G3. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. William Redwick[edit]

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

Fictional character created for a university project, no evidence of notability Feezo (Talk) 23:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created as part of the same project and have the same issue:

Speedy Delete - I went ahead and tagged this for speedy as the article directly states that it is fictional character for a university project and it doesn't cite any sources for notability. User also created Dr. Gene Wick, a substantially similar article about another fictional character, and I left another warning on his/her talk page. Zachlipton (talk) 23:41, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Tracy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Much of this article reads like a resume, and seems to be an attempt at "notability by association"... i.e., none of the awards are actually for "his" work, per se, but albums/TV shows that he has worked on in some capacity. To wit, just because an album is nominated for an award doesn't mean that every single person associated in some way with that album is notable. Similarly, the award for School of Hard Knocks was in the "Schools Factual Secondary" category of the British Academy Children's Awards, and not in a music category, and thus to claim notability by association in that regard (or to call it the BAFTA for best documentary) seems disingenuous. Most of the references provided are merely credits in which his name is mentioned (among others) without any actual coverage; some don't even mention him at all (i.e., the quote from Billboard that is prominently placed in the lead of the article doesn't state his name). To state that he is "known for playing guitar and mixing records" doesn't seem justified; unless there are actual reliable sources indicating how this specific individual meets WP:CREATIVE and/or WP:GNG, I recommend deletion. Kinu ^t/_c 22:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: an article at this title was previously deleted, but it was about a different individual with the same name. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia editing, this is the only article I have worked on. Working on the article has been a great learning experience for me, gathering the sources and gaining insite from other editors. It does read a little like a resume, however, I find Todd Tracy notable because he is credited with mixing, editing, playing guitar and bass on an album that has increased in notability, in fact evidence of cult status for the album is provable and growing. His role on the album is not just in "some capacity", he recorded and mixed the album and played the guitar parts, I have the album in front of me and he is clearly listed top of the line. Produced by Skee-lo and Walter Kahn assisted by Todd Tracy. Third name on Album of like a hundred names. Also, he is listed as a musician and a third time special thanks from the president of the record company. No other person is given three credits on the album. So it is "his" work that was nominated for Best Rap Album. Music people and fans really get into who did what and he did a lot. Secondly, School of Hard Knocks won a BAFTA, he was the composer for the show, thats notable. Thirdly, the quote from Billboard clearly states that he is the composer and then Larry flick goes on to talk about the composition of the song. Billboard found it notable. Fourth, on Jennifer Paige's wiki page it clearly talks about the song that got the deal leading to her number one worlwide hit. Todd Tracy is credited with engineering that song. Fifth point, I have a new third party source, The Album Network published an expose on Todd Tracy and review, this will clearly meet the guidlines and I would hate for the article and all my work to be deleted just as I have tracked down the ten year old article published about Todd Tracy. Sixth point, I find it fascinating that he was associated with all of these different acts, performing different roles for each. Composing for this one engineering for that one, playing guitar for others, mixing others, producing more, now I have found singing (critically acclaimed) notable for its wide range roles. I keep on finding more references the more I look. I have found references to this guy all over the place, I will admit more so to his work than he but I know it exists. I am going to make the article better. I will rework the lead and ad the new sources. Some editors have expressed frustration over my very humble wiki abilities, but those abilities are growing and I have many ideas for new and existing articles. This is my first time and I have run into every problem but am learning thru fixing the probs. Sorry for being a pain in the ass but I will get it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred berns (talk • contribs) 05:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh one other point, he was awarded at least two gold records and a golden reel award for his efforts on the album. So he did win awards. Working on issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred berns (talk • contribs) 13:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There've been a few AfDs lately for articles on sound engineers, and the creators are making two basic and repeated mistakes. One is not realizing that when we say "notable" on Wikipedia we mean whether a subject meets the criteria of the GNG and WP:BIO, WP:ORG and other subsidiary guidelines, not "I think he's important." The second mistake - and one shared by a great many experienced editors - is in not understanding that the subsidiary criteria merely indicates a presumption of notability: that if you meet one of those criteria, it's likely you'll pass the GNG. But the GNG is never waived outright. It's the case here. Just as we don't give an automatic pass to the composer, the cover artist, the band's financial manager, the producer and everyone else involved in an album, we don't give a pass to the sound engineers either. Why? Because the world hasn't heard of them. Prove that the subject passes the GNG, and I'll change my vote. Ravenswing 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I get it now, the GNG is a guidline that helps to presume notability but not establish it. Multiple third party sources such as album credits don't cut it because the world hasn't heard of them, just some guys name on record that millions of people around the world bought. Also a song review from Billboard doesn't count because subject is only listed as the writer of the song not the singer, only music people read Billboard, hardly gets out to the world. I dont know why billboard lists the writers anyway?, they probably only list the writer of the song that their talking about for industry people not the general public. Receiving two gold records certified by the RIAA for playing guitar and engineering doesn't count as receiving an major award because gold records dont count. The National Acadamy of Recording Arts and Sciences nomination is not really concerned with the actual recording or the music, its just a marketing thing nobody listens to the music, certainly not for a silly catagory like Best Rap Album, thats not a televised catagory so who cares. In rap you dont have a lot of guitar solos its really just about the rap, so if a subject plays a major role in the creation of an album, thats not notable because nobody cares about the engineer. A Golden reel from the Ampex corporation, thats just an industry thing not a world thing. I get it. So the definition "The World" is?, well what ever it is-it overides the presumtion of the guidlines, no wiggle room there. We are only concerned with verifiable facts, this is not a popularity contest. The fact of the matter is you dont give passes to composers who's work is written about in internationally published trademags, you won't give that pass to engineers of "good" rap albums even if they play the guitar solo in the sony pictures film, people only "listen" to the guitar solo, doesn't count. It has been worthwhile to learn about anti deleationist manifesto's and waivers for guidlines that have been met because of misunderstood presumtions derived from follwing such guidlines, its the pass from the Hockey guy that we are looking for. I am all over it-I am an anti deleationist. No just kidding, working on getting the pass, my new source from the Album Network's Virtually Alternative Magazine is on the way, the company was bought by Clear Channel so I spoke with the editor of the now out of print mag last night in Berlin, Johnathan Rosen, he is sending me a copy of the magazine, it might come to late for this article, just have to appeal when all sources lined up all propper like. Thank you for taking the time sifting thru this crap, I have learned tonnes. Do you guys think you could throw me a bone as to how to make the article not read like resume? you guys rock and are totally professional. Remember never presume that I am anti-deleationist, I don't pass on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred berns (talk • contribs) 01:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm and a defensive effort only undermine your desire to preserve this article. Instead of ranting, your efforts would be better spent trying to show how WP:GNG is satisfied by actually finding significant coverage about this individual in multiple reliable sources. "We are only concerned with verifiable facts, this is not a popularity contest." You said it yourself. To correct you, WP:GNG does establish notability... the subsidiary criteria, such as WP:BIO, do not, they only presume it. Work he has been involved with has won awards, but the awards themselves do not convey notability unless there are actual sources discussing his personal involvement with said work. In other words, WP:GNG still must be met, which it has not. When Ravenswing says "[b]ecause the world hasn't heard of them", it's not a issue of popularity... it's a conclusion based on the fact that the subject has not been written about in any depth in secondary sources. As this is an encyclopedia, without any secondary sources, there generally is no basis for an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My opologies, I almost went over the edge there. WP GNG needs to be met, slow learner. --Fred berns (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quality references to support inclusion and meets minimum guidelines for article inclusion.--Carol1946 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how the arguments to delete address the lack of depth of sourcing, it might be a good idea to be more specific and state which sources can be used to show that WP:GNG is met. As your account was registered today and the only contributions to date are to AfD discussions, it might be a good idea to answer. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked. Nakon 06:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ive changed my mind we should just get rid of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred berns (talk • contribs) 09:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 12 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 01:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Knowles & Music World Present Vol.1: Love Destiny[edit]

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

A non-charting, single market, non-major release such as this fails to meet the notability criteria outlined at WP:NALBUMS -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources. Two refs are Sony's own and the other a seller. Not notable. Merge into something else if possible, but seems unlikely, or add as footnote to Destiny's Child. No merit in keeping this Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Delete per rationale and if possible, WP:SALT. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:51, 12 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) 21:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Simonds[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Never played professionally, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT or WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I know this is a repeat, and I hope we don't end up hashing out again another no-consensus... but I still see a good number of articles written up on this guy in Google News. It seems that he passes WP:GNG even though he has yet to play professionally.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide links? I still haven't been able to find any significant coverage on Simonds. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete change: Wrong Pat Simonds, it seems. (oops).--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never played so much as a preseason down in the NFL. Blueboy 96 04:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 19:45, 15 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. the sources advanced have been examined and don't appeart to cut the mustard. Keep votes by assertion carry very lightle weight in contrast Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to the President[edit]

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

This article was created via a paid-editing project on elance.com. The subject is nonnotable, as it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, or any major reviews or a wide theatrical release.

Keep if notability can be established. It should be possible given the number of well-known people involved in the project. The motivation of the article's creation should not be a reason to delete, if WP is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit." Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has not yet been established as the film hasn't been covered in-depth by reliable sources. Them From Space 19:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a quick search reveals no significant coverage by reliable sources that would make this documentary pass WP:NFILM.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Found sources. Added some to the article. Am not impressed by the film's content though, as there are two opposite poles opining... proponents who praise the unfounded opinions by the uninformed interviewees and opponents who point out that the interviewees were offering unsupported opinion and that the filmmaker himself did not provide accurate statistics. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only one of those sources that would appear to help with the NFILM requirements is the second (and only if you believe that David Cornelius is a notable enough reviewer). The NYT movies section is just a cataloge entry, there isn't any reporting done there. The politicalmediareview review is from a college student. The last source is from an OP-ed "citizen journalist". Them From Space 17:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say I was very impressed, and my "keep" is weak. Felt I needed to include the "positive" reviews for some sort of balance in a crtitcal response section, though I would just as soon have left those out. As for David Cornelius, he is a veteran writer, critic, and member on the Online Film Critics Society, currently writing for eFilmCritic, Hollywood Bitchslap, and DVD Talk,[1] so he has the genre expertise and experience to be considered relibale enough for what he is saying about the film. That he does not have his own article is not a negative. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the fact that he doesn't have an article doesn't mean that he's nonnotable. What I meant by the David Cornelius aside was that the criterion in NFILM about a "nationally known" critic is vague and open to interpretation. Them From Space 20:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... they can't all be Roger Ebert. And the attribute "nationally known" is not a required criteria, but acts rather as an encouragement to seek sources. His credentials in being a member of Online Film Critics Society and writing for reliable genre source DVD Talk do show suitable expertise, and his review would anyway fall under the criteria of "full-length magazine reviews and criticism" (online). Now if only some of the film's proponents had even the least amount of credibility... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per the five pillars A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I am loath to appear to condone paid-for editing, the NYT ref alone establishes notability. If we had a policy prohibiting this sort of thing, I would certainly support it, and !vote delete here. But alas, we have treat this as if written by a good-faith volunteer.The Interior (Talk) 19:26, 9 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, Davewild (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage is not sufficient for me to say keep. Note that the NY Times item is not an article or review from the NY Times. It is licensed content from All Movie Guide. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note about NYT film listings... they are created by the Times subsidiary InBaseline, a subsidary set up by the Times and just as dedicated to fact-checking and accuracy as the news sections of the Times itself.[2][3][4] That they chose to include a licensed review from Allmovie, a review independent from the film, just means they're doing their job in informing their own readers. The independent review written by David Cornelius of Online Film Critics Society is more convincing for me, with the NYT/Allmovie stuff being supportive. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I won't dispute that the material from All Moview Guide as used in the NY Times online site is likely reasonably accurate. However, all they have done is licensed the AllMoviewGuide so they can populate their online movie directory. They have not made any editorial decision on what moviers to include. It's a pure feed of information, and as such provides no notability. For example, look at this entry. It's completely devoid of any information beyond the title and running time. Does that look like editorial oversight tin the selection of content? -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - All that one looks like is a verification that is far stronger and more reliable than what is proferred by IMDB. The Cornelius review[5] is what has kept my support. I am not too impressed by the supportive review by "citizen jounalist" Rady Ananda,[6] as she does not have the established film genre credentials or credibility as does Cornelius... but as an activist, she does have "some".[7][8] The credentials of Political Media Review[9] have yet to be determined as they have only been around since 2009 and they seem to be an opinion-centered publication set up as a self-proclaimed "independent reviewing clearinghouse for social justice media". Sounds too politcially left to be neutral. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by the number of references in RS, the well-documented controversial nature of the film, and the huge number of notable individuals associated with it. Qworty (talk) 03:53, 13 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. Web content (actually, supposed future web content) with no assertation of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R.P.M (tv show)[edit]

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

Web series currently in production. Fails WP:WEB. No references. WP:CRYSTAL also applies. The Interior (Talk) 18:40, 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 Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Murdoch Mitchison[edit]

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

Recently recreated article, the references that I have access to are basically passing mentions. His relationships to other notable people do not confer notability to the subject. Bringing to AFD for additional input. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1038/432557a may be of interest. Ucucha 18:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Certainly seems to pass the professor test, specifically, points 1 (a good few references about for that) and 6 (fellow of the Royal Society of London). Merely holding the chair of Professor of Zoology at Edinburgh could well pass points 5/6. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recreated the article, seems obviously notable to me. See The International Who's Who 2004. I'll expand the article more later. Sasata (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also meets WP:PROF no. 3, in addition to the ones J Milburn listed. He developed a major research organism, is a Fellow of the Royal Society, a full professor. Ucucha 18:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, I'm convinced on the basis of the Royal Society membership, and sorry for wasting everyone's time. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:51, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basilio Grillo Miceli[edit]

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

I could only find one source that looked reasonable. It's in Italian, but Google Translate made me think it _might_ be applicable. I could find nothing else so WP:N doesn't seem to be met.

That said, the claims here are pretty strong so I suspect I'm missing something as I don't think this is a hoax. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This reads to me like something legitimate. However, we are probably dealing with a very small denomination. I do not know Italian, but the content looks very like that of the Italian WP, where it is merely tagged for lack of references. I would guess they would have detected a hoax if there was one. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but I can't find any way to meet WP:BIO. I'm hoping someone else can or we conclude we can't. Hobit (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Italian and French Wikipedias are red herrings, and possibly we here are the first Wikipedia to properly scrutinize this. Notice that this article was written by Orthodoxsicily (talk · contribs), it:Basilio Grillo Miceli was written by Siciliaortodossa (talk · contribs), and fr:Basilio Grillo Miceli was written by Sicileorthodoxe (talk · contribs). (Just for completeness, the "Basilio (Grillo Miceli) of Ravenna and L'Aquila" article on OrthodoxWiki was written by the pseudonym " SicilianOrthodox".) This is one person's unsourced multilingual contribution. Uncle G (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is an "Italian Autonomous Orthodox Church" but I can find no evidence that this man actually has some relationship to it. All real hits lead back to the Orthodox Church in Italy where there is little more than directory information as best I can determine. In light of BLP issues I have go for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The various wiki articles mentioned above point to a couple of sources, which don't actually support most of the information given here, doing little more than stating this person's name and rank. Mainly, however, they point to one another (OrthodoxWiki cites this article as its source, for example.) which is both insufficient and suspect. I am unable to find any sources that document this person's life and works, and the multi-account writer of all of these has not pointed to adequate sourcing. This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 22:27, 13 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruka Hirohata[edit]

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

fails nn, tagged for a year Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party sourcing to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 00:51, 10 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comm100[edit]

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

Non-notable company, article created by User:Sabrina_Gage. Her LinkedIn says she works at Comm100: [10] Rchard2scout (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the undisclosed conflict of interest by the article's creator, discovered by Rchard2scout. Also, coverage on Google News is nothing but company press releases. No coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the company itself. Therefore, not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The conflict of interest alone is not reason enough for deletion. However, when there are no reliable sources readily available, and the COI is undisclosed, that creates in a strong presumption toward deletion in my mind, as the prospects for true encyclopedic coverage are poor at best. Cullen328 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert. (LinkedIn lists her as a "Marketer"). Lack of anything on gnews outside of press releases indicates this is not a notable company. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 03:20, 15 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hattenba[edit]

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

nn dicdef, send to wiktionary if you must, but not notable here Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary definition. --DAJF (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Cruising for sex: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the article does not give any evidence of Japanese hattenba having unique attributes that would make it a separate subject. --Closeapple (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC Neptune 123 (talk) 05:39, 12 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 (G5), article created by a sock puppet of a banned user. –MuZemike 18:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pappoe[edit]

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

Non-notable teenage athlete who has never played senior soccer, and fails both the GNG and the notability criteria of WP:NFOOTY. One in a series of such articles by a newcomer, all of which are appearing at AfD. Ravenswing 16:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 10 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 (G5), article created by a sock puppet of a banned user. –MuZemike 18:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Chalobah[edit]

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

Non-notable teenage athlete who has never played senior soccer, and fails both the GNG and the notability criteria of WP:NFOOTY. One in a series of such articles by a newcomer, all of which are appearing at AfD. Ravenswing 16:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:42, 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 20:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Dvorkin[edit]

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

No evidence of notability

He's the leader of an anti-cult group Saint Ireneus of Lyons Informational Consultative Center - which doesn't have its own article.
He's "appeared" on Russian TV - I bet so have millions
He's a critic of scientology - who isn't?

So it comes back to whether being listed by the CoS website gives notability, or whether being one of many people named in a failed lawsuit gives notability. I'd say no. Scott Mac 15:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : Clearly notable individual, per WP:GNG standards and also per impact in his field. Just follow the links in the template above: you'll find plenty of coverage in books (e.g.[11], [12], [13] (where he is called the "most prominent fighter of the totalitarian sects"). The news coverage is also outstanding; here he is called "a leading critic of sects". In short, he is no run-of-the-mill fellow, he is apparently the most important critic of sects in Russia, with plenty of sources to demonstrate it. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few flattering remarks in passing sources doesn't establish notability? What has he done? What's his acheivments? What controversies has he sparked? And where is HE discussed in any more than a passing mention. Counting sources on Goggle is no way to justify or improve an article. I can google almost anything and say "x hits". What we need is material indicating some concrete significance. Is there any?--Scott Mac 16:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being one of the most important critic of sects in his (quite large) country, and thus being regularly interviewed and quoted by books and news in this position, is enough for me -and for any reasonable person, I'd say. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source may be useful as it what An American Academic Sees about him. Rather than he says she says type thing we have right now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Russian article cites close to 100 sources and runs to more than 6,500 words. He is controversial and notable as a major player in Russia. --JN 466 16:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article does need some attention, since the sources are out there but not being used in the article. His activities, the failed lawsuit, and the organization he belongs to provides enough evidence for WP:N (he is not known for only one event or one activity).Coffeepusher (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't about the number of Google hits, it is about the quality of what reliable sources say about him. On July 17, 2007, for example, the Washington Post said that he was "a Moscow academic and one of Russia's leading specialists on new religions". There were three book sources in the article at the time of nomination, all with ISBN numbers. Other editors have uncovered reliable sources. He's notable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, prolific writer and academic who has also been the subject of WP:RS secondary source coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Academic Fringe? Yes... Critic of Scientology? Yes... Notable for the right reasons? probably not... Meets WP:ACADEMIC? You betcha... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology deletion discussions. Will Beback talk 00:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Whenever the view of people who participate in this AFD, please feel free to join in the effort at Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology--Scott Mac 01:13, 13 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 (G5), article created by a sock puppet of a banned user. –MuZemike 18:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Deen-Conteh[edit]

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

Recreation of an article deleted via PROD. The subject does not meet notability requirements as outlined at WP:NSPORTS in that he has never appeared in a first division/premiere league match. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 10 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. No arguments for deletion left. Davewild (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grenville Anderson[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources on Google about "Grenville Anderson", other than one about him being the vice president of a company. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied the first version of this earlier as a straight copy viol of this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Northern Star in Lismore, New South Wales reported on February 18, 2010 that he was "the only man in national speedway history to win four Australian super sedan championships", and called him a "legend". A race at the Lismore Speedway is named after him. No BLP concerns - he died in 2004. Keep if more references can be found. Cullen328 (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many regard Grenville Anderson as the greatest Australian Speedway Sedan driver ever. I watched him drive and he was the greatest without a doubt. A National Blue Ribbon event known as "The Grenville" is held in his honour each year. Info on Grenville at his memorial facebook page can be found at: http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=43092671886&v=info I started this article. I was given permission from the authors and publishers of an article published after his death to use that as a stub. The Wikipedia bot deleted it. I haven't done a Wikipedia article before and expect to be on a learning curve. When every NRL player in every Australian Rugby League team has a wikipedia entry and there is none for Grenville then something has to be done. This article *must* remain and must be developed. - Billrinoz
- The Sydney Morning Herald reported his death (briefly) on June 1, 2004, calling him a "champ". He was grievously injured in a crash in 1993, so references from the time when he was a champion driver may be unavailable online. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree about the rugby players (and by extension soccer and American football etc) - unfortunately, they usually manage to be referenced and are defended by a policy that gives notability to professional sports people whether or not they actually really do anything much or not. This article is currently unreferenced and the addition of references would help greatly. They don't have to be online - a reference to the race named for him might be online - but if they are, so much the better. Having said that, many articles are referenced purely in hard copy. Peridon (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added some references and started to Wikify the article. I've also left a message offering help on Billrinoz's talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Grenville won in the era before super sedans - notching three national titles in the sedans of the day before the advent of today’s high-tech super sedans. His fourth national title was recorded during the 1992/1993 season at Tasmania’s Latrobe Speedway. With four wins Grenville Anderson stands as a colossus - above all others - the master of the title." from "Start your Super Sedan engines" by Dennis Newlyn in The Northern Star, 18 February 2009. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going, just, with a keep on this. Multiple Australian Champ. There is not much coverage available online but he was a multiple champ in tthe period between 75-80, not hte best for online coverage. There is also the Hall of Fame thing (not individually seen on wikipedia as a notable hall of fame yet but they have had inductions announced in The West Australian, 30 July 2008, and The Advertiser, 2 June 2007 and that's without looking at motoring magazines). duffbeerforme (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Duffbeerforme (even though I prefer good beer...). Article has been greatly improved. Thanks to Cullen328. Peridon (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My issues are resolved. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the refs that have been found which have satisfied the nominator's concerns. Also found this article which sort of references the crash in the early '90s, if that's of any use to anyone trying to build the article. Jenks24 (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is was a notable driver. References demonstrate that he passes WP:GNG. Kugao (talk) 19:44, 15 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 20:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Principles of grouping[edit]

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

This page has remained unpatrolled for over three weeks because neither I nor anyone else can decide whether it meets our criteria for inclusion. The community should decide. Kudpung (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone even bothered to research the subject, or even to just look at the sources cited for it so far? I notice that Project:WikiProject Psychology participants weren't even asked about the article. If they had been asked, they'd probably have observed that the original Scholarpedia article cited at the bottom of this article cites quite a few sources. They'd probably have mentioned a few more, easily found, sources on the subject of the Gestalt principles of perception a.k.a. the Gestalt laws of visual/perceptual organization a.k.a. the Gestalt laws of grouping, too:
- Wolfe, Jeremy M.; Kluender, Keith R.; Levi, Dennis M.; Bartoshuk, Linda M.; Herz, Rachel S.; Klatzky, Roberta L.; Lederman, Susan J. (2008). "Gestalt Grouping Principles". Sensation and Perception (2nd ed.). Sinauer Associates. ISBN 9780878939381.
- Goldstein, E. Bruce (2009). "Perceiving Objects and Scenes § The Gestalt Approach to Object Perception". Sensation and perception (8th ed.). Cengage Learning. pp. 105–107. ISBN 9780495601494.
There's even another easily found encyclopaedia that discusses this same subject:
- Banerjee, J. C. (1994). "Gestalt Theory of Perception". Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Psychological Terms. M.D. Publications Pvt. Ltd. pp. 107–109. ISBN 9788185880280.
Irving and Palmer, who are acknowledged as having built upon the work of Max Wertheimer and others with some new laws (Weiten 1998, pp. 144) harv error: no target: CITEREFWeiten1998 (help), note that Werheimer's laws have come to be called the "Gestalt laws of grouping" but state that this very title, principles of grouping, "is perhaps a more appropriate description" (Palmer, Neff & Beck 1997, pp. 63) harv error: no target: CITEREFPalmerNeffBeck1997 (help).
- Palmer, Stephen; Neff, Jonathan; Beck, Diane (1997). "Grouping and Amodal Perception". In Rock, Irvin (ed.). Indirect perception. MIT Press/Bradford Books series in cognitive psychology. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262181778.
- Weiten, Wayne (1998). Psychology: themes and variations (4th ed.). Brooks/Cole Pub. Co. ISBN 9780534340148.
- Palmer, Stephen E. (2003). "Visual Perception of Objects". In Healy, Alice F.; Proctor, Robert W.; Weiner, Irving B. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology: Experimental psychology. Vol. 4. John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 9780471392620.
Just putting this very title into a search engine would have turned up literature on the subject (such as Palmer 2003, pp. 180 et seq. which was the fourth result when I put "principles of grouping" into Google Books).
So again I ask: Had anyone actually bothered to look?
Uncle G (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is an important topic in perceptual psychology, as Uncle G's literature search shows. WP needs an article on it, and it needs to be prominently linked from Gestalt_psychology#Pr.C3.A4gnanz MartinPoulter (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. This article should certainly be in wikipedia, as it covers an important topic in psychology, and as Uncle G notes, references are easy to find. It appears that the article was apparently created by User:Txchen92 entirely between December 13 and December 15. Then, it appears that the user got a massive number of (bot generated) templates about copyvio, and unclear copyright status of images on December 14 and 15, stopped editing wikipedia, and then was blocked indefinitely on December 17/18 (notice dated December 18th). So, at this point, the primary contributor would have been blocked, and could not have responded to any of the patrols, even if he/she had understood. It seems like this is a case of a newbie making a good faith attempt, not understanding policies and probably now having been bot-scared off. The topic itself should be included in wikipedia. I've looked to see if this is *indeed* a copyvio (as opposed to just bot-tagging because it *might* be, as was the case for the images), and I find only two hits for the text in the WP:LEAD, our page, and another page, dated January 2, 2011, that explicitly states that it is drawing on the wiki page, so I do not actually find any evidence that the text is a copyvio, and the images are only bot-suspected, not demonstrated copyvios. I'd love to be able to actually look at the images and see if they *are* copyvios, but since they've been bot-deleted, we can't do that either. I think that the blocking admin might want to take another look at this, too, since this user may have been blocked too hastily. Edhubbard (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Several of the deleted images are derived works of non-free content, such as an annotated version of the IBM logo and a trimmed version of the WWF logo. They were only used as examples. We should come up with free content example images. Providing free content encyclopaedic content is, after all, our mandate. Uncle G (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean. I've copied over a few images that are appropriate in the Principles of grouping article from the Gestalt psychology article, but I agree that things like the IBM logo and the WWF logo should not have been used. We can certainly create suitable images ourselves that don't rely on copyrighted logos and images. I still think that the editor who started the grouping article might have been somewhat too hastily blocked, but I've now brought that up separately on the blocking admin's talk page. Edhubbard (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though the article lacks references and could use some critical rephrasing and extension, content-wise it is rather accurate. Grouping principles are 'classics' in gestalt psychology, and you can look it up in any better encyclopedia on the topic, e.g.: "Gestalt theory" in Goldstein - Encyclopedia of Perception, Vol. 1 & 2 (2010), or "Principles of perceptual grouping" in Nadel (Ed.) - Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science (2003). An extra article makes perfect sense, and this one is an acceptable start. Morton Shumway—talk 20:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC). Additional info: the article paraphrases the list on p. 281 of Gray's "Psychology" (e.g. 4th edition 2001), chapter 8: "The Psychology of Vision", section "Built-in Rules for Organizing Stimulus Elements into Wholes". It is clearly not a transcript. Morton Shumway—talk 21:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This concept appears in every Psychology 100 textbook I've encountered as a instructor for that course. A fundamental idea in visual perception. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:24, 11 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) 16:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gratantial Ltd[edit]

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

Notability, reads like a press-release or an advertisement. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage, nor (given the articles list of things that haven't happened and vague predictions of things that are going to happen, and the income of under 5000 pounds) impending likelihood of same. Fails notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references, and a search doesn't find anything so it's unlikely to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. Peter E. James (talk) 20:36, 11 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. There is a rough consensus that the article meets the notability guideline and with the argument that the article falls under BLP1E having been answered by some of those arguing to keep leaving no overriding policy reason for deletion, I am closing as keep. Davewild (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan A. Conklin[edit]

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

Possibly fails notability because all or most of the references are dubious, either not mentioning the subject at all, or do not meet WP:RS. I'm not even sure if this is about a real person or a character in a movie of TV show. Kudpung (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's been in two reality TV series, one of which he was the star, and has written a book. Does that not qualify for notability?

As for the references, they include articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, a page on the United States Army's website, episodes of The Real World in which information about him and his life was mentioned or depicted, etc. What's dubious about them? Nightscream (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's only been in the one TV series, and to say that he was a star when there were half a dozen others is a stretch. There is not evidence that his book qualifies him for notability per WP:AUTHOR. The latter two sources you mention are probably not reliable, both having an obvious promotinal interest and one being primary. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has been in two. After being on the Real World, he had an MTV special completely about him. Rockhead126 (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I missed The Real World Presents: Return to Duty, but it's not a second series, it's a single episode kiss-off because he missed the reunion episode. The fact that it doesn't even have an article, nor is it even mentioned at The Real World: Brooklyn highlights its lack of significance. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It's not like he's just being mentioned in his hometown newspaper. Most of these are big-name sources, and he's clearly mentioned in all of them. He's done more than enough to be eligible. Rockhead126 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Real World: Brooklyn, which is his claim to fame, and the info there is both concise and reasonably well-sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient sources from reliably sourced references denote that subject of article meets WP:GNG and individual meets WP:BASIC. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Real World: Brooklyn per Starblind. He fails WP:MILPEOPLE utterly, and his notability is completely associated with one event. None of the other... characters? Contestants? Whatever the term is, none of the others are notable for thier own articles, and neither is Conklin. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's been in two TV shows (a series and a 2009 documentary that focuses on him), has written a memoir, and has been profiled in both The New York Times and The Washington Post. Nightscream (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's been the subject of articles in multiple reliable and verifiable sources, all establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Starblind and Bahamut, no lasting notability here and although there is coverage I don't believe it qualifies as "significant" as required in WP:GNG and WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I undid a NAC close of this as clearly being wrong. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, the subject's been featured in a documentary and the subject of separate pieces by The New York Times and The Washington Post, which satisfies the general notability guidelines. I'm not convinced WP:BIO1E applies, since there's not really an event he's associated with, unless you count the war in Iraq. I don't think a being on a TV show is what WP:BIO1E was designed for. 28bytes (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm the nominator so can't !vote. However, as the original closure of this RfA was subject to controversy (nothing to do with the nomination), I'll offer some clarifications. The article when I tagged it for AfD had slumbered for nearly a month as an unpatrolled new article because its notability was obviously sufficiently unclear that no patrollers could see their way clear to either passing it as patrolled, or even tagging it for attention. Patrolling from the back of the backlog, I In spite of the sources, or additions refs that could have been added later, had the article had been PRODed, and if no one had intervened to contest the PROD within 7 days, it would have been procedurally deleted. I occasionally send an unclear article to AfD, not from any personal policy of deletionism (there isn't one), but because of all the deletion procedures, it is the fairest, and I don't personally care which way the community's decision falls - all I want is a consensus as to whether an article stays, goes, or gets merged. The state of the sources at the time of tagging was:

http://www.mtv.com/shows/return_to_duty/series.jhtml video about a movie, not about the subject
http://www.anangelfromhell.com/author.php bio, not sure who wrote this web site about Conklin's book
http://www.anangelfromhell.com/author.php video about a movie, not about the subject
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/31/48/31_48_sp_real_world_review.html not sure if this is print media or only a web site; Local Brooklyn news - not substantial national coverage
http://www.mtv.com/videos/real-world-brooklyn-ep-5-friends-and-enemies/1603847/playlist.jhtml video about a movie, not about the subject
http://www.mtv.com/shows/real_world/brooklyn/cast_member.jhtml?personalityId=10601 video about a movie, not about the subject. Links to a brief bio of the subject
http://www.mtv.com/shows/real_world/brooklyn/episode.jhtml?episodeID=148951 not sure what this web page is supposed to depict
http://www.mtv.com/videos/real-world-brooklyn-reunion/1607912/playlist.jhtml video about a movie, appears to be about a TV show
http://www.realtelevision.net/2009/11/05/return-to-duty/ appear to be about 'MTV’S “RETURN TO DUTY” TAKES AN EMOTIONAL JOURNEY WITH “THE REAL WORLD: BROOKLYN’S” RYAN CONKLIN AS HE RETURNS TO THE BATTLEFIELDS OF IRAQ' Web source, possibly not RS but may contribute to notability as it appears to be about a documentary about some part of Conkllin's life.
http://tv.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/arts/television/11return.html?_r=2 NYT - an RS. A review about a TV show that appears to be 'mindless “Real World” reality series' about Conklin.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111022159.html Washingtojn Post is an RS. A review about a TV show 'with depressing results' that appears to be about Conklin, a '23-year-old layabout on "The Real World: Brooklyn," taped in 2008 and seen this year, Ryan Conklin didn't leave much of an impression.'
http://www.amazon.com/Angel-Hell-Ryan-Conklin/dp/0425233944/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top, not a Wikipedia RS. A listing of a single book written by Conklin.

The subject is clearly not an author of note, is not a professional actor, and is not a war hero. What is he exactly? And what, if any, criteria for notability does he sufficiently fullfil, and what reliable sources, if any, assert that notability. Newspapers don't make notability, they confirm it. Kudpung (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RightCowLeftCoast above that the subject appears to meet WP:BASIC due to the NYT and Post articles... is there a need to further categorize him? 28bytes (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tons of references from third-party sources in the national media - at least some of which are evidently about Conklin personally, not the TV show, so BLP1E really doesn't apply. This isn't even a borderline case. I agree that closing the AfD early was probably a bad idea in procedural terms (since there isn't a universal consensus to keep), but the result of the closure was correct. Walton^One 12:01, 16 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) 16:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Madonna[edit]

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

Questional notability, little to no third-party references, apparently created by the singer/actress herself. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appearing on one reality show is generally not notable, especially one as extremely obscure as Queen Bees. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:17, 10 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S Is for Space (album)[edit]

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

Per notability at WP:MUSIC. Google/Google Books confirms it exists, but not much more other than an Allmusic review. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to White Flag (band). I would normally look for an opportunity to merge in cases such as this (WP:MUSIC suggests merging and not deletion) but in this case there just isn't enough there and the tracklisting differs from the one at Allmusic (which doesn't make it wrong, perhaps the Allmusic listing is for the expanded 25th anniversary edition), where I don't see any review, incidentally, and there appears to be little in the way of available sources that can be used to verify or expand the article.--Michig (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Delete. A dab hatnote at S is for Space (the correct capitalization of the title) should suffice.--Michig (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No review, no sources, non-notable label. ~~Very obscure album probably not even worth a redirect due to the qualifier, but I just created S Is for Space as a redirect.~~ Can be included as a hatnote on S Is for Space. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S Is for Space would be better as a redirect to S is for Space.--Michig (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other way around. "Is" is supposed to be capitalized in titles, which is why I didn't catch S is for Space. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that mentioned at Wikipedia:Article_titles, which states "The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized; subsequent words in a title are not, unless they are part of a proper name". Is it stated somewhere else?--Michig (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That passage is in reference to articles about individual things (e.g. "Criminal black man stereotype" not "Criminal Black Man Stereotype"). WP:CAPS says "In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with"), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle." Therefore, "is" is capitalized in titles of works. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, so I think that leaves us with the book article needing to be moved, ideally over your recently-created redirect, with a hatnote there pointing to the band. Agree?--Michig (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not been covered in reliable sources and can be a list item in the discography at the band's article. It does appear that the AllMusic review is for a different edition only. Also, if this album article is deleted, that will make the other discussion about what to do at S is for Space (the Ray Bradbury book) much simpler. Not hatnote or move will be necessary. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:28, 10 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! 02:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1100AD[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable online content that has no independent reliable sources. I made a quick search for any third-party coverage and couldn't find any. I don't believe this meets notability criteria. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shirik. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources, as is, not from amber games? Why is that even... Know what, I'll try and find something. -Feildmaster (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CHANCE. The article was created just one week ago. YardsGreen (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it was already deleted once before. Not only that, I tried to do research to fill it up with references conveying its notability. I can't find any. No amount of time can fix that. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will discuss with the developers, I'm sure if anyone has sources, they will (or should). Also: Wikipedia's explanation pages need explanation pages. I can't even tell what a "valid source" is according to the pages (rather, i didn't take much time to read the bottom. The top confused me so i just looked for sources on other pages) . -Feildmaster (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may find it useful to check out WP:SOURCES and WP:QS. YardsGreen (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware that the article had been previously deleted. Do you happen to have a link to the previous AfD? About reliable sources, while I don't see any with a very quick search, Feildmaster seems to know more about the topic and is willing to try and find some. I'm willing to keep the article for now, and give Feildmaster and other possible editors a chance prove notability, depending on the previous AfD. YardsGreen (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  It was not a discussion; it was deleted under A7, see here. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1100. 1100AD is a plausible search term and there are no circumstances in which it would be appropriate to make it a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 17:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirects are cheap, but I see no reason to redirect 1100AD when no other years are redirected similarly. 2011AD, 1980AD, and 1908AD are all redlinks, and so they should be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly hard to fix, and AfD generally disregards "other stuff exists". Or in this case, "other stuff doesn't exist."—S Marshall T/C 19:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Much as I would think there should be a place for articles like this in Wikipedia, I just don't see this satisfying the notability requirements. I can't find a single suitably-reliable independent reference for this game. Sorry, I can't support this.—RJH (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References: I will agree there are not that many references, but I have found a few. By checking Wikipedia's rules however, I can't tell what all are "valid reliable sources."

Interview with developers
A Game review
Local Latvian Review (More so of the developers)
Nomination for Favorite strategy game 2010 (Ranked #1 (2010,All Time)) , Most Popular game 2010 (Ranked #1 (2010)), Ranked #4 (All time)) (browser game rankings)
Game reviews (There's a lot... will not list them all)
- Browsergamez.com
- osg1.com (They give a negative input)
- bbgsite.com
- buzzle.com

-Feildmaster (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on References The references given certainly seem to be independent. Whether they're reliable under policy is less clear. I'm not sure whether game reviews should qualify as reliable or not. Note that under WP:RSEX, assuming the appropriate category would be "popular culture", the standard for reliable sources is more relaxed than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Given that one of the sources is negative, I think they probably count as reliable. Does anyone know a more specific reference to games or game reviews in Wikipedia policy? YardsGreen (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its simply advertising, check out here http://www.1100ad.com/forumviewthread.php?id=19782 178.27.64.2 (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And who wouldn't want their game posted on wikipedia? Getting onto wiki is a notable thing, the player reward is simply a boost to try and get the page made. -Feildmaster (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. To summarize for those who don't want to follow the link, the site is hosting a contest where in-game rewards will be given to the main editors of the game's Wikipedia page. This could be a problem through WP:SOAP, specifically points four and five. Although this may not be the most WP:NPOV way to write a better article, I personally don't think it would be reason to necessarily delete a page, provided that the article is kept neutral. YardsGreen (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep sources provided appear to be independent and reliable, but I don't know the area well enough to know. Hobit (talk) 22:23, 9 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) 23:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep - Browsergamez and BBGsite seem to be the only sites that aren't simple wordpress blogs hiding under a fancy design. I can't find much on these sites, so they may prove unreliable as well. --Teancum (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Browsergamez and BBGsite are the only non-wordpress blogs, but BBGsite is considered unreliable as a source, leaving only Browsergamez, which is also somewhat questionable - I don't know that it necessarily isn't reliable, but there's nothing on the site that lends immediate hope that it is, either. --Teancum (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Wordpress is simply a CMS choice, and is independent of the reliability of the source. Many unreliable sources use Wordpress, but many reliable sources also use Wordpress. For example, CNN's Larry King, Anderson Cooper and Dr. Gupta all use Wordpress, but are considered reliable sources under WP:NEWSBLOG. Consensus may ultimately be that the listed sources for 1100AD are not reliable, but that consensus should be reached independent of the CMS that the sources choose to use. YardsGreen (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I realize that - perhaps I should have been more clear. I realize the format of the HTML does not a reliable site make. It's just a choice of word that we sometimes use for unreliable blogs. --Teancum (talk) 18:17, 13 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) 09:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though the article is just a definition now, there is a promising list of references provided that should allow it to be expanded into an encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you briefly describe what an encyclopedia article on the word "public" might look like, if not a dictionary entry? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not sure how this could be made into a proper encyclopedia article as opposed to a dictionary entry. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am withdrawing my recommendation in recognition of the fact that the article has been significantly changed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICDEF Neptune 123 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ As this stands, not an encyclopaedic entry, despite its long history. If you wish to see what 'an encyclopedia article on the word "public" might look like', try the French, Italian and German articles which expand on the subject rather more, but are rather scant in regard of references. Peridon (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, this is clearly a dictionary-type article and the info thus doesn't belong here. An encyclopedia entry on the subject would required a full clean-sheet rewrite. So then deletion first doesn't harm... L.tak (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G has changed the entry in an encyclopedic one that certainly has merit: clear Keep. L.tak (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would look like this, a valid stub article about a subject (a concept in communication science theory) denoted by its title with sources (some of which were already pointed to at the time of nomination) and clear scope for further expansion. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a totally different article - thanks to Uncle G. Peridon (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good example of an important article about a general topic that has languished unloved for a while, but clearly should have been covered by wikipedia. Happily the article is already now much better and has clear scope for further expansion. Ajbpearce (talk) 21:32, 12 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 roads in Toronto. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Street (Toronto)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, not an important street (though a few important places are located at intersections with other roads, some of which are notable). ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect Does not pass the WP:GNG Admrboltz (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:GNG per Admrboltz. Imzadi 1979 → 21:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article and the street that is named are short. But there is one source given, showing detailed information for this article, and there is likely another. Dew Kane (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lone source is to Toronto Street Names. The entry for John Street on page 124 redirects me to Simcoe Street, on pages 196/197. This entry discusses John Graves Simcoe in length, and mentions that three streetswere named after him; John, Graves, and Simcoe Streets. Literally, the reference applicable to this article is "All three of [John Graves Simcoe]'s names were used for street names." This presently-lone source does not qualify as non-trivial mention in multiple independent sources, per the general notability guideline. The possibility that another may exist is speculation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect - Looks like an ordinary city street. Dough 48 72 04:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Vote amended as indicated below Not enough attention has been paid to the article in providing more references and content (I'll give myself a mea culpa). But such references do exist, for example the page John Street Corridor Improvements at the City of Toronto which states "John Street runs between Front Street West and Stephanie Street. It is an important destination for residents and visitors alike. The street and its extended corridor (from Grange Park to the Waterfront) links many of Toronto’s cultural landmarks. The area has been identified as a Cultural Corridor by the City, and is seen as the centrepiece of the Entertainment District" and (in the section "Heritage") "John Street has been an important destination for Torontonians for over 200 years", almost the entire period that Toronto has existed as a town (since 1793). Seems notable enough for reasons of history and for the its place in the present day city. --papageno (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect Some of you seem to care about this little street now. Where were you when I was defending it against repeated vandalism? No more notable than many other minor old streets in the city, but I had no desire to see it abused. Perhaps one omnibus article could be created for all of them to preserve some of their historic background. 74.15.64.66 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC) (Apparently I was logged off when I made this comment. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of this now, but it may be some time. Most of the pages that are just etimology and a two sentence route description will be redirected when its completed, however. It was completely by accident that I nominated this instead of redirecting it, as I have done with several other non-notable roads in Toronto, back to List of roads in Toronto. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are the "King of the Road". I should have expected you to be on top of this. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, then redirect In light of the good work that User Floydian has indicated he is undertaking at User:Floydian/List of roads in Toronto, which will seem to include capsule segments on each road, may I suggest the article be kept for now, then redirected to List of roads in Toronto once the capsule segment for John Street on that page is completed and live. Be glad to help complete that segment if User Floydian wishes. PS User Secondarywaltz, I think I helped a bit in reverting the work of pranksters! ;-) --papageno (talk) 02:47, 11 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shahed Ma Shafsh Haga[edit]

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

Fails WP:N; no verifiable references included. Article's only content is a plot summary. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 13:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to Al-Ahram Weekly this is a "hugely successful 1980s Egyptian comedy play" and Asharq Al-Awsat calls it "Adel Imam's well-known play". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a pity that the article itself provides none of that context. It doesn't even say what country it is from. Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 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) 00:01, 2 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 06:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is a case of 'lost in translation'. The Latinized variant I am finding is 'Shahid Ma Shafsh Haga'; 'The Witness Who Saw Nothing', occasionally as 'The Blind Witness' or 'An Eye-Witness Who Did Not Witness a Thing'. Found a few good sources 1 2 but nothing yet that is in-depth. Jørdan 07:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CHANCE. The article was nominated for deletion less than 24 hours after being created, after a failed WP:PROD only thirteen minutes after being created. YardsGreen (talk) 09:01, 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. This does not prevent a consensus being reached elsewhere to merge/redirect to another article. Davewild (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second-class citizen[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is more than a simple dictionary definition and I'm sure it could be expanded. Laurent (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why the entire topic of this article couldn't be explained in one-sentence in the article discrimination? That is, "A second class citizen is a person who is the subject of discrimination, in spite of being a citizen." -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Using the Google search tools above readily shows that this topic has received extensive coverage in news, books and scholarly sources showing that it notable and worthy of encyclopedic coverage far beyond the one sentence definition suggested by Jrtayloriv. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this is an interesting topic and has had wide spread media coverage worthy of inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhitehurst (talk • contribs) 08:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we decide to do with this, it won't involve the use of the "delete" button. This is a plausible search term. If everything meaningful can be covered in one sentence in the article discrimination, then it should be a redirect to discrimination. If not, it should be kept. Either way, it doesn't belong at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 17:49, 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. Davewild (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Shops at Kildeer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AFD was no consensus because some editors thought sources were sufficient. The sourcing, however, is limited to press releases. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable significance. References do not support notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhitehurst (talk • contribs) 08:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small shopping mall, and the sources listed in the first AfD are just mentions.` DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 14 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 - hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert VanFelDyke[edit]

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

Almost nothing checks out - did not compete at the 80, 84, 88, 92 or 96 Olympics for GBR in any athletics events - see here for an example. Chicago Marathon article lists a Japanese runner as the winner in 86. Given the name is spelt two different ways, I'm not going to waste any time trying to sort this out. Created by a single edit editor. Likely hoax. The-Pope (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References aren't credible/verifiable. Not significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhitehurst (talk • contribs) 08:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What references? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:08, 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polity[edit]

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

~~Wikipedia is not a dictionary/thesaurus.~~ -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Jørdan 06:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at the history and the lack of encyclopaedic development after nearly five years, not at its potential as I should have. Jørdan 11:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a dictionary entry but the description of an important concept in political science. As such it is the subject of a huge amount of literature. To mention only a few random Google Books entries: Polity: political culture and the nature of politics, Craig L. Carr, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007, ISBN 9780742548251; The polity, Rand McNally political science series, Norton E. Long, Rand McNally, 1962; Constructing the world polity: essays on international institutionalization, John Gerard Ruggie, Routledge, 1998, ISBN 9780415099905; Polity and society: philosophical underpinnings of social science paradigms, Michael Haas, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1992, ISBN 9780275935580. Sandstein 10:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -- As original nominator. Another user (Mathsci) has shared with me a source that demonstrates how one could go about writing an article on this that wouldn't essentially be either a dictionary entry or a duplication of government/state/political organization. I've clearly goofed up here, and would suggest that this should be kept. Sorry about the disruption. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep second Sandstein and Jrtayloriv. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Essential encyclopaedic topic that warrants development. Jørdan 11:23, 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) 09:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy of the state[edit]

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

Unencylopedic -- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unencyclopedic. Neptune 123 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't just define a term, it discusses it. Although I am skeptical about the effectiveness of "keep and clean up" results at AFD, this article has potential. It may not be sourced, contain little information and be badly written, but it's an important and well known topic.--Patton123 (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: seems to more than a mere WP:DICDEF, if barely. It surely needs references and cleanup, but I don't think it needs to be thrown to the wolves for it. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - needs references and a bit of a clean up as Bahamut states but not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Second-class_citizen this is a plausible search term discussing an issue with potential for far more than a dictionary definition. It is (like many articles on wikipedia) in need of a lot of work to become a valuable resource, but that is no reason for deletion. Ajbpearce (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily expandable. The proper tag for these sort of articles in current form like this would read still just a definition, needs expansion into an article DGG ( talk ) 14:51, 14 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 - duplicate on implausible variant spelling. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Shoemaker[edit]

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

It's a misspelled name of Wes Shoemyer. The page has existed since july 2006. Deletion rather than merge makes sense in this case. Apparently the info is grossly wrong. Outback the koala (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, per nom and WP:BLP. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G3 as blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:52, 11 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Standard Finance[edit]

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

I cannot establish any notable for this company. No gnews/gscholar hits on it.

Many of the references are in fact links to wikipedia articles. Only one of them seems to mention the subject directly but even then it's a series of slides from a presentation and the subject is only mentioned in passing. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 04:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 04:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding my delete rational, possibly the largest issue here is that the article is an advertisement for the company. It includes a mass of unsourced claims about the company's success. Some of refs seem to make no sense (such as ref #7 in the second paragraph of the history section.) I believe the general consensus is that having large profits or otherwise handling a large amount of money does not make a company notable unless it passes WP:CORP. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 06:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, that reference #7 has since been removed. (The sentence says, "The firm expanded rapidly between 2007 and 2010 due to the economic crisis and greater demand for private solutions to public sector needs." This had been cited to the Wikipedia article 101 California Street (San Francisco) which is where this firm has an office.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I totally disagree with this assessment. This company virtually transformed an entire industry. They advise world governments and if you actually read the posting you will note that they have historical reference as they were the first to do what they do in America. Scholar's aren't interested in finance, but rather books. These guys deal with real world events that impact our lives. You read every day in the news that States are broke and can't pay their bills. It's only because of this company it's not worse and that many of these have some options to save themselves. This article should definitely not be removed. The fact that they referenced a few Wikipedia pages simply to explain the terminology shouldn't be used against them as obviously it was examined and determined this content to be accurate. Had the Wikipedia pages not been referenced to give a reader a way to understand the definition of such terminology many may not understand what it is that is being discussed. I feel that this article is of importance and shouldn't be removed. I can find 1,000's of other articles listed here that have no gnews/gscholar hits and are of much less significance than this entity and the set of world economic events described here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.211.150 (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I just read the references and I disagree with the reviewers comments that the references do not directly reference the company. They do reference the company by specific name and are focus of several of the references. These noted references discuss the subject company's involvement in multi-hundred's of millions of dollars of investments that specifically relate to the material of the article. Additionally, two references are from highly credible magazines in Europe that interviewed the company's London representative and fund advisor. The entire two articles are written solely based upon the opinions and investment strategies of the company who is the subject of this article. As such, I disagree with the findings and leads me to think the reviewer didn't carefully review the links prior to commenting as his comments do not accurately reflect the context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.211.150 (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

struck through second !vote for this IP. Peridon (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

(Note to closing admin: Keep in mind the two IP posts above are the same IP. The IP has made, to date of the above comment, no other edits on WP.) Comment I was incorrect on the references. One of the refs (Greater Wilmington Business Journal) does directly mention the subject but only in passing as the financier of a loan. The National Real Estate Investor ref also mentions the company, but the company is not the main focus of the article. (A press release is also cited.) The IP above is incorrect however, about the UK refs. I cannot verify that the articles were based on advise from this company as the articles have no mention of the company. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 06:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just did some external due diligence on this company to try and examine its notability. They were a $2.396 Billion company 2009. They have been involved in some major projects. Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is an Advisor to the company per reports. You might notice the references of the article are all recent from August forward and older references weren't stated. Maybe this site should be edited as it appears the author wasn't possibly familiar with how to construction a proper Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhitehurst (talk • contribs) 05:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— JohnWhitehurst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Keep in mind that having a notable person advising a company or having large cash flow does not make a company notable, see WP:CORP. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 06:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The influence and deeds of the firm are not in question, it is the merit of inclusion of the article. Created and written by the Executive Director of NSF immediately violates Wikipedia policy. The lack of sources from the likes of Forbes, NYT and Bloomberg as well as the wider financial press are an issue. Books and thesis are not expected but credible and full coverage from the financial press, government bodies and a like. I was researching the company before the flood of comments, and the firm while significant in the industry, does not meet the necessary criteria on sources. Jørdan 06:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by the Executive Director of the firm and unable to locate independent sources to verify financials or notability per policy guidelines. Significant firm but its LLC status makes independent financial sources next to impossible to include. Jørdan 06:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I withdraw my comment in the greater interest of the community and to prevent misinterpretation of policy by external parties. Jørdan 08:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We may be persuaded by a $10,000 donation to the Wikipedia Foundation. Donate Jørdan 06:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed my improper and failed attempt at humour and I sincerely apologize. I did not wish to imply that I, the Wikimedia Foundation or it's editors, can be persuaded by monetary incentives to include or exclude articles. I do not speak on the foundation's behalf, its employees or contributors. The opinions I express are entirely my own and should not be taken as the official policy of Wikipedia or the consensus of the community. Jørdan 08:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't know making a donation resulted in inclusion. Sort of a conflict of interest? If you seek a donation for this don't post here, tell the Executive Director who posted the article and see what they say.
Comment Jordan good points. I didn't know that fianncials had to be verified as Wiki is full of companies that are private that do not include financial statement third part references. This company's annual revenues are found in research online. My thought for keeping was simply that they did create an entire industry that is now a multi-billion industry and has changed public/government finance in the US. Also as a result of their influence and developing this we now even hear President Obama saying that Public Private Partnerships are the future and encouraging States, cities and counties to engage in such so I felt that was notable enough in itself. Especially since every day we turn on the TV we see where States are broke and need money. I did find a few more credible references internationally in newspapers and publications. I guess if inventing a way to keep American States from going bankrupt isn't notable or newsworthy then it's time to go. But as I look at 100's of private equity sites have articles and one is no different than the next and I see nothing notable or different I don't see why this company created an entire industry and market recognized by the President of the US isn't as notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.211.150 (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I may first point out that I created this account two weeks ago and therefore I am in no place to comment or advise on the policies that the community has implemented. I am very much still learning what is and what is not an appropriate article, and the rules that govern them. My opinion has no weight nor merit in the community and the fate of the article will not rest on what I have or have not said. Please see Policies and guidelines for clarification on the issues involved.

Comment I never questioned the notability of the firm, in fact I wrote that the ' influence and deeds of the firm are not in question'. Statements such as 'National Standard was thought by many industry insiders to be one of the most active financiers and investors of renewable energy assets in North America' may be true but they must be properly referenced to a credible and independent source. Given the style and content of the article it would be difficult to give considered sources to each statement, that is all I meant by notability and sources. There are indeed a great many private equity firms with articles on Wikipedia, and each one would be considered on its own individual merit if nominated for deletion. I never nominated the article but made a considered comment on its inclusion based on its creation by the Exec Director of the firm, the lack of sources for the statements made and most importantly the lack of information available on firm and the statements made despite my research. To avoid further cluttering of this page, please comment here if you wish to discuss with me directly, otherwise comments regarding the article and its deletion should remain here, thanks, Jørdan 09:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I attempted to clean up the wiki-formatting of this article so that the footnotes citing other Wikipedia pages would be turned into wikilinks. That aside, though, I don't see how this article can portray this company as a "pioneer" in its industry without even saying when it was founded. The firm's own web site doesn't say when it was founded, either. The earliest specific year mentioned in this article appears to be 2007. But public-private partnerships certainly existed before 2007. Wikipedia has had an article about them since 2004. [14] For that matter, here's a discussion of a public-private partnership being proposed for a dam to generate power -- in 1955. That was before President Obama was even born. (I note that this company may in the future be found to be notable, in which case the article can be re-created. But for now, I can't find even one article about them in the Google News Archive, which strikes me as a bad sign for their notability.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the wiki-formatting was an improvement. I believe you clearly misread or misunderstood the article as I read it. The articles reference to 2007 simply points to a major event and timeframe tied to the economic crisis and no where does it state the company was formed or originated in 2007, but simply explains the significance during this timeframe. Additionally, the article clearly says it did not pioneer the invention of public-private partnerships which have existed for over 200 years in Europe. What the article says is that this entity was responsible and a pioneer for taking the public-private partnership and public finance initiatives that had been common in Europe for centuries and had been the first to introduce these investment models to the United States. By simply putting their name in a search engine you can easily find the age of the company as I just did so. You might also note that a large number of the coroporations listed in this article in which this company does business with all have Wiki pages/profiles. Not sure what you searched for in Google, but I am puzzled by your comments regarding your findings. It's clearly a delete as this group is full of academics who lack any understanding of business. As I try to review different articles for inclusion I notice virtually every article is critically attacked for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhitehurst (talk • contribs)
Delete Reads like promotion to me, with a distinct tone of internally rather than externally written. Carefully worded promotion - not the commonplace peacock flaunting we tag for speedy. "70 professionals"? Not a lot to run a business this big - are the rest amateurs? (Apologies - couldn't resist that...) As to PFI - it may be new in the USA, but it's been around in the UK for 18 years and was in existence in Australia well before that. Without evidence that this company were involved back then, they can hardly be described as 'pioneers'. Peridon (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, you didn't read the article either or misunderstood. The article never says or implies they pioneered anything in the UK or Australia and specifically references UK as the pre-existing market that they later introduced and pioneered in the United States for the first time, not the UK. Please carefully read the material prior to commenty inaccuarately. As to staff, check other similar firms here in Wiki...try Golden Gate Capital Partners. They are four times larger at 9 billion and state they have only 30 employees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_Capital --JohnWhitehurst (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, what exactly did they pioneer, in what country, when, and what sources say that they did that? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, if you simply read the article to a greater extent than just scanning it and making assumptions it would tell you. It clearly says, they Pioneered the European financial practices of Private Finance Initiative and Public Private Partnership in the U.S meaning they brought what was done in Europe to the US it also goes on to say that it previously only been done for very large infrastructure projects and this company made it available to small cities and counties who had never had excess. Just Delete it because regardless what sources are available, you discredit them anyone as you clearly haven't done your own research as your comments are not based in fact or substance, but rather your personal opinion only. Check the Golden Gate Capital Partners Wiki link I posted above and show me their references and why they are notable? Thousands of others just like it on Wiki. It appears some want a different litmus test for some articles and others get a free ride. If I were the author of this article and had spent that much time preparing it I would be very upset to see the very poorly written commentary posted here by people who haven't even read the article or at least have no idea what is is describing and its significance. The sources are public information and the financial industy it is well known. Clearly, if you don't follow banking and government project related news you wouldn't know about the company or even the industry. Many sites on Wiki have only one reference and some have none, at least these people did have more than 10 which is now reduced to 6. Another 4 pages of references online if you know how to do web research properly. So all the companies they do business with in the same industry are listed on Wiki, but they shouldn't even though they all followed after them and still rely upon this company to service them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.211.150 (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It peacocks the subject as a pioneer, then goes on later to mention, oh yes, Europe and elsewhere were already doing this. What other articles have or don't have is irrelevant under Wikipedia policy. Whether the company is well known or not in its circles is also irrelevant, as is whether I've heard of it or not. I haven't, but I have heard of companies involved with PFI over here like Jarvis PLC who have sold on to Vinci. It's not referencing so much I am bothered about. It's the possible scenario of a CEO giving instructions for an article on Wikipedia to be created. I don't know whether this is so or not, or whether the article is created by someone in the company or not. It reads like that to me, hence my opinion. The comment about a donation has been struck by its poster, and apparently was intended to be humorous but is now regretted. It is not an official statement, nor an exposition of official policy. If you knew how Wikipedia operates, you would realise that that wouldn't work anyway. Peridon (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Metropolitan 90...I just checked your own published articles on Wiki that you have credited to your name. They have zero references to substantiate the articles and the article are of no relative notable nature as I have heard of them. So should we nominate your sites for deletion since you don't have any references at all as you said here even 6 isn't acceptable in your opinion? You judge by a different measure than what you publish yourself it appears. Note above here it even says if someone were to donate $10,000 to Wiki it would be considered. That's very troubling when you think that the content of Wikipedia is directed by those who are willing to donate substantial sums. While I don't think it was intended to be, legally speaking its also a form of extorsion to make such a comment. If this company's management or attorneys saw that Wikipedia might have an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhitehurst (talk • contribs) 07:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about donating was a joke, the user rescinded that comment if you look above. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 12:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments. 1. As Osborn points out, the comment about a $10,000 donation was meant as a joke and was struck out by Jordan before I ever made any comment in this AfD discussion. There is no extortion going on here, just a poor attempt at humor. 2. You state that "no where does it state the company was formed or originated in 2007", which is true, but nowhere does it state when the company was formed at all. This is significant because if we are trying to figure out whether the company introduced a particular practice in the United States, we need to know when they started doing that. 3. If you believe that the Golden Gate Capital article is insufficiently sourced, you can feel free to nominate it for deletion as long as you legitimately believe it deserves to be deleted and are not just trying to make a point. 4. The reason certain references were removed as footnotes in National Standard Finance was primarily that they were just links to other Wikipedia articles which could be dealt with by ordinary wikilinks and did not need to be footnotes. 5. No articles are entitled to a free ride. If you truly believe that articles I created ought to be deleted from Wikipedia for being insufficiently sourced, then you can nominate them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have just now restored one footnote to the article which I had erroneously confused with another source cited therein. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to fins any significant coverage about this company. The claim that it pioneered public-private partnerships in the US are not borne out by an reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS to substantiate most of the claims in this article, and the company does not appear to meet WP:CORP/WP:GNG. I agree with the assertions that this is a cleverly-worded advertising/puff piece. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, any further questions to User:JohnWhitehurst will likely go unanswered, as they have been blocked for sockpuppetry, per this and other edits. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:59, 12 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) 09:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bikers Without Borders[edit]

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

One brief mention is the only independent coverage of this org that exists. Fails WP:ORG because there is no substantial coverage in reliable media. Dbratland (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run-of-the-mill "hey, we're going on a motorcycle ride and think it's the next Long Way Round" article. Or maybe I'm a bit bitter- still, no WP:RS to qualify for WP:ORG and especially WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. Nothing newsworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhitehurst (talk • contribs) 05:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 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 merge to Shitō-ryū. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shito-ryu techniques[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An un encyclopaedic list of martial techniques without any sourcing to justify notability Dwanyewest (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~Keep~~ Karate techniques are source-able. I suggest to the creator of this AFD that they implement the suggestions from the first AFD: merge List of kyokushin techniques and List of Shito-ryu techniques to a general Karate techniques article. The general article is much easier to source than these style-specific articles. jmcw (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have created Karate techniques and will merge this material. jmcw (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list needs to be sourced, but if it is then Merge into Shitō-ryū. My reasoning is explained at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts. Astudent0 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Either of the two previous suggestions makes sense to me--create an article on karate techniques or merge the techniques list into the article on the specific style. I don't support keeping the list as a separate article. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, following Papaursa's comments. Janggeom (talk) 14:01, 13 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 Kyokushin kaikan. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of kyokushin techniques[edit]

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

This is an un encyclopaedic list of martial arts techniques without verfication why they are notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~Keep~~ Karate techniques are source-able. I suggest to the creator of this AFD that they implement the suggestions from the first Shito-ryu AFD: merge List of kyokushin techniques and List of Shito-ryu techniques to a general Karate techniques article. The general article is much easier to source than these style-specific articles. jmcw (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have created Karate techniques and will merge this material. jmcw (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kyokushin kaikan. My reasoning is explained at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts. The list does need to be sourced, however. Astudent0 (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Either of the two previous suggestions makes sense to me--either create an article on karate techniques or merge the techniques list into the article on the specific style. I don't support keeping the list as a separate article. Papaursa (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, following Papaursa's comments. Janggeom (talk) 14:00, 13 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 01:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Maccabiah medalists in Karate[edit]

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

This is an un encyclopaedic list of non notable medallist on a non notable competition Dwanyewest (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Damn right the competition is notable. Not commenting on the list of winners though, as I don't have sufficient expertise in sports articles, but I'm guessing it'll be a delete. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The international Maccabiah Games, held for over 80 years, are indisputably notable. Accordingly, lists of their medalists in various sports are encyclopedic and no persuasive argument for deletion has been offered. Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Maccabiah Games are sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee. Cullen328 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment provide the third person evidence if this Maccabiah Karate event is so notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response How about Black Belt magazine December 1978, page 12, October 1988, page 78 and January 1997, page 92? How about Prepare for Combat: Strength Training for Martial Arts by Mikhail Krupnick page 103? Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - More I found coverage of Maccabiah Karate in the Miami Herald, Boston Globe, Newsday, Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the Chicago Sun-Times. Coveage covers decades. Cullen328 (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The put the links in the article to support the information then. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I've identified reliable sources and have responded to Dwaynewest's request in detail on his talk page. All editors are free to add sources. The topic is notable.Cullen328 (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Maccabiah Games are a large sporting event. I'm surprised the article on them is so poorly sourced. I believe that article needs improvement, but the sources exist. Astudent0 (talk) 18:12, 12 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Sport Bike Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG because there is no significant coverage of this group in any independent, reliable news media, books, or web sites. Dbratland (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from being original research it by no means meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:07, 16 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) 09:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TBA (blink-182 album)[edit]

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

not notable per WP:NALBUM. no confirmed title, tracklist or release date. completely unreferenced... Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mhiji 02:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Give the Drummer Some and Dirty Work have pages and they're not any diffrant from the new blink record. Delete TBA and delete those articles too then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob2448 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean Give the Drummer Some and Dirty Work (All Time Low album). I agree, their notability is questionable too. But at least they have some references and have confirmed album names and Give the Drummer Some has a confirmed release data. This article is completely unsourced. Mhiji 02:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Lugnuts (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. If a new album is in the works, that fact can be mentioned at the band's page for now. Wikipedia will still be here when the album becomes a reality. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. There are some references, but hardly any of them actually refer to the recording of this album; they refer to past events such as the band's hiatus and reunion, which are covered in-depth at the band article. References for songs are either of the bottom-of-the-barrel "i hearz it on teh interwebz" variety or just plain speculative. There's simply nothing much to say about this album, as they haven't even finished recording it and just a month ago were "just barely getting into the whole writing process". Also note that the article has been moved to Blink-182's sixth album (and I might be wrong, but I'm almost certain a prior version was deleted under some other wording of the same title). --IllaZilla (talk) 04:48, 13 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. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordyn Shellhart[edit]

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

Only references are MySpace and Sony's own website. While she does appear to have had two releases on Columbia Nashville, one was a digital-only EP and the other was released only at Best Buy. Thorough searching of Google News turned up only an interview and no other reliable sources. It's a stretch to say that she meets the "two albums" criterion of WP:BAND simply because they were such limited releases (and one wasn't even physical), and it's even more of a stretch to say she meets WP:GNG given the utter lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. --Kudpung (talk) 23:53, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did a search of my own, and came up with the same results as the Hammer--zippo. She could have enough to get an article in the future, but not just yet. Blueboy 96 02:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. Important to the artists and fans, but not sure it is of real importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.211.150 (talk) 06:05, 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. there doesn't seem to be anything worth merging Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbatarian Churches of God[edit]

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

This article seems to be copied straight from the other Wikipedia article Armstrongism. Also, there are no references, and needs a fair bit of wikifying as well. Minima c (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Armstrongism if there is anything to merge, if not then Delete. The two articles seem to be about the same thing. --Slon02 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one. What is needed is two or three good articles (or even just one) about the man, his beliefs, and the churches he founded. What is given now does not give a good picture to the general reader. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Armstongism, assuming that this is not prevented by COPY-VIO issues; or just redirect there. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:05, 10 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. you don't have to delete an article to prune it of POV issues but there is no consensus to to anyting here. ONEEVENT may be an issue but plenty of keep voters addressed the point and there are lots of sources. An artiel on the death of is sually the compromise between BLP1E/ONEEVENT and GNG anyway so overall I'm not seeing an outcome and relisting certainly won't make it clearer Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Philip Gale[edit]

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

Simply put, this is a suicide - tragic but not notable. A bright lad at MIT took his own life.

Looking at the "impact" of this, to assess its noteworthiness, I see three things:

A magazine ran a story on suicides at MIT. That series used this case as a key example ("featured it"). Well, that would perhaps justify us also using it as an example on in an article on suicides at MIT - but we have no such article.
MIT in light of this investigated how to deal with student suicides. Well, you'd hope so.
Since the chap had been a Scientologist, an investigation by a journalist got caught up in a Scientology stonewall (allegedly). That led to an earlier version of this article being non-neutrality written to link his suicide to Scientology. However, no verifiable fact makes that link - he'd joined another religion some time before. Mark Ebner's interaction with Scientology ought to be recorder on his bio, and not be a reason for a detailed article on Philip Gale

In short this is a sad thing, but despite good hard work re-writing it from the COATRACK it was, there's no evidence of significance whatsoever. Scott Mac 01:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Obviously meets WP:GNG. The article as it stands has no less than 18 sources. Deep and continuing coverage (as evidenced in the "Impact" section) meets WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE. The nom seems not to like it but gives no policy- or guideline-based reasoning for the deletion. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with my tastes here. But a decision on notability is more than doing sums with sources. The point isn't the quantity of references you can haul into the "impact" section (as important as it is to have sources) it is also the content of what those sources say. The sources do not have the "Death of Philip Gale" as their principle subject, and do not indicate that the death is particularly significant. The notability of this cannotbe reduced to doing arithmetic with citations.--Scott Mac 02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources of the article actually have the death of Gale as their subject. But in any case WP:GNG explains us that the subject need not be the main topic of the source material. All what is needed is that they address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cite the GNG as if they were Holy Scripture. I'd rather look at the material that's been sourced and use some judgement here. Content is what counts. For the reasons I've given above, I think it is fairly clear that notability is not established. We'll see if others can actually find a significance I've missed.--Scott Mac 02:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG is (tongue-in-cheek) the "Holy Scripture" when dealing with notability. It's the consensual WP criteria about the concept, the one that the community has decided to gauge it. While you rely on your judgement, I am more humble, and instead of relying on my own personal judgement I rely on more objective criteria like existence and persistence of source coverage. These criteria make the case soundly notable. The reasons you give above are just your opinion that downplays the case: what it makes fairly clear is that you do not think notability is established, nothing else. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not, and you do. So we discuss it here, each using their own judgement and we reach a consensus, which may or may not accord with my judgement or yours. That's how it goes - there's no textual fundamentalism here. The whole array of existence that Wikipedia has to discuss, and make judgements on, cannot be reduced to arithmetic, rules and formulae - such things are good guides, and poor masters. Anyway, I think it time for you and I to be silent, and allow others to exercise their own judgement.--Scott Mac 03:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too many sources, and the catenation of his background with the spectacular nature of the suicide made this notable (totally apart from Scientology, by the way). Collect (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To actually make the article NPOV would require adding further material which, although reported at the time (see Talk:Death_of_Philip_Gale#Major_coatrack_and_NPOV_issues), I don't have the heart to add. Basically the article was written under the premise that Scientology was to blame; given that all those who were closest to Gale said that was nonsense, what is left is no more notable than other college suicides for which coverage could be found, but which haven't made it into our pages. WP:NOTNEWS. --JN 466 02:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1)WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST not a valid deletion rationale. 2)This is not mere "news", there has been coverage even two years after 3)That you don't have the heart to fix an article (whatever you mean by that) is not a reason to delete it. WP:ATD. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's lots of articles that I, personally, don't "have the heart" to make better. That's not a valid reason to delete them. YardsGreen (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, so I'd have to write about the fact that per Ebner, Gales was stoned and drunk out of his mind when he jumped, that he had repeatedly been in tears over his dad dying, that he was very bright, but also psychologically ill-adjusted and arrogant, had tried to get drugs from the college psychiatrist, whom he called a "dipshit", etc. etc. The story is sad enough as it is without perpetuating it, as a constant reminder to his family, and besmirching the guy's memory in the process, and all because someone apparently thought they could get mileage out of it as an anti-Scientology piece. This ain't encyclopedia writing. --JN 466 03:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I had a go adding this stuff, because it's pertinent to Gale's state of mind at the time: [15]. Scott took it out again ("Good heavens, no. Purient, intrusive and horrible."), and he is correct. It's invasive, and there is no good reason, given the lack of long-term significance. The last time any RS mentioned this was 10 years ago. [16] --JN 466 13:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've put back the info you've added (that he doesn't like it is no reason to delete it) and I remind that once notable, forever notable. --Cyclopia^talk 16:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem with our guidelines is that by now we have so many of them, all created piecemeal by different editors, that they are often mutually contradictory. WP:NOTNEWS tells us to consider the "enduring notability of persons and events" ... do you see the problem? The one more recent source cited in the article actually doesn't check out for me. I can't find a reference to Gale's being a "brilliant musician" in Quentin Miller's 2004 book "The Generation of Ideas": [17][18], nor any reference to Gale at all: [19][20] --JN 466 16:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If the source doesn't check, then by all means remove it. But I fail to see the contradiction: NOTNEWS links WP:N in the snippet you quote. If guidelines contradict themselves, let's work on them, for sure. But we can't just shrug our shoulders and pretend guidelines do not exist or are irrelevant, like Scott Mac above would seem to imply. WP:GUIDELINE is policy and says Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. - so while we can debate on how to apply the guideline best, and while edge cases can exist where te guideline is not good enough, we anyway should attempt to follow it, if anything because a guideline expresses a general community consensus on how to deal with stuff, and we can't ignore general consensus and substituting local consensus. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:N also contains WP:NRVE, stating that "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." WP:NTEMP states "However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." You could argue that either way. Scott's idea of applying intelligent judgment is not without merit. --JN 466 17:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability cannot be based upon a single event. AkankshaG (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article's topic was the primary topic of articles in the Boston Herald and apparently other (offline) articles. Whether or not he was notable in life, I think it's clear he became notable in death. YardsGreen (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Contra Jayen, concerns about POV are a reason for improving the article, not deleting. Contra Akanksha, events have their own notability: this is an article about the event, not the person. Scott is on dodgy ground arguing for non-notability but not accepting the relevance of the GNG. The notability is at the margin, but Cyclopia above makes a clear, policy-based case. Yes, we have to use individual judgement and be prepared to break all rules, but editors should be very careful indeed before deciding that their judgement trumps policy. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG are not policy. If we didn't have to use judgement then we'd simply do a sum and not need a debate. Individual judgement certainly doesn't prevail here, consensus informed by discussion and perhaps influenced by precedents does. In the end, that's all the GNG are - a summary of things discussions have tended to consider which are set down to inform the judgement of future discussions. Personally, I don't use guidelines, I simply look at a case on its merits and the strength of the arguments. Show me where I'm misjudging and I'll think again.--Scott Mac 13:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, the GNG are policy, as I understand it. WP:N is certainly policy, and WP:GNG is the first section of WP:N, and contains no notice that it is less than policy. By my reading, the GNG establish the rebuttable presumption of notability, meaning that if the GNG are satisfied, the burden of proof shifts to those who think the topic is not notable even though it satisfies the GNG. YardsGreen (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Jayen466. There are graveyards full of people that kill themselves each year, and if this hadn't had a hook into CoS and could be used for POV pushing there it would never have been mentioned. The problem with POV pushing is its habit of throwing out fungal spores like this, which then develop into fruiting bodies. At some point an editorial judgement needs to assess the true significance of the information being presented. It appears that in this case the event is no more notable than any other student suicide. John lilburne (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW is it really necessary to have a section called "Impact" immediately following the section on him jumping out of a window? John lilburne (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of changing that particular section title. YardsGreen (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I count 10ish (I may have double counted a reference) reliable sources that specifically talk about his death and span a 6 year timeframe. Additionally he as a person fulfills the WP:N. On wikipedia neutrality does not mean censored, it means that the editors are faithful to the reliable sources. Six of those sources talk about how people tied his death to his involvement with Scientology. a failure of WP:NPOV in this case would be to whitewash these sources from the page, and not mention how reliable sources are talking about how his death may have been caused from his involvement in Scientology. The death itself is significant, has had a lasting impact in reliable sources, and the page layout provides WP:WEIGHT by talking specifically about his death and then having a aftermath section which is in length proportional to the reliable source distribution.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It takes more than just routine news reports about a single event to constitute significant coverage - one event suicide, sad but there you go. Article has been nothing more than a peg to hang a scientology coatrack on. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so your "routine news reports" include "NPR all things considered" national coverage 5 years after the event, a "Chicago Reader" report 4 years after the event, and a "New Times Los Angeles report" that occurred around a year afterwards, not to mention the local reports that reported on the incident when it occurred. And all of those sources tie it to Scientology, not the article. I'd say this does qualify as significant coverage both geographically and sustained through time that remains faithful to the reliable sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Learn something today. Newspapers are there to sell newspapers. They do that by sensationalizing stories, and making more out of them than the facts allow for. No one is ever going to bring a newspaper into court for perjury. Take this article here about a cluster of suicides in Bridgend in the UK, it is one of several such reports, there is one that blames it on phone masts, wikipedia mentions links to cults based on an article that says there no links to cults. I've no doubt that various aspects of this nonsense will be repeated by conspiracy nuts, and others for years to come. John lilburne (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Its a suicide, one event. I have no interest in attacking Scientology, its an anti cult coatrack. Delete - let the guy alone is my position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers are there to sell newspapers, but the sources cited here aren't conspiracy nuts or tabloids, they are reliable sources and as such their content and views are considered not only reliable but they are in fact the measure of neutrality and the measure of how much content is allowed on Wikipeida, and in this case they tie the death of a significant individual to the church of Scientology. These cry's of "it isn't neutral" aren't being backed up with a bunch of sources saying something different, they are only being backed up with "it is negative toward the church of Scientology". Well...that is what the reliable sources say, so not having the article reflect that view is censorship by not respecting the what the reliable sources have to say.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NPR report is about a string of suicides at MIT (see [21], [22]). The Chicago Reader article is about someone else, but it does contain a brief (one-sentence) reference to Gale. --JN 466 22:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and the other 15 are about the suicide specifically and in detail and many (about 8) tie the death to the church.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the Scientology aspect is fine, but the NPR and Chicago Reader pieces supported your argument that there was long-term significant coverage, making this an encyclopaedic topic rather than a news topic. I remain unconvinced of that; to me it is a news story. --JN 466 19:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the NPR and Chicago Reader pieces do establish that there is long-term significant coverage. Including the Gale suicide as they did shows that both sources consider it to be a "significant member of group X." I don't think that long-term significant coverage must necessarily be long-term in-depth coverage. YardsGreen (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could someone who supports keeping the article tell me if it is as they think it should be in its current state, or is there more to be said about why Gale's death is notable? The intro just blandly states biographical info, without any weight given to why there is an article about him. Is he notable because critics of Scientology have widely used his death as an example of the danger of Scientology? The intro does not state this, nor does it even make it clear that his suicide is why sources talked about him and the article exists. The "aftermath" section mainly states that major media sources commented on his suicide as one of many at MIT. Has this article been altered from how its proponents want it to be, perhaps as an attempt to bring "balance" by giving (what seems to me) undue weight to facts other than why he might be notable, such as his software programming? Are there many more sources that could be added to the article, but haven't been? postdlf (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Already answered above - the Scientology aspect is of trivial significance. And if he had chosen a less spectacular mode of suicide, that would make a difference. But he did choose a spectacular suicide - hence got noticed by several reliable sources. His biographical material also got reported by reliable sources. And WP articles are not determined to be delatable because of what someone thinks the reason for the initial article was, as a rule, but on the basis of what the article is, and whether it is based on sufficient relable sources. I do not care if Adolf Hitler wrote the first draft, really. Collect (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So the Scientology connection is just a red herring, and isn't why he was notable or why reliable sources think he committed suicide? It was instead the manner of his suicide? I don't see that clearly stated in the article; as I said, his suicide and its details don't seem to get any more weight in the article than undeniably mundane biographical facts. Nor does breaking and then jumping out a window seem prima facie unusual to me. Is there a prior version of the article that would show that better? The aftermath section doesn't even show any commentary on the manner of his suicide and why it was significant, and the People and NPR stories seem to have commented on his suicide because it was one of many at MIT. postdlf (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that over a period of a half century or more, MIT averages about one suicide per year - and MIT is one of only a few schools (one source says only 1/7 of major schools do so) which actually keeps records on such, and even includes people away from MIT at the time of death. The Green Building is, moreover, a major structure - being, IIRC, the tallest building in Cambridge, designed by I. M. Pei, and architecturally notable in itself. "Many at MIT" is a bit of an overstatement. Collect (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I still don't think I'm getting it; I'll just have to remain neutral on this one. postdlf (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The later inclusion as an example of campus suicide really does nothing to distinguish this particular incident from all the others. I don't see any enduring notability at all here. Kevin (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is an obvious keep per GNG. The compassion shown on this page and in the nomination is laudable, but we should not delete it per IAR. Encyclopedias don't work on compassion. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This one doesn't perhaps. If you went to write for real-life encyclopedias like Gale or Britannica, you might find standards a bit different from ours. --JN 466 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right Jayen, I imagine so though I don't know. I'm guessing that's not because of compassion though, but rather because they can't easily change their information once inserted and don't have the staff for the hassle or legal problems. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting stance to take. Would I be correct to paraphrase like this "We can post it here because no one going to take responsibility, and any one pissed off about it is just going to have to sue some indigent warming their toes in a library". John lilburne (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that our job is to make a service to our readers, by being a thorough, complete and NPOV encyclopedia, not by cherry-picking flattering portraits of living or dead people, ignoring the less flattering and shiny aspects of life. If being "compassionate" goes against the objective of being thorough, complete and NPOV, then being "compassionate" by hiding information is not the right thing to do. (Although I still fail to understand which compassion exists in putting fingers in our ears and screaming "lalalala" while such information is publicly available a Google search away; but people have funny beliefs). If other encyclopedias behave differently, that's their problem, not ours: if we can provide a better (more thorough, more objective) coverage, then we ought to do that. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one disagrees with that. The issue is that any thing that anyone says about anyone, be it positive or negative, gets sucked up and regurgitated in these articles without the least bit of discernment as to whether it is worth repeating. All that matters is that someone once said something about whatsisname or wadjamacallit in an article 10 years ago. This isn't encyclopaedic, at best it is spinning raw data into a significance that a close reading of the sources does bear out. With this article we have a someone who shone for perhaps 2 or 3 years at the start of the internet age, and 80% of the article is attempting to connect a suicide with some scammy religion. With the best will in the world that isn't a biography. John lilburne (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently in the UK there is a murder enquiry going on, some one was arrested and released, the wikipage on the murder has 20% on this arrests with a dozen references into the guys personal life etc. What is remotely encyclopaedic about collating together all the little bits of gossip about some dude simply because, between the time that the police questioned him, searched his car, then let him go, the media had enough time and nothing better to do than to run around the local gossips? John lilburne (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You seem to think that by regurgitating everything the press have written about a subject, we arrive at a "thorough, complete and NPOV" article ... --JN 466 23:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way: by cherry-picking what information we like and leaving aside the one we don't like, without a shred of objectivity, we surely don't. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then let's cherry-pick with some objectivity and good editorial sense, which, just for your information, people have been trying to do. I note we don't have a BLP on the suspect John was referring to. If it turns out that he is innocent, as it looks at the moment, I hope we never will; and if we do, I hope you won't turn up on his bio's talk page arguing that there was plenty of nationwide coverage, and that we shouldn't be "ignoring the less flattering and shiny aspects of his life". --JN 466 00:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclopia Developing a sense of proportion would be a good thing to start with. John lilburne (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466 The Jefferies thing is padding. Where he worked, what his tenants had to say, the type and colour type of his car etc. None of it has anything to do with the girls murder. It is tittle-tattle a collection of factoids added when he was THE SUSPECT in lieu of anything else to write, none of it advances the article, and currently it is simply an aside. "The landlord was questioned for 2 days, his house and cars were searched, and then he was released". At this point all the rest is balls. John lilburne (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article is currently being discussed at BLP/N. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there are coatrack issues then the answer is to remove the irrelevant content. The event did receive significant attention. This AfD appears to be part of a campaign to delete Scientology-related articles. Will Beback talk 03:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No it's not a campaign to delete Scientology articles, only the one's that use WP:RS that criticize the church.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are both poisoning the well here with unfounded accusations. There is no campaign of that nature. There is an effort to clean up the NPOV issues in this area. That some entries get nominated for AfD in the process is only natural.Griswaldo (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to any articles that have been created or expanded as a result of the campaign? It looks like it has resulted mostly in the deletion of text or articles. Will Beback talk 22:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a NPOV problem that has been identified in this area that could be solved by adding text to entries or by creating new entries? If a majority of the problems are best solved in one manner or another, then that's hopefully how they will be solved, and yes if deletion of text and/or entries is part of the solution then so be it. You're just insinuating all kinds of baseless things again. Can you please stop doing so and discuss the actual issues at hand, like whether or not we should delete this entry and why. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

almost every article nominated has proportionally without bias represented WP:RS that have been critical of the church of Scientology. This campaign has systematically attempted to expunge a viewpoint held by reliable sources critical to Scientology. Articles such as this one where reliable sources report that people are tying his involvement to scientology to his suicide are being attacked as not neutral, not because there are a large group of WP:RS not being represented, but because having reliable sources talk about how Scientology may have contributed to his suicide is "non-neutrality written to link his suicide to Scientology."Coffeepusher (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Győry - that article was a pro-Scientology piece on a non-notable BLP. However, in general, what I've seen so far is that almost every article touching upon a subject even remotely tangential to the CoS appears to have sources critical of the Church in them. You appear not to like the efforts by neutral parties to fix the problems they are seeing, but from the look of it you're one of the Scientology partisan regulars. I guess it isn't a surprise that you're complaining like you are. All I ask is that people like you and Will Beback not show up at AfDs and start flinging around unfounded accusations about non-existent campaigns. State your opinions as relevant to the topic and argue within the scope of the discussions. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-partisan and non-regular in CoS matters (where I just begun to have been involved with the recent effort), I must say that there are symptoms of whitewashing. Yes, the Gyorgy case was mostly pro-CoS but in general it seems like we're just removing CoS coverage, good or bad, instead of factually checking for NPOV problems. That said, this is a discussion probably best held elsewhere. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclopia, how do you "factually check for NPOV problems"? WP:UNDUE is a major part of WP:NPOV, and as far as I can see editors are doing their best to follow that policy here. In the article being discussed for deletion, for instance, it was Jayen who actually did a thorough read of the major sources to determine that news coverage of Gale discussed Scientology at a fraction of levels that our entry did. Is that "factually checking for NPOV problems", because I think it is exactly that. You have now successfully added another unfounded accusation of "whitewashing" to the AfD, so thanks for the added well-poisening. I agree that this isn't the right forum. So why don't you strike your remark and take it to an appropriate forum? Better yet why don't all three of you start a thread at the neutrality project or WP:NPOVN so that you can present real evidence of whitewashing and we can discuss the matter with input from others. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yah I know "but from the look of it you're one of the Scientology partisan regulars."...anyone who edited any Scientology articles prior to "operation Cirtwatch" is suspect... you know what scientology protesters do to wikipeida articles? They put Balls on the page. Big Hairy Balls. So just out of curiosity how many pro-scientology "coatracks" have you guy's found?Coffeepusher (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeepusher this is a complete red herring. The neutrality project is open for anyone to suggest articles that need attention. If there are pro-Scientology coatracks then please list them on the page. I have only been paying attention to the articles listed there. You cannot prove a negative. If there are no, or perhaps very few pro-Scientology coatracks then clearly they will be very hard to identify. If not, then again, do us all the favor or adding them to the list. I hope that this is the last I hear of this nonesense unless you've tried to add such articles and have been rebuked in which case you actually have something to talk about. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure it is open to anyone...even people who are constantly accused of being partisan by members of that group when every argument they have is around what they believe to be a correct interpretation of reliable sourcing and neutrality?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know there are plenty of teenage geniuses out there, but it's still notable to find someone who wrote important code for a major ISP and thus became a millionaire at age 16. That's aside from the additional notability conferred by his dramatic death. It's also somewhat notable that the Church of Scientology apparently attempted to suppress reporting about him. Nevertheless, I don't agree with the current inclusion of Scientology in the introductory section. I would delete the sentence "He was raised from birth as a Scientologist but later left Scientology after deciding it was not for him, and followed the postmodern religion Church of the SubGenius, which has been called a parody religion." The intro could either be silent on the subject (leave those facts to the body of the article) or could say, at the end of the last paragraph of the intro, "The Church of Scientology, of which he had been a member in childhood and adolescence, attempted to discourage reporting about him and his death." JamesMLane t c 05:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given the event's coverage from a significant number of reasonably sourced references, event appears to have meet WP:GNG by a good margin. Whether the article needs to be improved to meet WP:NPOV is up to those who are actively editing the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Event appears to meet WP:GNG. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE, with secondary source coverage from multiple WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not going to !vote, I'm neutral on whether this event has sufficient notability - my only reason for commenting here is to remind everyone of the existence of the WP:EVENT guideline. WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS clash, and WP:EVENT aims to square that circle - please make use of its guidance. Fences&Windows 01:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and in fact I referenced WP:EVENT sub-sections in my !vote. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:EVENT. This guideline states the following:

"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."
"Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article."
"If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance."

This event does not appear to have had "lasting significance". Reliable sources only covered the event in the year or two after it happened. I just removed a source that was from a few years after that because it had a one liner about Gale in it only, but as far as I can tell that is the only source even mentioning this suicide more recently. If this were significant, past the initial new coverage, it would continue to get mention in reliable sources about suicides because it would be considered an important "case study" (see the third point above). No such sources appear to exist. Per WP:EVENT deletion of this is a nobrainer.Griswaldo (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's clearly room for disagreement, since the article seems to fall between the second and third points quoted above. Immediately after the event, there was quite significant "further analysis" and "discussion" in WP:RS, making it more significant than described in the second point. More recent reliable sources did not cover the event to the depth of a "case study" but it was covered, years after the event, in the context of lists of significant examples of suicides. Such sources should not be removed, especially in the middle of an AfD centered on those sources. I believe it is highly disingenuous to remove a recent source and then claim there are no recent sources. YardsGreen (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair Griswaldo did explicitly state the existence of the source. I've reinstated it because I see no reason to remove a source which, by putting the event in a larger context, may be useful to the reader -even if it just contains a mention of the event. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing "disingenuous" about it at all. I clearly made everyone aware of the fact that I removed the afore mentioned source in my very statement. Your description of the source, is however, not factually accurate in any way. The only reason it mentions Gale's death is because it is describing the contents of a list at FACTnet.org. The entire text spent on this is as follows -- "In 1998 Philip Gale, whose mother worked for the church's Citizens Commission on Human Rights, also jumped to his death from a tall building--on Hubbard's birthday." This source is not discussing Gale's death at all, it is merely discussing the contents of a list on FACTnet.org. Is FACTnet.org a reliable source? I highly doubt it. We don't back door the contents of unreliable sources because a reliable source is describing those contents. If anything, that is "disingenuous". More on the article talk page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note that this disputed source is not actually "recent", it is simply more recent than the rest. It was published 4 years after the event, but that is now 9 years ago. Yardsgreen also referred to such sources in the plural ... where are the others? Even if this source is acceptable it does not in any way satisfy the WP:EVENT text I have quoted since it is a passing mention only. The other sources don't either since they are in the year following the event. Significant discussion "just after" the event clearly does not do the trick.Griswaldo (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to Philip Gale, and strip the coatrack. I think the sources provided are sufficient to produce a biography that for this person that satisfies our notability requirements. The argument that this is WP:BIO1E are well-taken, but I disagree. His notability was not solely due to his suicide but also his software development, and ties to Scientology. While it is discouraging that people wish to use the biography as a coatrack against Scientology, there has been informed commentary regarding it, and therefore do not think that it should be deleted. Move needed because the article is not only about his death. -Atmoz (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was a biography under the title Philip Gale until quite recently ([23]). As for his notability as a software programmer, I am not aware that Gale attracted any RS coverage prior to his suicide. (If he had, that would change matters significantly.) --JN 466 00:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not yet convinced that when there was RS coverage is significant. There are a lot of people from my field that are WP:Notable, but don't have any RS coverage of them until after they die. It's unfortunate that someone has to die before they get credit for their accomplishments, but I don't think it's a reason to say he's not notable because of it. (But I'm not against changing my opinion, so convince me otherwise.) -Atmoz (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO1E I went through several News Indexes and cant find anything prior to his suicide about him. I also checked a few Academic computer science databases as well... nothing to indicate any notability as programmer. So WP:BIO1E seems to apply here. Also as it written it is a Biography It would need a fundemental rewrite to be an WP:EVENT since its all about him and not his death The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While coverage of him is light pre-suicide, to be the head of R&D at a fairly significant company at age 16 is certainly worthy of note. I was aware of this before he died though I don't recall how. Hobit (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there any? I cant find any... and thats really a red hearing, If he had died in a car wreck or committed suicide after his girl freind broke up with him... I garuntee we would not even be discussing his notability The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A sad event a long time ago. Aside from the Gawker piece, not much discussed recently. Not enough for a bio, so let it drop. →Stani Stani 18:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, we meet WP:N by a mile. Second of all, WP:EVENT can't be used to exclude all events, and this one made a lot of news. I still remember the story (though I had forgotten the name). Lastly, this guy was notable by himself. "working at EarthLink Network Inc. for a year, as director of research and development" At 16 years old? Come on, if he died in a car accident he'd be notable. As I recall he's been credited with getting Earthlink going from a technical viewpoint! Hobit (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENT can't be used to exclude all events - huh? It is only a guideline, and as such it doesn't suggest deleting "all" events, just the ones that haven't received sustained coverage. Your argument here appears simply to be that you don't like the guideline.Griswaldo (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and you apparently don't like WP:GNG, so you're even. Anyway the event has received some sustained coverage, it's just that for your personal opinion "old" sustained coverage is not enough.--Cyclopia ^talk 14:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG and WP:EVENT are both only guidelines, but be that as it may, WP:EVENT, like other guidelines about specific types of topics, clearly trumps GNG. Different topics have different concerns, and community consensus here on Wikipedia clearly approves of dealing with these concerns in different ways. You can deny this all you want, and keep on waving GNG around despite the consensus but you're clearly going against it. It isn't simply a matter of "my" opinion in other words.Griswaldo (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that people are waving at WP:EVENT as if it is magic fairy dust with little to no acknowledgement of the sustained coverage. There is plenty of sustained coverage of this event, more than enough (IMO) to overcome the bar that WP:EVENT sets. That coverage can be found in the article already. Hobit (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Griswaldo, it is matter of your opinions, sorry. Time to step down from the WP:BATTLEGROUND and accept that your point of view is not necessarily the only correct one, and that maybe it doesn't even exist a single correct point of view. First, it doesn't seem that my interpretation is against consensus so far (I may be proven wrong of course but the debate so far seems pretty even, if anything it's leaning towards keeping). You are completely wrong on that "other guidelines about specific types of topics clearly trump GNG". Specific guidelines are meant to extend GNG (for example WP:ATHLETE allows articles to exist that wouldn't be allowed by GNG), not to substitute it: WP:N says: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right. (emphasis mine). --Cyclopia ^talk 15:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're mincing words like usual. GNG provides the most basic level for notability. In specific contexts other more exacting criteria are required since not every type of topic is alike. When I said "trumps" I meant only that when more specific guidelines are available for a topic area those extend the criteria above and beyond the basic guideline. The basic guideline is often too vague and open to interpretation. An event, for instance, can get significant coverage as it unfolds but then become forgotten. The guideline clearly states that such an event is not notable. This specific guideline is needed since GNG does not make the timing concerns of coverage clear at all. If you were correct then there would be aspects of EVENT that allow a broader inclusion criteria, and you know as well as I do that EVENT does not do that, in fact it limits notability drastically. I will not respond to you again, because you never stop repeating yourself once you start. So feel free to have the last word. Oh, and the irony of you referencing WP:BATTLEGROUND in terms of the behavior of others. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, as WP:N states, per your own quoted text in fact, GNG establishes notability when something is not excluded by WP:NOT and that includes WP:NOTNEWS. WP:N specifies further down the page how to resolve a clash between the two: "For guidelines on whether an event is notable, see Wikipedia:Notability (events)." Of course Fences & Windows already said exactly this, to which you replied as if you understood. Like I said, have the last word. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Since I had already answered to F&W, I didn't think I had to re-state that EVENT is indeed a different case -I was only countering your (demonstrably false) statement that other notability guidelines trump GNG. GNG is a reference; most other guidelines give additional alternative criteria; EVENT gives instead additional criteria for guidance -a guidance which main reference is anyway to GNG. Is it clearer now? In any case, these philosophical considerations, although important, are not relevant here: there is continuing coverage meeting WP:EVENT, despite your claims. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep EVENT and the GNG have an indeterminate relationship-- I think its reasonable to say that it depends on the relative notability of the event as judged by the sources and the innate significance--although we have no consensus about how to weigh the factors or where to draw the line.. In this case there is evidence for innate significance, because of the significance as one of the iconic examples of student suicide at high pressure colleges, and this would be so even if totally independent of the scientology angle--and the scientology aspect is not prominent in the sources, though relevant and sourced and therefore suitable for inclusion, though it would not have been enough by itself. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep & restore to original title per CyclOpia, YardsGreen, Hobit, et al. Ombudsman (talk) 19:39, 16 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. the sources have been assessed and noone has challenged that te mentions were not in depth Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Studies Abroad[edit]

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

Promotional article on a company. All references are either from their own website or from the website of organizations which are very closely related. None are from independent sources, which is what WP:GNG requires. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^confabulate 22:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep References have been added from secondary sources to meet WP:GNG requirement, though there are still a bit from their own website. While organization shows up a few times in news searches, simple web search brings up an overwhelming hit count - namely from university study abroad offices (hundreds). This is the case with the field in general (see Study abroad in the United States, though this article should meet WP:CORP and WP:GNG guidelines more than existing ones that need improvement that I haven't gotten to yet (but should): American Institute For Foreign Study; Institute for the International Education of Students; Academic Programs International; Council on International Educational Exchange. user:everdayzac (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Lacks reliable sourcing. There are only two Reliable Sources cited in the article, and they are both passing mentions about the organization's leasing space in a building. Google News search finds nothing of significance. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 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, Dusti^*poke* 01:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per MelanieN, and a quick Yahoo! search returns very few results. Kayau Voting IS evil HI AGAIN 01:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user:everdayzac YardsGreen (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets all guidelines necessary for inclusion. Significant references to support notability. Definite Keep.--Carol1946 (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked. Nakon 07:26, 11 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Novgorodsko-Sofiysky Svod[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - Lom Konkreta (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article on a rather esoteric historic "source". The article labels it as a "tentative" name for the document. It seems the matter isn't settled yet, and therefore may not be appropriate for a WP article. SnottyWong ^confabulate 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Indeed it is a rather esoteric subject, for an average wikipedian. So what? The term is quite common in Russian historiography (you have to google the Russian term; I added the corresponding "((Find sources))" above, and you will readily see 120 book hits). The matter is quite settled. The name is tentative because the document is hypothetical. However this is not a reason for deletion, since we don't delele, say, Proto-Indo-European language. Lom Konkreta (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rather redirect to Novgorod Fourth Chronicle. This article seems to ahve not content that does not also appear in that article, which is also little more than a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 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) 00:03, 3 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, Dusti^*poke* 01:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lom Konkreta and WP:POTENTIAL. The article could use some serious attention from someone who understands Russian, but that's no reason to delete it. YardsGreen (talk) 09:54, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salford Canoe Polo club[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [24]. none of the sources in the article are third party. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 3 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, Dusti^*poke* 01:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable organisation. Mattg82 (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It certainly seems it is non-notable. Even its own site is not responding. The world champion might make it notable, but that is not sourced. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:09, 11 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) 09:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bent Lorentzen (author)[edit]

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

Not a notable Danish author. possible autobiography. Non of the sources provided by the author on the talk page suggest actual notability Fails both criteria of WP:ANYBIO and all five of WP:AUTHOR. The awards he claims to have received are also not notable and there are no independent third hand sources about his biography they all go back to his personal webpages. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 6 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, Dusti^*poke* 01:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 08:53, 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. Davewild (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Non-notable organization, simply no significant coverage in reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 6 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, Dusti^*poke* 01:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 gnews hits [25]. fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 11 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. we wouldn't usually merge an unsourced article and there is no consensus that churches are intrinsically notable so the policy based arguments are the ones supporting deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most Pure Heart of Mary Catholic Church, Topeka, Kansas[edit]

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

The article was originally built by the creator at the AFC space and then subsequently moved to the mainspace (although I think this was an accident). The church itself isn't notable and other than the orphanage which it ran, there is nothing big about it. Maybe a page on the orphanage should be created but the church itself just isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 6 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, Dusti^*poke* 01:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs provided to satisfy WP:ORG or WP:N. Edison (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is part of the historic district, National Register. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't necessarily make it notable. If my house is part of a historic district but isn't individually mentioned, that doesn't necessarily make it notable for a Wikipedia article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary to Topeka, Kansas. Unless the building itself, rather than the district it is in, is on the register the building itslef will be NN. However, it is useful to add the main churches of a city (and other locally important facilities) to its article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 10 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. why was this relisted? Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral County, West Virginia Development Authority[edit]

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

Doesn't appear particularly notable in current form, reads largely as a marketing advertisement. Bitmapped (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge into Mineral County, West Virginia. Individual municipal authorities such as these seldom warrant their own articles unless independent notability has been attained. KimChee (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here that can't be mentioned in the article about Mineral County, West Virginia. Mandsford 02:18, 4 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, Dusti^*poke* 00:34, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Gibson (film director)[edit]

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

This article was created via a paid-editing project on elance.com. He has a lot of credits to his name, but a close look reveals that none of these films are at all significant. Coverage in reliable sources is scant; in-depth coverage is nil. None of the awards are important enough to evidence notability.

Keep if notability can be established. It should be possible given the number of well-known connections he seems to have. The motivation of the article's creation should not be a reason to delete, if WP is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit." Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I initially posted the project on elance.com. When I found out it was frowned upon to do this, I immediately had the project deleted. This project was not paid through elance.com. I wrote the information and asked someone else to post in the wiki code, since I am unfamiliar with it. I will add more references as suggested. Plus, if anyone can help edit the stubs, please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SydMifflin (talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article suffers from lack of sources, and more than a little fluff, yes... but to disagree on one point with the nominator, The three Regional Emmy Award wins, the Award for Excellence in Journalism, and the Primetime Emmy Award nomination would meet WP:ANYBIO if properly sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regional emmys are local awards. They are not nearly as big of a to-do as the real emmys and winners of these awards are hardly ever profiled in the media. I don't think these awards by themselves confer notability. Them From Space 16:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree again, as we are not talking about "local" as if it were a neighborhood bake sale. Regional Emmys represent entire swaths of the United States that comprise many millions of constituents, and are set in place to recognize excellence in those region's television markets. The regionals are affiliated with the notable National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, while the Los Angeles-based notable Academy of Television Arts & Sciences simply acts as the "regional" chapter serving the Los Angeles area. The Regional Emmys are essential in helping both NATAS and ATAS honor the works of deserving individuals in local TV through a regional outreach. Like the national awards, each region goes through their own rigorous nomination and voting procedures. Committees are formed to review entries for eligibility and high standards. Once accepted, each entry goes before different review committees, and their votes are cast to determine the final nominees. The final votes are then calculated by certified accounting firms within each region. Regardless of winning on a regional level, all recipients are considered Emmy Award winners. (emphasis mine). To imply that the Los Angeles regionals are the "only real Emmys" is not supportable, specially as all regions, Los Angeles included, have their winners profiled. That would be similar to claiming that a presedential campaign is notable but a gubernatorial one is not. The ATAS honors national prime time entertainment excluding sports. The NATAS recognizes daytime, sports, news and documentary programming, technology, business, regional, global media awards and, and the International Academy of Television Arts & Sciences honors all programming produced and originally aired outside the United States. These are related awards and all represent excellence within their fields and all reflect notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To put it rather bluntly, no one cares about regional emmys outside of the film business. I guess we'll just agree to disagree here. Them From Space 21:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Blunt" indeed (chuckle).... though perhaps it might be more accurate to simply state that you personally do care about regional emmys, as their continued and ongoing coverage in multiple reliable sources for over 50 years[26][27] surpasses the applicable notability criteria and shows that indeed folks "outside" the film industry "care". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:09, 3 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, Dusti^*poke* 00:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This biography of a living person is mostly unsourced. I searched for evidence of the subject's having been nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award in the national awards, as the article claims, for E! True Hollywood Story. A search at Emmys.com for "true hollywood story" found that the show was nominated for Emmys in 2001, 2002, and 2003 (not 2000, as claimed in this article), and that the subject was not among the producers listed on the nomination in any of those years. On a separate note, it is misleading to suggest that the most prominent Emmys are the "Los Angeles regional Emmys". As indicated at Emmys.tv, the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences administers both the Primetime Emmy Awards and the regional Emmy for the Los Angeles area, but they are separate ceremonies. Winning regional Emmys, if that could be sourced, is a sign of accomplishment within one's profession, but they are of primarily local interest and do not necessarily convey general notability for Wikipedia purposes. On the issue of whether a presidential campaign is notable but a gubernatorial campaign is not -- well, I would say at least that the presidential campaign is significantly more notable, tends to be discussed in a greater number and variety of reliable sources than a comparable gubernatorial campaign, and thus receives and deserves a larger amount of coverage in an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any and all "paid editing" content. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising/self-promotion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:18, 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 merge to Mineral County, West Virginia. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral County, West Virginia Planning Commission[edit]

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

Doesn't appear notable. If article is kept, should be generalized to planning commissions in West Virginia rather than just Mineral County. Bitmapped (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mineral County, West Virginia or general article suggested by nominator. Individual municipal authorities such as these seldom warrant their own articles unless independent notability has been attained. KimChee (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here that can't be mentioned in the article about Mineral County, West Virginia. Mandsford 02:20, 4 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, Dusti^*poke* 00:30, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 07:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of rowing blades - National team oars[edit]

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

Articles are just galleries of rowing oars. No prose content. Few, in any references. Wikipedia isn't a picture gallery. GrapedApe (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I learned something looking at the pictures. Print encyclopedias often have this kind of picture galleries, for instance of flags of the world. In this case it seems like the best way to present the information. It is also good quality. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does Wikipedia define encyclopaedic content as having to be text based? Opbeith (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I will tag for references. Seaphoto^Talk 01:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established by independent reliable sources. Sure, it's information, and the format is somewhat useful, but the concern remains, is it notable? It doesn't appear to be. Had there been some sort of precedent from, say, something like a gallery of hockey jerseys (notability established through cultural significance, e.g. The Hockey Sweater), I might have said weak keep, but I see nothing of the sort. So I'm not convinced it's an appropriate list per WP:SALAT--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed that Wikipedia isn't a picture gallery. However, this is not simply a page full of pictures, it is a valuable reference for those interested in rowing. The blade colours, the clubs that row on a river are all valuable information. It is also not easy to find this information elsewhere. As for references, it's easy to reference them to British Rowing's site in the case of UK clubs, I'll do so at some point.--Teach46 (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These lists of images are very incomplete and when made complete, they will be very large. I suggest the best place to list these images is elsewhere. For example the UK university examples are already shown in University rowing (UK)#University boat clubs as small images against each entry in a list of clubs. I suggest that all could be handled in the same way and the need for these articles, which are either non-notable or only very marginally notable, would disappear. The images are also, mostly, from Commons and they are in categories there. There could be links from some articles to these Commons categories. So I go for delete. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:55, 4 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, Dusti^*poke* 00:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Rowing is an Olympic sport and blade designs are the standard way to identify boats and do not change often - unlike say Soccer or Rugby jerseys - this seems a perfectly reasonable article, though it needs better citations to verify the information. Note this is the list of National colours CF List_of_international_auto_racing_colors - not a list of club colours. Have those voting for delete parsed even the article title. So even as a dry bob I go for keep. Arachrah (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: List of international auto racing colors is much more than a gallery, it has text and multiple sources to establish notability. Now I would not be opposed to a merge of the galleries under AfD to appropriate articles, but so far I have seen nothing to suggest rowing blades designs are notable on their own.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:21, 11 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! 03:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camelot, Chesapeake, Virginia[edit]

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

This article appears to fail WP:N, and CSD A7. There are no references, and few links to this page. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 16:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 16:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Chesapeake, Virginia if what is in the article can be verified, otherwise delete. I've not been able to find any significant coverage of the subject. Indeed pretty much all I've been able to find is that there are lots of people willing to sell me a home there, and that it has a Baptist church/chapel. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete per above; fails the notability guidelines. Similarly to Ash Creek, though, A7 does not apply. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to merge, really. The city of Chesapeake, Virginia is unquestionably notable. The boroughs in that city, including Deep Creek are probably notable. There's no inherent notability in a neighborhood off of Camelot Boulevard, no matter how much one wants to pretend that it is a "community". Mandsford 02:17, 4 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, Dusti^*poke* 00:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge merge with Chesapeake, Virginia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhitehurst (talk • contribs) 07:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a non-notable neighborhood. Dough 48 72 16:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is it non-notable, so are many of the other articles listed under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chesapeake,_Virginia_communities . Someone who enjoys AfDs may want to consider nominating some of the other articles (perhaps excepting the actual buroughs of the city). Wickedjacob (talk) 07:22, 12 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) 09:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indon[edit]

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

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is just a discussion of the meaning and use of a word. Jaque Hammer (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Also, much of it's based on primary sources - ie, an insistent editor finding usage of it on the net and using that as references. --Merbabu (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 3 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, Dusti^*poke* 00:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom._Annas_ (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Satu Suro 11:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and merbabu's comment Satu Suro 12:02, 14 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) 00:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SMYLONYLON[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Source #1 is trivial, other three sources are trivial. Very few hits on Google and Gnews. Last AFD was no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not notable. Epass (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 1995 New York Times article does not support most of the content. The other sources are blogs and therefore aren't reliable sources. Multiple independent sources are needed to establish notability of this defunct used clothing store, and they are lacking. Cullen328 (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hypest Hype[edit]

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

Non-charting single is not notable; fails WP:NSONG. Dolovis (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song is just as notable as the duo's other songs. The reason it did not chart was because it was not eligible for the UK Singles Chart (or the other Official Charts Company charts) due to the fact that it was released as a free download, rather than being released commercially. There's been significant independent coverage of it though and the artist is notable. Mhiji (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 3 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 00:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no non-trivial coverage despite Mhiji insisting that such exists. If sources exist, prove it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These for a start:

I don't see why this song should be penalised from having an article because the band gave it away as a free download rather than being released commercially. If it had been released commercially, it would have charted and would thus be notable. ALL of the duos other singles so far (see here) have charted, so it's not unreasonable to say that this one would have done. Chart performance is a good indicator of notability, but it's because of songs like this which are ineligible for charts that we should not solely rely on whether a song has charted or not. It's not reasonable to delete this because it didn't chart because it didn't have a chance to. And if we're just looking at coverage in independent sources, all these have about the same coverage - should they all be deleted too?! Mhiji 01:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. WP:MUSIC states that a single should be on a national or major chart or have won awards to be notable, which the song hasn't. Furthermore, WP:MUSIC goes on to say that "notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". There is not enough information about this song to warrant that it have its own article, and it clearly fails the notability guidelines. Epass (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no charts, no covers, no awards = no notability per WP:NSONGS. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:59, 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 no consensus. Davewild (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Droke[edit]

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

non notable "bit part" actress WuhWuzDat 19:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to meet WP:ENT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highlight of her career so far seems to be 7th billing on a made-for-TV movie. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Clarity --78.101.20.115 (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: this !vote was !cast by indef blocked sockpuppeteer User:Magpie1892. See here [28] for related ANI discussion and here [29] for the initial report of multiple account abuse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: the above comment is specious and circumstantial, and it's also untrue. Coming from an editor under current and repeated investigation for bullying and harrassment. Time to call back the jury, I think!. --78.101.20.115 (talk) 06:00, 6 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 00:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A news archive search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_scoring=r&as_maxm=1&q=%22Samantha+Droke%22&as_qdr=a&as_drrb=q&as_mind=9&as_minm=12&as_maxd=8&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,ar:1) pulls up sufficient support. Article needs editing to include these sources. AkankshaG (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not Ghits, it is WP:Notability. WuhWuzDat 16:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Does not meet ENT, is not notable. --Weirdingmodule (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Meets WP:ENT with significant roles in multiple notable productions. In not listing the multiple television series where her appearance was a one-of... we still have award-winning roll of Jenny in the film Truce, role as Jen in the film Jane Doe: The Wrong Face, role of Erin in the film The Neighbor, role as Broke in Princess Protection Program, role of Stephie on 3 episodes of Eastwick, and capped with a major role of Bonnie in 37 episodes of Poor Paul. She pokes at WP:ANYBIO with her win of a Bronze Wrangler for her role in Truce at Western Heritage Awards. Also seems to push nicely at WP:GNG.[30] Article requires updating, cleanup, expansion, and further sourcing... something to be done through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:04, 10 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) 09:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Hudson & The Street People[edit]

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

Non notable band, whose biggest claim to notability is a cover version of a single song. WuhWuzDat 15:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 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 00:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Not notable, fails WP:BAND. Mattg82 (talk) 23:03, 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. Davewild (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encke Sport[edit]

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

BTCC privateer that have made no appearance in one a single season and since then disappeared, does not do anything to assert notability. Donnie Park (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 2 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 00:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:A few minor sources but nothing to make it a notable organisation. Mattg82 (talk) 22:58, 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. Davewild (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Molteni[edit]

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

player fails WP:Notability for tennis players (no ATP Tour main draw matches played, no ATP Challenger titles, not a world top three junior, not a junior grand slam event titlest Mayumashu (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 2 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 00:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 20:00, 15 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) 09:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Romboli[edit]

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

player fails WP:Notability for tennis players (no ATP Tour main draw matches played, no ATP Challenger titles, not a world top three junior, not a junior grand slam event titlest Mayumashu (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 2 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 00:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 20:01, 15 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) 09:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Arnaboldi[edit]

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

player fails WP:Notability for tennis players (no ATP Tour main draw matches played, no ATP Challenger titles, not a world top three junior, not a junior grand slam event titlest Mayumashu (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 2 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 00:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 20:01, 15 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! 03:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Desi Humphrey[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 13:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 2 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 00:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear failure of WP:ATH and WP:GNG Spiderone 07:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - while I don't think we should give all people who participate in his league notability, he was named the league MVP for the 2005 season. This indicates greater notability than an ordinary player in his league and I think supersedes the fully professional status definition. matt91486 (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All that means is that he the MVP of a non-professional league; should the MVP of the San Marino/Turks & Caicos etc. leagues also have articles? Giant Snowman 13:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References included in the article demonstrate that he passes WP:GNG. Kugao (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe they count as the "significant coverage" that GNG requests - nothing but passing mentions...Giant Snowman 20:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further info - there are currently 10 references on the article. 1, 3, 5 + 9 are dead links; 2 + 7 are match reports; 4 is a player profile; 6 is a forum; 8 mentions his name and nothing more - basically what coverage there is out there fails WP:NTEMP. Only 10 would count is more than a passing mention. Giant Snowman 20:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG, and he has not played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:37, 15 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) 09:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robots in Love EP[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. could not find any coverage for this EP. [31]. its band is also being nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful Small Machines LibStar (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 2 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 00:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Fails WP:NALBUMS ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable album, it has not been reviewed and has not charted anywhere. Mattg82 (talk) 02:16, 16 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) 04:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VERGO PUBLISHING[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only reference is a self-reference by the publisher of the magazine, who is also apparently the creator of this article, which has been deleted previously as VERGOMEDIA. First Light (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G11 Blatant vanity/spam. Note that the author, Neptunetrevor (talk · contribs), has been indefblocked as a promotion-only account. Blueboy 96 02:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The strongest Delete that is humanly possible Purely promotional. Google searches barely show that this magazine exists let alone that it's notable. It's own homepage is merely a parked domain with no content. Furthermore, when I look up the ISBN number listed in the references, it really refers to 10 Years of Trace: The Magazine of Transcultural Styles + Ideas instead of "10 years of Vergo." It appears that the author copied and pasted from Trace (magazine). So basically, it's a self-created promotional article for a magazine that barely appears to exist and who's only claim to notability is a fake reference. That pretty much sums it up. Zachlipton (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PiTalk - Contribs 02:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Richard, which is the blocked editor's (auto)biography page. First Light (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 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 redirect to For sale by owner. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Private sales[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Prod contested by IP that seems to want to use the article to advertise Vente-privee.com (which has questionable notability itself.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 2 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 00:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect to For sale by owner, the logical place for a useful search term for this legal concept in real estate. The article is a mess of spam. I have semi-protected the page for three days' time, to prevent the taking down of the AfD notice yet again. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 11 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 2011 Internationaux de Nouvelle-Calédonie. Redirect which has already been done. Davewild (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Internationaux de Nouvelle-Calédonie – Singles Qualifying[edit]

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

not a notable enough event - not a criterion of WP notability for tennis players to appear in qualifying for an ATP Challenger event Mayumashu (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 2 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 00:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was redirected to 2011 Internationaux de Nouvelle-Calédonie within five hours of the nomination. However as redirects are cheap I suggest keeping this as it is now. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:41, 12 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 20:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Semjan[edit]

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

fails WP:Notability for tennis players (no ATP main draw matches played, no Challenger titles, no Davis Cup matches played, not a top 3 junior or junior grand slam titlest Mayumashu (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The player meets the following criteria at the WP:NTENNIS. This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players.

4. The player has won at least one title in any of the ATP Men's Challenger tournament: 2008 Keio Challenger – Doubles and the 2010 Košice Open – Doubles. Player meets notability. (Gabinho^>:) 20:18, 3 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 00:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn with apologies - I missed that he has indeed won two challenger titles Mayumashu (talk) 17:02, 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. Davewild (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Rochette[edit]

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

fails WP:Notability for tennis players (no ATP Tour main draw matches played, no Challenger titles, not a top three junior, not a junior grand slam event titlest Mayumashu (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 2 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 00:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 20:04, 15 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) 01:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Richard[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only reference is another wiki. First Light (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I can't find any sources--at least not for this Trevor Richard. Stinks of COI as well--author is Neptunetrevor (talk · contribs), who has created a bunch of other promotional articles as well. I just reported this guy to AIV as a promotion-only account. Blueboy 96 02:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - We have to do this here too? See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VERGO PUBLISHING. Autobiographical article with no real assertion of notability by a user that cited a fake reference in another promotional article. Zachlipton (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article makes a vague allegation of his notability, but there is nothing there or anywhere else to prove it so. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 11 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica[edit]

This is a horribly-written article for a site that seems notable only around here only because of the vileness of their attacks. There has never been an article about ED in any major news source annd no one out side of a few internet communities who have been attacked by them knlow who they are. Orthodoxbush (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Hmm, seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This article has survived deletion debates before, and passes WP:GNG. That's about all there is to say, really.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It only seems notable because of the Wikipedia connections. Otherwise I doubt there would be an article about it here. And, as I said above, the article is written horribly. It seems like you want to create an article about ED using every "source" imaginable but that is all the page is, links to sources and no real content. Orthodoxbush (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is the fifth nomination, most of this has been said before. However, like 4chan and Anonymous, ED is an important part of Internet culture. There is enough reliably sourced material to make an article on ED worthwhile, please read through the article again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4chan and Anonymous are far more notable than ED. They are just less directly related to Wikipedia. Orthodoxbush (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ED only looks like Wikipedia because it uses MediaWiki software. There is an element of parody of Wikipedia in ED, but the site is nothing to do with Wikipedia. Articles here are banned from linking to most pages on ED because of the potential for controversy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~The nomination is flawed by failure to link to previous AFDs.~~ The 7 day period for discussion should only begin when the previous AFDs are linked here, so that discussants can see what has been said in previous noms. I note that the four earlier AFDs are also not linked from the article's discussion page. Found one from July 19, 2008 at [32] which lists the earlier ones and copied and pasted it here. Edison (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider withdrawing this nomination? Realistically it is only going to lead to the same "keep" result after going through the same arguments as previous AFDs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me any fourth or fifth nomination carried through to a conclusion is an attempt to do by attrition what cannot be done by clear consensus. I assume the lister was unaware of the prior debates, but nothing has changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.47.55 (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it has been kept in past debates is because of trolls spamming them. Orthodoxbush (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the lulz. SixthAtom (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable and well-referenced. how many times do we need to go through this? sigh. Kaini (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close, easily meets WP:GNG. Why would we not want to give our readers useful information about something frequently mentioned in news stories? betsythedevine (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "frequently mentioned in news stories". Orthodoxbush (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few Google News mentions (63); perhaps I was wrong to describe that as "frequently mentioned". In retrospect, I probably should just have linked to the GoogleGraph instead of arm-waving. betsythedevine (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT SPEEDY CLOSE this should be left up for at least a week if we wish to establish consensus. Orthodoxbush (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and SNOW close. Why are we here again? - Alison ^❤ 01:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As if I expect an ED admin to vote in an unbiased manner. Orthodoxbush (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, please. Kaini (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's ex-ED admin, actually. But whatev - Alison ^❤ 03:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; like it or not, it meets our notability guideline, as well as the all-important verifiability. They're for real and an important part of internet culture -- and they're positively cultured compared to 4chan. (Yeah, I admit it, I get a laugh there now and then myself, even if their subliterate repetition of "gay" "lulz" "faggot" as well as certain other once-shocking words is tedious to the point it makes a literate visitor want to slit his wrists.) Antandrus (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had this to say about it three years ago. What changed? Orthodoxbush (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lawl u guys so gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.6.137 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, whether one likes the views represented by the article or not, and whether one agrees with the subject of the article or not it passed WP:GNG. It has received quite a bit of independent coverage so I do not see a reason for deletion. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and troutslap- stop wasting afd's time with nominations like this. The article clearly shows notability beyond any reasonable doubt. Not liking it is still not a valid deletion rationale. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Could we consider this a bad-faith nom? --みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 02:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I predicted long ago, it's inevitable that whenever an ED article exists, there will be people trying to get it deleted, and whenever it doesn't exist there will be people trying to get it recreated. It's one of those eternal struggles. But it's a notable part of Internet culture, and the recreation of a few years ago in the wake of earlier deletions was upheld on account of the existence of external sources. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as a matter of interest, the non is now blocked as a Confirmed sock of User:Meredith McCasley. Same 'Zionist cabal' / white supremacist nonsense - Alison ^❤ 04:50, 10 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.