< 28 June	30 June >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Al Hani[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to verify the contents of this unsourced BLP. Searched with both the English and Arabic, سارة هاني‎, spellings of her name. J04n(talk page) 23:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, there's no place on Wikipedia for unsourced BLPs. As such, ~~even though this person does appear to exist as an Arabic singer, per Google books,~~ I believe this article should be deleted. L H M 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: those Google book hits are ripoffs of Wikipedia content. J04n(talk page) 00:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies then. I should have looked deeper into those two links. I've struck that portion of my recommendation above. L H M 00:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone is searching using date of birth, note that the year is among the uncertainties in the article (recently changed by an IP); anyone claiming to win a competition at age 14 in 2001 won't have been born in 1970 anyway. AllyD (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe her career will blossom - or may have already done so since the 2007 stop-point of this unsourced biography - but as things stand the article is lacking in verifiable demonstration of notability. AllyD (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having worked on some Arabic-based musicians before, I was able to dig around and can tell she definitely has some popularity, but perhaps not enough to make the chore of improving this worthwhile. (I searched under "سارة الهاني") I think she has released two albums. [1]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Boy Fresh (rapper)[edit]

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

One short interview in musicislifemagazine does not create notability —SMALL JIM 23:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Gnews hits for "Jo Boy Fresh", and while that's certainly not the definitive marker of notability/non-notability, it seems clear that, while this rapper is trying to make it big, he's not even close to there yet. As such, I agree with the nominator that rapper is not notable, and that this article should be deleted, without prejudice against re-creation, if this artist ever attains actual notability. L H M 23:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's unclear that Music is Life magazine is a reliable source. in any event, it takes more than that to establish notability, and this unsigned rapper does not appear to have any other coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete: G3. FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Graham[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to verify the contents of this unsourced BLP. Searched his name with 'Emmy', 'KSVN', 'ABC7', and 'ABC' all with no success, could be a hoax. J04n(talk page) 22:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, there's no place on Wikipedia for unsourced BLPs. As such, I believe this article should be deleted until and unless reliable sources start covering his "career." L H M 00:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find no sources on his name, and searches for the stations he reputedly anchored for having me suspecting a possible hoax as well. KSVN does not appear to be ABC7, and KBD-TV is out of Southfield, MI, not Beaver Dam, KVHS is a radio station, and KVVH doesn't seem to be a station anywhere at all. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In looking into this further, it does appear that this article is a blatant and obvious hoax. While KSVN exists (it's a low power station, and part of the Azteca Network), there is no evidence that this man works there, more or less that he's an anchor. Stated flatly, this person does not exist at KSVN. I know it's non-standard to speedy tag an article that is at AFD, but this seems like a pretty blatant hoax, and it makes the project look bad, the longer it's kept active. As such, I've tagged it ((db-hoax)). L H M 18:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete without prejudice. I find that there's no real consensus on the issue of whether or not the subject meets WP:ENT. However, this is a poorly sourced BLP. Therefore, if someone wishes to write a new sourced article it won't be subject to CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Shiroyama[edit]

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

Contested PROD, long-term unsourced BLP, was unable to find reliable, secondary sources to verify claims of notability here. Additional sources welcomed. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 00:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 00:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable career. I find it unlikely anyone sincere doubts any of the information there, but if so then find a copy of something listed and fast forward to the credits. Dream Focus 01:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article lacks reliable third-party sourcing to verify notability. I note that the Japanese Wikipedia article is also similarly lacking in sources, which suggests that none is available. --DAJF (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the Japanese Wikipedia article is unsourced, this does not imply that no sources are available. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. --Malkinann (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They don't require sources there, if the information is without challenge. Different Wikipedias have different rules and suggested guidelines. Dream Focus 09:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commeent The article is sourced, if only with a primary source. I would expect additional sourcing to be available in Japanese. OTOH, there are no major roles and a lot of the listed roles are bit parts. Edward321 (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Greengrass was a regular character in the book series that inspired Heartbeat, and lasted for a good long while on the show - longer than Nick Berry's character. Bill Maynard, the originating actor for Greengrass, is described here as having played "Claude Greengrass in Heartbeat among many other big roles". I feel the Claude Greengrass role is a major role. I don't know about Mike Novick, as I haven't watched 24, but Novick lasted for four seasons as a recurring character. --Malkinann (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Errr ... I wonder if the Keep proponents are familiar with WP:BLP; any BLP article lacking reliable sources which discuss the subject in significant detail must be aggressively deleted. I also wonder upon which basis the subject's career is blithely declared "notable," and am interested to hear the rationale. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 13:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably WP:ENT#1, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." --Malkinann (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a fair point. Where that view gets tricky in my view is that, in ENT#1: "significant" and "notable" in that sentence are things that have to be evidenced in some way by sources as well, due to WP:NRVE. Notability we could infer from sources about the film or television show if there are sources on that. But the significance of a role? I suspect that usually that's going to require much the same sort of things that WP:GNG requires in the way of sourcing. I'm not willing to entirely infer it from "number of episodes", since very minor characters sometimes recur momentarily without reaching significance within a series. I'm sure there's enormous room for disagreement on that point, and I respect that, but I figured it was important to at least address the ENT#1 question, and why, with respect to those who disagree, I felt it hadn't been shown to be reached here. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmhmm. I was wondering myself what made a laundry list of minor roles "significant" other than that there's, well, a list of roles, so they must be significant because, well, they must be. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 14:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it is easily possible to have a "significant" voice-only role in an audio-only medium (such as a radio play), I think it would be very difficult to make a compelling argument for a voice-only role in a visual medium (i.e. dubbing, animation, etc) being "significant". Not saying that it'd never happen, just that it'd be an exceptional circumstance (and need some fairly compelling substantiation, per WP:REDFLAG). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of "significant roles in multiple notable films [etc]", no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Consensus is that a content fork is not needed or, in this form, appropriate. Sandstein 05:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White flight in the United States[edit]

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

This article was a fork created by copy-paste of portions of White flight before consensus for any such split had been formed on the talk page of that article. No reason was given for separating off this content, the original usage of the term, from the original article and the editing history has been lost. The fork was created by a new account, possibly an alternative account of another user, who has not engaged in discussions of any kind. The term "white flight" was originally applied to migration within the US and has been used more widely since, often in slightly different circumstances. The article duplicates content from White flight, with almost no changes and various inconsistencies resulting as a consequence. Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete. This article (and the way it was created) is problematic. It is clear that the creator has moved large parts of another article to this new one without discussing the move at all. I am not sure that this, in itself, is reason to delete the new article, but neither is a deletion debate the place to discuss that. As for the article, it is full of original research and not a little POV - but that, too, is not a reason to delete it. Is it possible to delete the article for now, discuss its move at Talk:White flight to get consensus whether a breakup of the article is warranted? Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Delete this article; return discussion to Talk page of White flight. As one of the editors of the original White flight, I thought that the article should be limited to the US (and renamed), as that is where the term historically originated, and issues related to it in the US do not necessarily apply to contemporary situations in other nations. Others think that because journalists have adopted "white flight" in recent decades as a catchy title to apply to any movement of people of European descent, the article should follow them and contain examples of contemporary "white flight" (as named by journalists) worldwide, regardless of causes. The examples included showed that there was ethnic succession going on in cities. There were problems with OR and POV in that article as well, and no consensus had been reached on what to do with the other material.Parkwells (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of White flight in the US certainly warrants its own article alone. I added about 21,000 k of content pretty easily. The after effects of White flight in the US have not even been touched upon as yet (all arguable, mind you) - the effect on US urban growth & planning, transport policy, gated communities, and the link to the rise of US gun ownership as a political/social movement in the US. Lamsfield (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the fork, Lamsfield (a) has not seen fit to discuss anything concerning the article on Talk:White flight or any other talk pages and (b) has added original research to the new article, with unsourced claims concerning white flight. Since white flight concerns almost entirely a concept restricted to the United States, the only solution at present seems to be to delete the new article, possibly rename the old one and then discuss where the non-US material might be put, if it is decided that it should be moved. Mathsci (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:FORK Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 29 June 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, -- DQ (t) (e) 22:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CFORK states "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." It's not clear whether this spinoff has legs or not but, as new material has been added, deletion would be disruptive to further discussion and editing. If merger is the result of such discussion then this action is not performed by deletion and so the material should be kept to allow ordinary editing to take place. Warden (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article White flight concerns the phenomenon in the United States where the term was coined and where it has a precise meaning, as discussed above. The "new material" added on the US in the fork article is all WP:OR.The material has been copy-pasted from other wikipedia articles on demography and interpreted by the editor Lamsfield (talk · contribs) as "white flight". But there is no support for that interpretation from reliable secondary sources. Edits adding that kind of contentious unsourced original research are disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is no reason this article should be separate from the general article on White Flight which mainly deals with US anyway.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Big Dom 20:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Wesley Robinson,II[edit]

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

Contested WP:PRODBLP. Current sources do not indicate notability of the subject or are not independent. Gnews provides no information on the individual. Does not appear to comply with WP:BLP. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 21:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia guidelines. The article fails good references and reads as a resume. SwisterTwister talk 22:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see reliable sources that demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. I removed references to facebook and myspace. Article seems like an autobiography anyways. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 02:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Edward321 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some of the claims are so outrageous and outlandish, as to be BLP violations. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Big Dom 20:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go – Goa Gone[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable film with no current independent references. Current refs include a cast listing. Does not meet WP:NFILMS I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 21:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While the planned film is beginning to get coverage, it does not yet merit being an exception to WP:NFF. Parhaps in a few months... but not just yet. Fine if author wishes userfication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs) 02:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masumi Gotō[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to verify the contents of this unsourced BLP of a Japanese voice over actress. J04n(talk page) 21:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd come across this one in the current WP:URBLPR effort and had no luck finding reliable, secondary sources at all. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Big Dom 20:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soufiane AIT[edit]

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

Has been listed at WP:PNT for two weeks without any progress in translation, does not appear to be especially notable, prod declined Jac16888 ^Talk 21:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Puff piece, plain and simple, barely passes G11 speedy deletion criterion. None of the references are of the kind we deem reliable to establish notability. Not worth the trouble of translating. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that the article is in French and there is no corresponding article in the French Wikipedia, despite his notability such as it is being mainly in the French-speaking world. We might want to offer to transwiki this to the French Wikipedia, see if they consider it notable, and possibly translate at some point if they do, but if not then the case against it seems rather clearcut. - Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who created it here did so after it was deleted on the French Wikipedia, apparently it doesn't meet their criteria [2]--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, then just delete. - Jmabel | Talk 21:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Puffery. I agree about the lack of need for translation (and didn't bother to earlier...). Plenty of refs - I can't see anything worth tuppence there. Peridon (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Big Dom 20:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretical Conceptual Vacuum[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Unable to verify. References provided are not on-topic. Singularity42 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hoax or unverifiable. Hairhorn (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References provided were referring to the processes upon which the state is postulated - other references will be applied as soon as possible. Will include footnotes and references to philosophical/psychological/neuroscientific publications, appropriate reference to moral relativism and the origin of the concept. I begin to realize that i did not fully explain the origin of the theory, which relies on both philosophical and scientific concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushkovski (talk • contribs) 21:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is both nonsensical and has zero hits in Google scholar, this is clearly either a hoax or a misunderstanding. Hairhorn (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rushkovski, if I follow what you are saying, than I think you are running afoul of Wikipedia's policy against original research. That is, you are using the sources to justify and provide examples of the concept, rather than sources that talk about the concept. Singularity42 (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's schrodinger's cat for ideas. I am applying an already existing concept to another.

If you can place a theoretical cat in a theoretical box, why not an idea? The concept does need to be extrapolated, but as any theory, it has to start somewhere. The core concept is that an idea can exist outside of any context, thus neither good not bad, moral or immoral until observed through normal perception. We can suspend normal human perception of morality and context in several ways, and deep meditation can break down the standard subject/object paradigm, thus creating a context-free environment for the exploration of various philosophical or moral topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushkovski (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong. This concept is something you came up with. There are no sources that specificially talk about this concept - at least, none that call it "Theoretical Conceptual Vacuum" or something similar. It is a philisophical axiom that you have conceptualized. If that's the case, then it is WP:Original Research, and cannot be on Wikipedia yet. Singularity42 (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete Theoretical Conceptual Vacuum? More like Theoretical Original Research. Also, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Slam-dunk case for WP:SNOW. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 22:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point, it could qualify as OR, though it is something that can be shown to exist, and is derived from already existing concepts. Metzinger talks about how the alteration of the perceptual paradigm in his book, by meditation or otherwise creates dramatic changes in the way the neural centers of the brain fire, and the concept applies directly to the idea that the human mind can, under some conditions, forgo the already existing matrix of patters and experience perception uninterrupted by the preconceived notions and the tunnel vision effect of the human psyche, allowing us to examine existing concepts in a new light. On a side note, is there a specific philosophical wiki I might be referred to? (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 June 2011

Sorry, but "Grinko-Hyde Paradigm"? who is Grinko? Who is Hyde? You call it a "paradigm", a "hypothesis" and a "thought experiment"; which is it? This isn't OR as much as it is completely invented. Hairhorn (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, appears to violate WP:V and WP:OR, and is possibly a hoax. If the article actually says anything that is sourceable, I'm not seeing it. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have reached the crux of the problem. Anyone out there want to start a wiki on experimental philosophy? The theory is verifiable, but it does smack of OR - the name gives that away. If this is taken down, does it all get deleted or does it stay under my page so that I can work on it? I see no reason to fight this fight until I've compiled a lot more info, and I clearly rushed into the "quick, post it on wikipedia, it's not there yet" side of things without preparing the article first. Not hoaxing though, too much <3 for wikipedia to troll it. Just take her down, until, one day, she may be ready. (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 June 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin In the above comment, the only editor of the article, Rushkovski has requested the article be deleted and to have it userified (though I understand this might have to be done in undeletion / deletion review?) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 21:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a version in userspace at User:Rushkovski/Theoretical conceptual vacuum. Hairhorn (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:FRINGE and WP:BULLOCKS. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, based upon the discussion below. There is rough consensus that the coverage meets neither the general inclusion guide nor the inclusion guidelines for actors. The key element were that the sources have significant coverage of the article's subject.

There was some debate as to who stage actors may be a poor fit for the existing guidelines, however it was not sufficient to override the typically accepted encyclopedia-wide standards.

As usual, of course, deleted material can be requested via the restoration process, or simply by asking most administrators.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Wands[edit]

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

Apparently fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Refs largely from agencies, promotional sites, listings or minor mentions. Main editor of article's name may indicate WP:COI. Doddy Wuid (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This listing notes an American Actor of interest, with a substantial body of work. The references include reviews and listings from the New York Times, Playbill, Broadwayworld.com, and Theatre World. This work is of interest to the theatre community, and audiences. Cwands (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]^[2] ^[3]^[4] ^[5]^[6]^[7]

Keep A proper re-write is called for here, not removal. I've done a cursory check, and there is information out there regarding this subject. Actresses like Susan Wands have a long trail of reviews and even articles written, sometimes, over many years. Such is the case here. Subject is notable. Evalpor (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By all means re-write the article if you have managed to track down any genuinely notable material but, with the copious number of refs/links already listed in the article, it's odd that there is little or nothing of note amongst them. The article is not about "actresses like" the subject, it is specifically about the subject and unless there is material about that very individual, they are not notable. Can you indicate the "long trail of reviews and even articles" on this subject before I am convinced? I've no reason to disbelieve that Susan Wands is a fine jobbing actress but that alone is not sufficient to make her suitable for an encyclopedia entry. Doddy Wuid (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would champion that this subject is notable and the Wiki article is appropriate. This Wiki article isn't just a "long trail of reviews and articles" about this actress, but her involvement in new scripts Off-Broadway and in regional theater for the last 20 years make her a notable Wiki entry. Her work cites productions with such playwrights as Horton Foote, Alex Timbers, Mario Fratti (librettist for the musical Nine), Mark St. Germain (Susan is featured in the premiere of his play The Best of Enemies at Barrington Stage (directed by artistic director Julianne Boyd)), and Andrea Stolowitz. Included in this article are important (new/premier works) American theatrical productions with the Joseph Papp Shakespare Theare in NYC, the Circle in the Square Theatre, La Mama Theatre, Primary Stages, and Ars Nova Theatre. My point being, it's not just her work that is being cited on this Wiki article, its the work of new American playwrights and productions. If the article needs to be rewritten to focus on that, I'll be glad to rewrite it.

Cwands (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That Susan Wands has participated in these works, even if notable, or with these persons, even if notable, does not in itself make her notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Only significant coverage of the subject itself can endow notability on it and this "means that sources address the subject directly in detail" (my emphasis). The sources may mention her but largely only in cast lists or in brief mentions in articles regarding all aspects of a production or some other wider topic. Also, regarding the potential COI aspect, can you clarify if you are Susan Wands twin sister Cynthia, mentioned on SW's web site, linked from the article? Hardly the "impartial party" you claim on the talk page.Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am related to the subject, and I have made no effort to disguise that. I believe I am an impartial and competent Wiki contributor, having helped to contribue to two other pages. I must also point out per this subject's body of work is substantial and important to the developing of new scripts in the American theatre, not just her roles and her body of work, but the scope of work encompassed by the reviews and articles that have been written about her work in The New York Times, Playbill, Variety and other important venues. Per your request: Can you indicate the "long trail of reviews and even articles" on this subject before I am convinced?

New York Times, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 21, 2008 [3]
Variety, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008 [4]
Talking Broadway, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008 [5]
Backstage, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008 [6]
Theatrescene, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008 [7]
Theatremania, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 2008 [8]
New York Times, Review of Henry IV, Joseph Papp Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands, 1991 [9]
BroadwayWorld.com, Article Henry IV, featuring Susan Wands, 1991 [10]
Theare World Yearbook, Google Article, Henry VI, Joseph Papp Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands, 1991 [11]
New York Times, Review of "The Belle Strategem", featuring Susan Wands, October 2003 [12]
New York Times, Review of "They Dance Real Slow in Jackson", starring Susan Wands [13]
Talking Broadway, Review of Henry IV, starring Susan Wands [14]
Riverfront Times, Reivew of Henry IV, starring Susan Wands [15]
Theare World Yearbook, Google Article, Passionate Women, La Mama Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands [16]
New York Times, Review, Talking Pictures, Signature Theatre, featuring Susan Wands, 1994 [17]
Variety, Review, Talking Pictures, Signature Theatre, featuring Susan Wands, 1994 [18]
The Record Review, Leaving Iowa, Adirondack Theater Festival, starring Susan Wands, 1994 [19]
Old Globe Press Release, Knowing Cairo, Old Globe Theatre, San Diego, starring Susan Wands 2003 [20]

I strongly believe that this is a valid Wiki page subjectg and should be included in the Wikipedia.

Cwands (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those that I have checked do at least mention her by name but there is little in the way of "directly in detail", particularly the "detail" aspect. Doddy Wuid (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are now requiring a list all of the reviews for this subject, with all the details citing the subject, in order to justify this subject's Wiki article, then I will add then per your request - but I would like to ask that someone other than Doddy Wuid to make this determination as to the relisting/approval of this Wiki article, as I can only surmise that this reviewer has a bias towards this subject or body of work.

Per the detail for performance for Susan Wands in the Arena Stage production of "A Streetcar Named Desire" (which is not one of the original premier works that is the focus of this body of work):

http://www.cercles.com/n10/londre.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwands (talk • contribs) 19:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“Susan Wands gave a fascinating, strong interpretation of Blanche. Insanity is clearly closing in on this woman, but unlike the traditional fragile interpretation, Miss Wands’ Blanche is going down fighting” [Plyler]. Another critic found Susan Wands’s performance as Blanche Taut with the psychological complexity and ambiguity that Williams wrote into a part that is, some say (and this includes Williams), based on the playwright’s own unfathomable personality. She slowly, gently and affectingly dismantles the thin veneer of reality that props up Blanche’s world, always keeping one step ahead of our perceptions. It is a moving interpretation, far and away superior to the usual fluttery Blanche [...]. Wands conveys the redemptive idea that here is a woman once made of solid human stuff still clinging to her self- awareness. The slight quavers in her voice, the startled screams, an excessive gesture, the decorative laughs—by these things Wands gradually reveals a lapsing mind. She knows she is doomed, but she wants to be sane enough to observe her fall. In the end, she isn’t. That’s her tragedy. [Huntington, 15 Sept. 2002]

In general, the critics concurred that “audiences will find it easier to relate to Susan Wands’ less-fragile Blanche” [Huntington, 15 Sept. 2002]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwands (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed references to be added soon.

Cwands (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. "Boom" Talking Broadway.com review:

For a rare example of a storyteller more interesting than the tale being told, you need look no further than Ars Nova. But let the record state that the most fascinating feature of the play that just opened there, titled Boom, is not its playwright, Peter Sinn Nachtrieb, but someone named Barbara. Bearing a bobbed shock of copper hair and wearing a slightly revealing, slightly frumpy black suit, Barbara (deliciously played by Susan Wands) looks like a cross between a schoolteacher and a just-past-her-prime 1960s flight attendant. She moves and speaks purposefully but haltingly; her habit of substituting gestures for certain words suggests someone for whom long-held intentions are being allowed escape for the first time. Yet her obvious discomfort is anything but uncomfortable. Positioned at an antiquated console equipped with an obtuse collection of levers, switches, and percussion instruments (including a tympani), Barbara radiates the self-involved joy of a woman completely in her element. You never doubt her certainty about anything, even when it seems that the people and buildings surrounding her are on considerably shakier ground. In a play tracking the tremors of change, a guide such as this is crucial to maintaining your own footing. But whenever Barbara starts throwing those levers and banging on her giant drum with the pompous intent of an epic film soundtrack, the work she's doing always seems more worthwhile than the work she's creating. It's only in Barbara, and in the sparkling, outmoded sophistication Wands brings to her, that the at-odds halves of the story meld into one. As the play evolves, and as the depths of Barbara's personal connection to her presentation grows less murky, it becomes less shallow and much more appealing. And once Nachtrieb stops relying on Armageddon clichés just past the 90-minute evening's midpoint, his play even begins to assume a surprising celestial beauty.

The most startling part of this is that Boom legitimately earns it, its gradual ebb and flow becoming by show's end a wave of cleverness that at least leaves you with the impression of a show of some significance. That too many involved haven't figure out how to bring that quality to the rest of the show is unfortunate; that Barbara and Wands almost succeed in picking up the slack is its own small, explosive blessing.

Talking Broadway Review of Boom

Cwands (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwands (talk • contribs) 19:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. New York Times, Review of "They Dance Real Slow in Jackson",

The central figure in Jim Leonard Jr.'s play is Elizabeth Ann Willow, a young victim of cerebral palsy (Susan Wands in a wheelchair and braces). Why Elizabeth Ann stopped speaking in her mid-20's is the question the play asks and, in a manner of speaking, answers. The heroine makes it plain that she aspires to soar, but she gets no help from anyone, including the playwright.

New York Times Review of "They Dance Real Slow in Jackson"

Cwands (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Variety Review: "Talking Pictures",

Like many of his plays, Foote's "Talking Pictures" is set in the fictional town of Harrison, Texas, during a time of transition. Harrison has a lot in common with Brian Friel's Ballybeg: It's a point of return, a touchstone, a field of the imagination on which an author has played out all his fancies. Nothing happens and everything happens, usually within the span of a few days. Foote is congenitally more upbeat than Friel, but isn't that the American virus? "Talking Pictures" is set in 1929, when silent movies are about to give over in a big way to talkies and the change is generating an almost sexual anticipation in small towns like Harrison....

Susan Wands is quite perfect as Willis' pouty gold-digger wife, Gladys.

[[ http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117909051?refcatid=31%7CVariety Review of "Talking Pictures"]]

Cwands (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. The Record Review : "Leaving Iowa",

At its heart, "Leaving Iowa" is a 90-minute intermissionless play that takes two hours and 15-minutes to complete (including a long intermission).

Susan Wands is also terrific as the June Cleaver mom who shows infinite patience, until she is pushed too far.

[[ http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2009/07/23/entertainment/doc4a6777fe52c51057808214.txt%7CTroy Record review of "Leaving Iowa"]]

Cwands (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cwands (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. UT Daily Beacon, Review, Triumph of Love:

These “attempts” include multiple accounts of cross-dressing that lead ...... (Susan Wands) to fall in love with Leonide’s different incarnations. Susan Wands as Leontine, Agis’ sister, also enchants. We are convinced more of her love than any of the other characters’, but the way her character arc ends is fairly strange (we actually wonder if she is still in love with Leonide even after Leonide’s true identity is revealed). utdailybeacon.com/.../triumph-provides-enjoyable-complex-story/ -

Cwands (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. TNJN, Triumph of Love:

And Susan Wands stole the show with her brilliant portrayal of Leontine. The youthful transformation that she showed in Leontine was both exciting and inspiring, leaving the audience satisfied in its honesty. Cwands (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. Talking Broadway Review, Henry VI:

...and Susan Wands as the emperor’s one-time lover – and just perhaps the mother of his child – handles her end of the often absurd confrontations with great aplomb.

[[ http://www.talkinbroadway.com/regional/stl/stl26.html%7CTalkinbroadway review of "Henry IV"]]

Cwands (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cwands (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this Wiki page for Susan Wands, it contains notable information.67.185.194.103 (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this Wiki page for Susan Wands, it contains notable information.97.94.118.132 (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Evalpor and evidence (poorly) presented. To the contributor, please read WP:SOCK. Just in case. Moray An Par (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help in resolving this issue. Please let me know if there are any changes I need to make to this article to make it more "Wikified" Cwands (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep this seems like a barely notable performer. She is has one credit in Internet Broadway Database, and that is for an understudy role. The article was obviously written by her or a relative. --rogerd (talk) 23:01, 28 June 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her sister isn't doing her any favors here, but the performer clear meets the GNG, as a straightforward Gnews search shows; more than enough coverage in the NY Times alone. The list of directors who've cast isn't exactly shabby, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Assuming you are meaning a search in Google News, I'm puzzled by this as I get only two hits for the term "Susan Wands" and these are just name checks, along with others, in lists of the cast of one production; hardly "directly in detail". Perhaps it's filtered differently because I'm not in the U.S. but I am searching the U.S. region news. What term are you using in your "straightforward Gnews search"? Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer. You're looking only at the results for the last 30 days. Click on the "Archives" link at the left side of the page to get more complete results, which run back over nearly 30 years. And even more reviews turn up in the GBooks search. And, this being an area where googling gives nothing like complete results, we're looking at only part of the iceberg. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. That said - well Ravenswing nails it pretty solidly below. Doddy Wuid (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The NY Times, Variety and Playbill are certainly reliable sources, but not a single damn source either in the article or in the laundry list posted above discuss Wands in pretty much any detail, let alone the "significant detail" the GNG requires. Her name is mentioned in articles mentioning several other actors, and that's about it. Quite aside from the probable WP:COI issue, the Keep proponents seem bedazzled by "OMG look, a list of SOURCES!!!!" without actually examining those sources to see if they mention the subject in significant detail. I've yet to examine one that does. WP:GNG explicitly states that a sentence or two constitutes a trivial mention, and few of these sources devote as much as a single sentence to Ms. Wands. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 13:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that's not an accurate assessment of what's out there; for example, there's a full-length profile here [21], for example. And there's a lot of material behind paywalls in the GNews search. Second, the argument fundamentally misunderstands notability. Wands is notable as an actor because there are dozens of sources discussing her work as an actor. The GNG certainly does not say what you would have it say; A single one-sentence mention of a tangential subject in a full-length book may be trivial, but that is not the standard to be applied to the assessment of a cast member's performance in a review of a play, where the matter is essential to the review as a whole and space is far more limited. Aside from the GNews hits, there are many more that show up in GBooks (quite a few magazine reviews that Google has decided to index as "Books" rather than "News"). And Wands is notable as an actor, and the sources directly address her work as an actor. Perhaps she'd get more spectacular coverage in the New York Post and in TMZ if she were prone to embarassing public behavior, romantic escapades, and the occasional round of overt substance abuse, but there's more to the acting world than Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan. If Martin Scorsese casts her in Boardwalk Empire, if Joanne Akalaitis casts her in the New York Shakespeare Festival, if Newsweek reports that "the Imogen of neophyte actress Susan Wands full of an inner radiance that elevates the play beyond its merits"[22] and if a reference work held by many academic libraries devotes space to analyzing her performance as Stella in a performance of Streetcar [23] then she's clearly a legitimate encyclopedic subject, even if we don't know much about her sex life, her dietary opinions, her pets, her favorite sports teams, and all the other trivia that infests our biographies of semi-celebrities. WP:BLP says that when we write about noncelebrities, we should "include only material relevant to their notability", which in the case of an actor is his or her work, and it should be clear from reviewing the sources that this actor's work is well documented in reliable sources, and that demonstrates notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we stick to the dearth of detailed material about her work rather than peripheral aspects of her life, that nobody else has expressed any interest in, despite your implication? Again, WP:NOTINHERITED. Being employed by someone notable and/or in something notable does not in itself make someone notable. If there is, however, significant, detailed and direct coverage of her contribution to Boardwalk Empire or the New York Shakespeare Festival, that, of course, is a different matter and I'm perfectly happy if that's the case (I'd freely admit you seem to be better at rooting out material with Google, so go for your life). Likewise with being covered(/briefly mentioned) in a notable publication: reliable but not necessarily notable. A detailed profile in 28 years is something and a mountain of brief direct mentions in despatches, some clearly positive, indicate she may well be a capable jobbing actress but in few, if any, of these examples can it be said to be "significant coverage". Doddy Wuid (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to object to the representation that the body of work reviewed cited in:

#New York Times, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 21, 2008 [24]

Variety, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008 [25]
Talking Broadway, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008 [26]
Backstage, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008 [27]
Theatrescene, Review of "Boom, starring Susan Wands, March 20, 2008 [28]
Theatremania, Review of "Boom", starring Susan Wands, March 2008 [29]
New York Times, Review of Henry IV, Joseph Papp Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands, 1991 [30]
BroadwayWorld.com, Article Henry IV, featuring Susan Wands, 1991 [31]
Theare World Yearbook, Google Article, Henry VI, Joseph Papp Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands, 1991 [32]
New York Times, Review of "The Belle Strategem", featuring Susan Wands, October 2003 [33]
New York Times, Review of "They Dance Real Slow in Jackson", starring Susan Wands [34]
Talking Broadway, Review of Henry IV, starring Susan Wands [35]
Riverfront Times, Reivew of Henry IV, starring Susan Wands [36]
Theare World Yearbook, Google Article, Passionate Women, La Mama Theatre NYC, featuring Susan Wands [37]
New York Times, Review, Talking Pictures, Signature Theatre, featuring Susan Wands, 1994 [38]
Variety, Review, Talking Pictures, Signature Theatre, featuring Susan Wands, 1994 [39]
The Record Review, Leaving Iowa, Adirondack Theater Festival, starring Susan Wands, 1994 [40]
Old Globe Press Release, Knowing Cairo, Old Globe Theatre, San Diego, starring Susan Wands 2003 [41]

does represent a notable contribution to American theatre, regional and Off-Broadway credits, and despite the attempt to negate the accomplishments of this performer, this article is of value. The reviewer Doddy Wuid seems to have a personal agenda against this performer - as his continued objections to this listing seem completely subjective. Although this actress is not a celebrity, her contributions to the curent American theatre, especially in new scripts and productions is notable. Just because Doddy Wuid can't see the value in that does not mean that her Wiki identity is not notable. Can I just ask that someone other than Doddy Wuid review this relisted article, as I don't believe his claims are creditable. Cwands (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That really takes the biscuit! The one person in this debate who does have a clear and demonstrable COI, despite being very slow to make the fact known, accuses someone else of having a personal agenda! Read WP:AGF. There is nothing personal about this as I had been unaware of Susan Wands until I chanced upon the article (and this is not a dig at her profile or notability). This is purely about the article and its notability. There are others who are on the keep side of the debate who, though I may disagree with their conclusions, are applying valid points of policy to the debate, some of whom have pointed out the damage which you are doing to the case by your interventions. Doddy Wuid (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or userfy - I see some kernel of notability, but it is such a mess that it may need a substantial re-write from PR to encyclopedic content. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The analysis of the available sources by other veteran editors as tangential appears persuasive. While a case for borderline notability might be made, the history of the article indicates that it will likely continue to be misused for promotional purposes, and under these circumstances it's not worth the effort of maintaining it and keeping it spam-free. Sandstein 05:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any section of WP:NACTOR, and I'm not persuaded by the arguments of User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz the page meets general notability. If kept it certainly needs cleanup. The 1983 full-length profile linked is the only source out of the lot which meets "directly" and "detailed", and is from subject's hometown paper. As pointed out above, the quantity of sources doesn't excuse the poor quality of the sources. Per WP:RECENTISM, I believe if this were about an historical actor we'd be applying a different standard of sourcing (stressing WP:ENT over WP:GNG), and deleting this page. BusterD (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How does she not pass NACTOR #1, with significant roles in Boardwalk Empire, the Public Theater/NY Shakespeare Festival, and other notable stage productions reviewed in major media like the NYTimes? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to sound disrespectful to the page subject or the page creator. Doing work you love and you're proud of is a rare accomplishment. But to respond to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Significant? Doll Tearsheet in Henry IV is a significant role? Understudy to the female cast as the ONLY Broadway credit? Mrs. O'Neill (2 episodes) in Boardwalk Empire? This is a very low bar for the modifier "significant" when applied to the noun "role". Right now I'm not seeing significant as it regards encyclopedia pages. This page is about a fine working actor but the subject hasn't seen the media resonance yet to pass notability, IMHO. Virtually nothing salient. BusterD (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD, it's Pirandello's Henry IV, not Shakespeare's; Matilda is a huge role. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda is a significant role in Pirandello's Henry IV (in St. Louis), but I was referring to the claimed Joanne Akalaitis credit: Doll in Shakespeare's Henry IV, parts I & II. BusterD (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it. Didn't even see that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" here as opposed to "trivial", which has been the standing interpretation. And roles which are discussed in NYTimes reviews of the production are generally significant, even by stricter standards. I'm completely baffled by why there's such pressure to set the bar high under WP:ENT for actors doing significant work, but low for T&A performers, Kardashian hangers-on, and others of no genuine achievement. It's ridiculous that it's harder to keep articles on "fine working actors" with multiple reviews in national media than to remove articles on porn performers with tinplate handed-out-by-the bushel awards.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented below, the notability guidelines for actors really aren't equipped to deal with stage actors - on the one hand, the productions are notable and she has significant roles in them, but on the other hand, the number of stage actors for which this is true is exponentially larger than the number of film actors for which it is true - is every actor who's had a couple of leads or secondary roles in regional theatre notable? I've begun a discussion at the talkpage for WP:notability (people). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Part of the problem is that WP:ENT is really not set up to deal with stage actors. If Boom and Henry IV had been filmed, it would have been obvious that Wands was notable, but the notability guideline doesn't give adequate instruction for how to deal with plays, which have many performance with many actors, rather than films. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Another part of the problem is that many theater actors with better resumes and more significant accomplishments don't meet WP:ENT and WP:GNG either. BusterD (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe my above comment is slightly flip, however accurate. I didn't intend to sound sarcastic in such a serious matter. I wanted to acknowledge the point User:Roscelese makes above. Theater is a live experience which isn't processed simultaneously across the country like a film or recording; it is an immediate immersive experience which takes place in the here and now. As a result, all theater criticism is local. Some local theater criticism is good; the newspapers I threw as a child had truly awful theater criticism inside. No matter the variation, local sources don't generally make the best sources for this encyclopedia, except for major market work (New York, Chicago, LA, a small number of regionals). This definitely puts the working stage performer at a disadvantage when compared to the trivial hijinks which might gain the film or TV actor additional media coverage. Nonetheless, balancing such coverage is not why we're assembled here. We're here to decide whether this page meets standards of notability and verifiability. I stand by by my assessment above. BusterD (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. So why are you dismissing the Newsweek review and the academic reference sources I pointed out? And doesn't the Newsweek review itself rather undermine your argument that "a;; theater criticism is local"? To say nothing of the fact that the NYTimes rather frequently reviews British theater (and even theatre). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'll concede the subject's name is mentioned once in both sources, but both sources together don't constitute two full sentences. I'll concede that national magazines occasionally publish local theater reviews, usually coming from the major markets I listed, plus West End. I've looked at the provided sources and I don't see any reason to change my position. BusterD (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is promotional and reads like a theatre resume with no dates and no balanced treatment of the subject, rather than a biography. When was she born? Where was she raised and educated? Who are her parents and siblings? Did she do any other jobs before acting? Look at, say, Bernadette Peters, for an idea of how to write a bio article for an actress. When an article is written by a person with a WP:COI it makes it harder to write a balanced bio. There should be quotations from both positive and negative reviews of the actresses work in major productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ClickR Skin Care[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. looks like a blatant advert. references are promotional sources. 1 gnews hit [42]. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.

Delete. The references would appear to be a snow job. A completely "vegan" line of skin care process for vegans who don't apparentlh mind dosing themselves with heavy metals: suite of four cleansers and lotions includes ingredients like diamond dust, gold, and silver.... Unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I'm not sure what the commenter above means by "snow job," but all the references in this article are sources that were found easily enough using Google. I did make use of a goodly amount of self-pub material for what seemed to me to be non-controversial assertions, however there are several sources that were published by notable publishers and which were seemingly independent of the subject (footnotes 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11). I wrote most of the older article on Florence Sender, and after the section about clickr in her article grew to be a little unwieldy, I forked an expanded version of the clickr subsection into its own article. If there is consensus that this company is non-notable on its own merits, this material should be folded back into the article about Sender. Sender is notable in her own right, and this material is definitely relevant to her biography, which describes her as a "serial entrepreneur." If there are problems with neutrality, I encourage other editors to be bold in working towards resolving them. The article would certainly benefit from the attention of others. I'm not sure that there is much reason to attack the article based on the substance of the claims made by the company about the products, although if there are any controversial claims made in the encyclopedic voice I would agree they should be modified so as to be clearly attributed to someone. Whether the claims by the company are true or not, and whether these ingredients are "good" or not, information about how the company promotes its products is relevant in describing the niche market in which the company is competing. DickClarkMises (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that they use this Wikipedia page as the "About" page on their website gives me some hesitation; however, this appears to be a nationally distributed product and therefore, relevant. It could use some to make it sound less like an ad.Dakart (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but being "nationally distributed" does not come anywhere near to establishing notability by Wikipedia's guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 5 July 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Smerdis. a majority of the sources the article uses promote the products of ClickR Skin Care (such as sources 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). If the entire article was rewritten with a neutral, non-spam perspective and used non-biased, reliable sources, then it could possibly be considered a keep.--Ahenry32 (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contrary to what DickClarkMises suggests, none of the sources cited constitutes substantial coverage in independent sources. Several of them are press releases. At least one of the sources that DickClarkMises gives as "seemingly independent of the subject" is an advertisement (one at monstersandcritics.com) and several are short pieces full of hyperbole and peacock terms, of a kind that is indistinguishable from advertising. A couple of the sources are announcements that someone called "Cam Gigandet" (who apparently is famous) has a contract with ClickR to promote their products, and they could not by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as substantial coverage of ClickR. In short, a promotional article without a single source that can really be regarded as substantial coverage by a reliable third party source. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Big Dom 20:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Erl[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was previously deleted at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Erl. Worked on in a user's subpage since then. Bringing back here to AFD to reassess community consensus on whether this article should be in Wikipedia mainspace, or be deleted. Procedural nom, no personal opinion expressed by nominator. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 15:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 15:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm indecisive about this one. On one hand, per WP:BASIC, there is very little coverage of the person Thomas Erl. His work may be covered, but this is not an article about his work but about the person. The "biography" section starts at the age of 37, and could have been titled "professional achievements" just as well. On the other hand, I understand the claim for notability per WP:AUTHOR #2, "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Assuming Mr. Erl is the originator of SOA, how significant is this new concept? An expert opinion from someone uninvolved would be helpful. Given such an opinion I might change my opinion. --Muhandes (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that we should involve other experts in the discussion. However being a contributor to the article, I would just like to clarify one important point. Thomas Erl is not the originator of SOA and the article does not mention about it or claim about being the originator of SOA. He is the originator of principles related to service design and set of SOA patterns that contributed to the evolution of SOA and service orientation. The article was earlier moved to AFD and then after multiple discussions one of the admins asked me to edit it in my user space. I worked on the article with inputs and suggestions from other editors (thanks for their time & guidance) prior to re-publishing it. The date of birth was present earlier in the article but it was later removed by an editor (it can be included with no issue). Edited by Sanjay (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Edited by Sanjay (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Muhandes (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This just weakens the claim for WP:AUTHOR #2.--Muhandes (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I do apply SOA Design patterns and advocate these as very valuable, I would like to make couple of observations. Thomas Erl is not originator of SOA, but he did formulate the set principles and provided comprehensive set of SOA Design patterns that are used today. In addition, Thomas Erl contributed his work to the SOA patterns community with online SOA patterns and glossary that are extermely valuable for anyone who wants to better understand what SOA actually means. My suggestion would be making edits to the page that accurately represents author contributions and helps readers to connect to his work ( principles and patterns). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitrio (talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Dmitrio (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this discussion.

CommentThomas Erl is an important person in consideration of the global comprehensive education concerning concepts of SOA as a practice. While Thomas did not create SOA he is well known and respected throughout many communities as hub or connector of people in context of these concepts. A connection to Thomas is a connection to practitioners, educators, philosophers, and technologists. For this alone, it would be wise to keep an accurate and up to date page on Thomas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardCohen (talk • contribs) 01:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— HowardCohen (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this discussion.

Adding comments by editors for which this is the first (and only) edit, just weakens the argument even more, see WP:MEAT. --Muhandes (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We all clearly need to understand a few things about WP and publishing a page about a book author. Muhandes has been very patient in pointing out to me some non-obvious points like the difference between notability and importance. Some of us also have confused discussing formal issues about the page - which is what Muhandes expects - and voting for your favorite SOA author. Muhandes does not need our opinion about Thomas Erl but rather recommendations on how we can improve the page to help him decide whether to withdraw it from deletion or not. There are two main issues about our page, one is reliable sources and the other is notability. As per WP Notability, WP will consider that there is notability, even if there are not enough reliable sources, for 5 reasons. I have been able to elaborate on only three, and I do not know if it will be enough. So here they are:

Item 1: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors: Thomas is the originator of principles of service design and he initiated the drive and co-created the soa-manifesto presently signed by almost a 1,000 SOA professionals(involving other experts such as Anne Thomas Manes, David Chappel). Apart from this, he is the originator for building a community that came up with SOA design patterns which was later compiled into a book. His books are well cited in many articles and books on SOA by other authors (for example, ACM). Thomas spoke at various SOA events mentioned below (re-listed from the article) : "Application Architecture, Development & Integration", "3rd Annual DoD SOA & Semantic Technology Symposium", and he is also going to be the keynote speaker at SOA in Healthcare Conference http://www.omg.org/news/meetings/HC-WS/index. The other keynote speaker is Ivar Jacobson. It clearly shows that he is an important figure in SOA. I claim that these assertions support item 1.

Item 2: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique: Very few new things are discovered by a single person from scratch nowadays. Not many new Tim Berners-Lee recently, but much more team work and enterprise R&D. New concepts are frequently based on existing concepts which are revisited, synthesized, aggregated, rationalized, systematized, structured, etc. Sometimes a mass of concepts have been created originally dissociated (OO, BPM, Web Services, EAI, and others) but they contribute in creating a new concept too, as was the case of SOA, for which there was initially no formal definition. It was mainly a potential, and it is until somebody (Thomas among a few others) takes the trouble of studying all the elements and organizing them in a structured manner so that the new aggregated mass of disjointed elements become a unique, coherent, structured and comprehensible paradigm, that the concept can be successfully used and generalized all over the world. As an additional consequence, vendors cannot anymore make unjustified claim of qualities or benefits for their products that they actually do not offer. Thomas Erl introduced in particular the concept of vendor neutrality which, since then, has allowed buyers to be able to actually verify the vendors claims. Additionnally, Thomas has produced unique methods, techniques for designing a service oriented architecture. This did not exist previous to his work. And this also was obtained by providing a unique, standard way of describing SOA elements, which have established a continuum across all his books. His influence was aknowledged when he succeeded in gathering a significant group of IT specialist to create in 2 days the SOA Manifesto, which has now been signed by almost a thousand of IT specialists over the world. The manifesto has been translated in 11 lenguages by twice this amount of voluntary contributors. This is why Thomas Erl did not invent SOA, and did not have to, but helped considerably in shaping SOA into a formal paradigm. I claim that Thomas Erl originated significant new concepts and techniques and that item 2 is met.

Item 3: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Today there are more than 20 authors working with him on SOA & related topics under the umbrella of Prentice Hall Service Oriented Computing Series which is again a unique effort in the area of SOA. However, I fear it will be a (long) while until a book can be written or a movie, around a SOA author (we are not such a popular type of professionals). I claim that these assertions support partially item 3.

I am aware that most of these assertions warrants links or references. If Muhandes accepts these assertions as a base for improving the page and posponing deletion further, then I can later coordinate with all interested parties to provide such links.Yveschaix (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. At this point I'd prefer to see what other editors think so I'd recommend that this discussion be relisted for more opinions. --Muhandes (talk) 21:23, 18 June 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, -- Cirt (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the work he is doing is notable; so he is notable. I'd say he meets WP:AUTHOR #4 for his series of books on SOA which have been bestsellers and reviewed extensively. jorgenev 05:40, 20 June 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source it or lose it... Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on the page in coming week with content to further support it. Edited by Sanjay (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added patent invented by the author on the page. The IP for few patents were transferred to RedHat for building SOA related tool. I assume the patents can be considered as original work of the author. Edited by Sanjay (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (Procedural; nominator retracted nomination) (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1899 VMI Keydets football team[edit]

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

~~A century-old college spoers season with but a single game. Only the most passing of mentions in the given references. I don't believe that independent coverage of this exists.~~ Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Precedent should rule here. College football seasonal wrap-ups are commonly accepted. The fact that this "season" was just 1 game 110 years ago changes nothing in that regard. There are sources out there (local paper home team, local paper visitors, campus press), just nothing on the internet. Let's not start parsing things too closely here. Carrite (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, precedent should rule here. The precedent in question being the WP:GNG, which says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. Campus presses do not count as independent of the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do! A bulletin issued by the football team itself would not count; coverage in a school paper is independent of the subject (the team) and substantial. Carrite (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3PARTY says Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject. Since both the team and the paper share an affiliation with the school, they are affiliated. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an additional source, and independent one. I kept the original because it does have other useful information. With the new source, we picked up the date of the game too!--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picked up another source from a Baltimore paper covering the game. Surely these two decidedly independent sources show that coverage is verifiable. Note that this is 1899, so online sources will indeed be hard to find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep certainly "verifiable" through independent third party sources (which should be added) and it is technically an "undefeated season" so I have no issue with it. Would like to see more details added about the game itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, fails accepted notability guidelines by a wide margin. One game report is not the same as the coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. The other sources are not independent. Fram (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question College Football Data Warehouse and Baltimore American newspaper are both widely considered to be independent sources, which is two independent sources and not one. are you challenging either of those sources as being independent?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - CFDW doesn't count towards notability at all, it gives routine coverage for all teams, matches, years and so on, no significant indepth coverage. The only source that counts as a reliable, independent source is the Baltimore Sun, but that is a pure WP:NOTNEWS violation. The match hasn't received any significant attention from RS after the news report, so fails WP:N completely. Fram (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Many would argue that assessment of CFDW. Since the last posting, I've found articles Baltimore Sun and Washington Evening Times articles have been added. Not bad for something in 1899. There's also a bunch more turning up in searches, many which seem to be in pay-only areas of the web. The it was obviously widely covered at the time. The "not-news" article seems bogus to me, at least as applied here: if there were not any "news" articles, opposition would say "there wasn't even anything in the news" (which in this case there obviously was). "News" by definition is the plural of "new" so of it is no longer "new" (i.e. much later) then it would not be listed in the "news". It would take 22 years for college football to be broadcast on radio and 40 years for college football to make its way to television. What other media would you like to have?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The question is not about other media, but about persistent coverage, not a single burst of news reports. I have no problem writing articles about notable subjects of centuries ago, because they continue to be covered, discussed, analyzed in reliable sources (e.g. books) over the years and centuries. Here, all you have after the initial news coverage, is a statistics database. Fram (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Please see question below.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Carrite, precident for yearly articles on sports teams is there and should take precidence here. Better referencing is needed here but we need to recognize that due to the time this article is covering, reliable sources are going to be more difficult to locate. RadioFan (talk) 12:42, 29 June 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting should be reserved for times when consensus is not clear or when additional discussion would be beneficial. It's pretty clear here in my view. Care to give a reason why?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ¨Presumably because in the opinion of the relister, consensus is not yet clear, discussion is ongoing, and more input would be beneficial to get a clear view of the consensus? Fram (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm also wondering why this was relisted. Participation in the discussion seems sufficient. All those participating are pointing to policy and guidelines in their reasoning and the !votes are pretty clear. I've left a note on the admin's page asking that they return here to provide an explanation.--RadioFan (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (I'm not American, so maybe these are stupid questions) (a) if they only played one game in the season, surely that's unusual and the reason would be discussed in the coverage? (b) I'm not sure I understand the chroniclingamerica content, is it talking about the right season? Stuartyeates (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, both source 4[43] and 6 (Chronicling Amrica) are about the 1900 season, not the 1899 season. Fram (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question: Do you want only news articles from the 1899 season (which you said above would violate WP:NOTNEWS) or do you want to have articles about the impact of that season beyond 1899 (which you seem to say here is not what you want)? In short, which is it?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, how I love false dilemma's and strawmen arguments! Could you perhaps indicate what, in those two 1900 articles, is about the 1899 season? Because as far as I see, these two sources have nothing at all to do with the 1899 season and should be removed from the article. Fram (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - They both show the significance of the player Montgomery in the next season. Because one of the articles was written before play began the 1900 season, it is reasonable to assume that these duties are based at least in part on his success in the 1899 season. I'd agree that more detail should be provided and hopefully it will be forthcoming in future edits. Fortunately, there is no deadline at Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now that I've answered your question would you mind answering mine?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Um, no, you haven't answered my question at all. You are engaging in WP:OR here. Montgomery played in 1899, Montgomery was significant in 1900, so this is based on his success in the 1899 season (i.e. the match from the start of the year)? I'll remove the two sources for 1900 from the article, since you are obviously not planning to do so, even though neither of them contain any fact about the 1899 season. Fram (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe I didn't answer your question to your satisfaction, but I did answer it. You haven't even attempted to answer mine, and I asked first. I can only assume by your actions that you agree your "notnews" argument above does not apply because of your actions. By the way, I don't see it as original research because the article itself did not state that the player's success in 1900 was based on the 1899 season, just that the data was in place for future editors and researchers to collaborate. I can find no essay, policy, or guideline to support this, but I'm willing to bet that "OH CRAP THERE'S A SOURCE IN THE ARTICLE THAT REFUTES MY ARGUMENT IN AFD, I'M GOING TO DELETE IT FROM THE ARTICLE" is not a valid reason to delete an article. I will happily revert your deletion and if you want we can go the the three revert rule to gain consensus.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed, your shouted non-argument is not a good reason to delete an article. Luckily, the source I removed did not refute any of my arguments in this discussion at all. As for the reason that I have not answered your question, I have explained this to you. Your question posed a false dilemma, misrepresenting both my position and the actual sources presented in the AfD and the article. "do you want to have articles about the impact of that season beyond 1899?" Of course I do, I have requested these, and they are a basic requirement for any article challenged at AfD. No one, including you, has presented any such articles though. A school yearbook that indicates that the captain of the 1899 football team is also the captain of the 1900 football team is not an article about the impact of the 1899 season, nor is it significant coverage, nor is it in any way independent. The other article, indicating that said captain is in 1900 also co-coaching the team, is at least independent, but has no information about the 1899 season at all, just one line of information about one player from the 1899 team. So, yes, including this as evidence that the 1899 season was notable is OR, and I am still waiting for any article beyond the NOTNEWS ones. Are these allowed in the article? Of course, they have relevant, reliable info. Are they sufficient to keep an article on their own? No, per NOTNEWS. Fram (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you need to review your own arguments before going further in this discussion. For example, when you state "no one has presented references" what you are really saying is "no one has presented references to your satisfaction" (which is certainly a welcome opinion). You seem to be standing alone in that assessment. But hey, way to be WP:BOLD!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Paulmcdonald, please don't "quote" statements from me which I have not said. I have nowhere said "no one has presented references", so please retract that statement. If you can't discuss this fairly, then just shut up, but don't invent statements I have never used as if they are my position. It is beneath you. Fram (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Hallelujah! I was incorrect in stating Fram's position that references are not provided. Fram now evidently agrees that there are plenty of references and will shortly be changing AfD position to keep. The next passing Admin can close this discussion as a "KEEP" and we can all move on to something else. Sounds great to me!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Paulmcdonald, I have no idea why you are continuously trying to twist things, from claiming that 3 vs. 2 is a clear consensus over presenting false dilemma's to finally fabricating quotes, and when I oppose such a practice to claim that that opposition says anything at all about my opinion of the actual case at hand, but it is a very low tactic. Probably born out of despair, since you are clearly unable to find any source that discusses this "season" after the newsreports of the only match were done, but desperation is no excuse for repeated disruption of what should be an adult, rational discussion. Fram (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's handle this I agree that (and this is a quote of yours because I cut and pasted) "desperation is no excuse for repeated disruption of what should be an adult, rational discussion." So please be rational and stop being disruptive because you really look desperate to "prove your point". My point was proven several days ago. So let's take a closer look at this:

There are 3 keeps and 1 delete, not 2.
You wanted more references from newspapers. When they were found you argue they don't count because they're from newspapers.
When I ask for what you are looking for specifically, you moan and groan about dilemmas and straw men.
~~On June 29, you claim that there was only one newspaper article in the source, but there were at least two as of June 27.~~ confused to this, see note below
You argue against the College Football Data Warehouse as not counting as notable, yet it has long been considered a reliable source on Wikipedia by many other editors--and you fail to say "why" it it isn't reliable, just claiming that it is (see Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire).
When another editor posts support of a school newspaper as a source, your response was not civil at all.

I'm confident with the discussion and am ready for this AFD to close, anyone else?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why you don't count the nomination in the deletes? So, yes, there are 3 keeps and 2 deletes, not 1.

I have never discounted any sources "because they're from newspapers".

You did not ask what I was looking for specifically, you started with a loaded question full of assumptions and presenting a false dilemma. What I want is soures that meet WP:N: reliable, independent sources (so not the school newspaper) that address the season significantly (so not a statistics database, and not sources about the 1900 season that don't even mention the 1899 season or the single game). Furthermore, per WP:NOTNEWS, these sources hace to be from beyond the initial news coverage. All the other sources are acceptable (well, the 1900 ones are very tangential), but don't count towards notability, and won't change my policy based "delete" into a keep.

At the end of June 27[44], there was only one newspaper source, the Baltimore American. This was still the same at the time of my comment of the 29th. The CFDW, the annually VMI bomb, and the 2010 VMI Football Record book, are not newspapers by any stretch of the word.

I have not stated that the CFDW is not a "reliable" source, I have said that it doesn't count towards notability as it is a statistics database, not significant, indepth coverage. It isn't selective but indiscriminate. Please try to distinguish between "independent", "reliable" and "indepth" or "significant". Please don't throw around insulting shortcuts when you are so obviously wrong either.

And finally, I don't take any civility lessons from you, you have presented a statement you made up as if it was a direct quote from me, and refuse to correct this or even acknowledge this. This is despicable behaviour. My comment, on the other hand, started with "you should know better", which is not the most friendly way of stating things, but hardly worthy of the description "not civil at all". The only person I behaved uncivil towards is you, and you don't deserve any better, since you are unwilling or uncapable of discussing things here in a rational, adult, fair and reasonable manner. If you want civility, act like a civil person instead of displaying all the underhanded tactics you have shown here. Fram (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Response I'll only respond to what matters to this discussion, which means a lot of it will fall out. 1) Yes, the nominator does not count as a "delete" because the nominator has not taken a position of "delete" -- and yes, someone can nominate an article for deletion discussion and remain neutral. 2) Something is amiss on when the second newspaper was added, because my notes above are showing June 27 but the log is different. It's possible something didn't get saved, but I'll take the heat for that one and strike it. 3) The sources (including CFDW) look good to me, they look even better now, and several others agree with this position. In conclusion, I'm still confident with the discussion and am ready for closure--especially with the new information found!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Paulmcdonald, the position of the nominator in an "articles for deletion" discussion is always "delete" unless explicitly stated otherwise (like a procedural nomination). And your repeated miscalculation of the consensus, asking for closure, opposing the relisting... isn't helping. A closure will happen when an independent editor (admin or not) will feel that consensus has been reached, not when someone involved thinks it should. Relisting the debate and continuing it has led to the addition of a lot of material by Cbl62, which is a much more effective way of settling these things and getting an article kept than making false claims and incorrect statements about those wanting to delete the article and their opinions and position over and over again. The article will be kept, but not thanks to you. Fram (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let me get this straight: You now have come around to agree to keep the article, the nominator has agreed to keep the article, other editors have joined in agreeing to keep the article, and additional collaboration has come into the article just as I predicted it would thus proving me right all along--and you're still taking the time to argue with me?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, it is always useful to correct other people's misconceptions, like your idea that the position of the nominator of an article for deletion is not by default "delete". 06:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
        HEY LOOK I found it! "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." buried in WP:AFD! You're right and I'm wrong! I looked up your argument for you. Now can you please stop arguing with me?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You "looked up your argument for you", "buried in AfD"? You mean, the argument right between the error it corrected and your previous post, which was a direct and to the point reply to you? If you don't get the answer to your loaded questions, you are complaining that I don't reply. If you make a numbered list of my supposed errors (none of them so far have been found to be indeed in error, while some clearly were incorrect on your part), and I do reply and follow-up, you are complaining that I do reply. Hint: if you want people to stop replying to you, don't reply to them, it may be more effective than sniping, shouting, and badly needing correction. Fram (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Confused so if I make a mistake or an error or am otherwise incorrect, you don't want me to reply to retract it anymore, or you do want me to reply with a retraction?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These kind of challenges really waste a lot of time. We're going to have 5,000 words debating the notability of a one game season. There's a clear precedent for keeping material of this category. And yes, a school newspaper remains an independent source — just as an NBC News report on General Electric is a reliable third-party source while a news release sent out by General Electric itself is not. Even though they are part of the same corporation. WP:SHAZAM. Carrite (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite, you should know better than to claim that a schoolpaper news articles about a team from that school is an independent source (never mind the reliability of it). Feel free to take it up at the RS noticeboard if you don't believe me. Fram (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's calm down some here. Maybe someone "should" know better but perhaps they don't, and if they don't that's no reason to become so accusatory. Further, there are reasonable arguments to support that independence--the athletic department and even the school administration normally have no control over what is printed in a school paper, and those papers are normally held to the same reliability standards as any other newspaper. While the WP:RS discussions may have come to the conclusion to normally dismiss school papers on Wikipedia (which incidentally I couldn't find any evidence that they have), that's certainly no reason to think that everyone on Wikipedia has read it or even agrees with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Discussion started at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#School newspaper reliabe and/or independent Fram (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More Games? can't make it out for sure, but there looks like there might be more games on the record... see this source.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe not? College Football Reference also shows only one game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another maybe not? Sports Network also shows onlly one game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That appears to be the yearbook of the Class of 1899. But the Class of 1899 would have graduated in May or June of 1899, and the football season under discussion would have been played in the fall of 1899. The yearbook is likely referring to games played during the 1898 season. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it might be interesting to some to debate whether certain players or the single game of the season is indeed notable, could we come back to discuss whether the topic 1899 VMI Keydets football team is or is not notable? It seems to me that what notability there is rests with the game and not the season, particularly since we've yet to find a source that speaks to exactly why the season had a single game. Maybe rename the article after the game, rather than the season; and redirect from the season to the game? Stuartyeates (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you want to move this article to 1899 Washington & Lee vs Virginia Military football game and then leave this as a re-direct? That seems to me to be more restrictive and not less, as this is about the "team" which includes the game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I want to see articles based on independent third party coverage, as per WP:GNG. I don't see it in the current article. I'm casting around for alternatives and a way forward. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I get that you want "independent third party coverage" what I don't get is why you think it isn't already there. But since you think that, what do you want?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why there was only one game has now been provided -- a deadly typhoid fever outbreak hit the school days after the first football game and resulted in closure of the school for six or seven weeks. 21:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Strong, Clear and Easy Keep. The article is supported by several reliable sources, including coverage in three daily newspapers. In addition, there is an established precedent for allowing season articles about significant college football teams. VMI was one of the significant teams in the early days of college football. And frankly, given the lack of easy access to source material from 1899, this is a pretty decent article, even including a temp photograph. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, there's only one daily with significant coverage plus one with a mention a season later and one with statistics. Plus of course the non-independent materials which fill in many of the details but don't count for notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further research reveals that the reason VMI played only one game in 1899 was that a deadly outbreak of typhoid fever hit the campus, resulting in the school being closed several days after the first game. All students were sent home, and the institute did not re-open until after the football season was over. Cbl62 (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The team's notability is also enhanced by the fact that George C. Marshall, who went on to be Chief of Staff of the Army, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense, played on the team. Cbl62 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was a keep for me before the additional references were added and it is still a keep. RadioFan (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article seems well referenced at this point, and it is very common practice on Wikipedia to have articles about even one game seasons by "19xx University of XYZ football team". First Light (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the precedent of having articles about college football seasons. The article appears to be sufficiently sourced, in my opinion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from delete) due to the work of Cbl62 (though I don't agree with his keep statement; there is only one newspaper article about the 1899 team, not three), with the Marshall connection and source giving sufficient (though not by much) notability. I don't agree with the "precedent" keeps, those are OTHERCRAPEXISTS keeps, but that discussion is not really relevant. Fram (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)\[reply]

Thanks for keeping an open mind. Too often people get entrenched in "winning" at AfD, and it's nice to see someone change their mind when circumstances warrant -- even if we don't agree on every aspect of the rationale. Cbl62 (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The new material and references make it notable for me now. Maybe even promote some of that content up to VMI Keydets football? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with appears that you've withdrawn the noimination but haven't explictly stated that, some admins are relucatnat to close an AFD like this without seeing the word "withdrawn" somewhere. Would you mind adding that? RadioFan (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination as per my previous comments and RadioFan's suggestion to be explicit. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common people[edit]

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

Source less SYNTH. This concept isn't a sociological term or category: as such what we have is a dicdef, as not being a term it isn't explored in any scholarly literature at depth (compare and contrast to the commons), it involves major factual errors (positing that the contemporary middle classes arose directly out of the peasantry. The technical content properly belongs at peasantry, or history of the european peasantry, lumpenproletariat, artisan, proletariat, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources added since 20 June have as their specific object "Common people" or "commoners", they're passing references, not scholarly attention. The article's subject fails notability criteria due to lack of sourcing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does not require sources to have the article's topic as their specific subject - significant coverage is sufficient. However, if you put "Common people" or "commoners" into google books you get tens of thousands of results, many of which seem to be scholarly works entirely about this massively notable topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unsourced. Also, all of the information is either outright factually incorrectly or slightly factually correct.Curb Chain (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how the concept of "the common people" or "a common person" could not be a notable topic that a person might want to learn more about through an encyclopedia article. The article should be a lot better, as others have said, but deleting it will not make that happen. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that common people are most often contrasted with the nobility, not discussed in the context of our modern concern with economics.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see The common people: a history from the Norman Conquest to the present for a respectable book-length treatment of the topic. The article should be kept for further development in accordance with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A sole text supporting at most "The history of common people in the United Kingdom" doesn't indicate that this is a universal scholarly term rather than a descriptive phrase. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also just a dictionary definition as it now stands. If you want to improve the article, by all means do so, but it is unsourced, and as the original nominator said, it is WP:SYN and WP:OR.Curb Chain (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: our notability guidelines weren't really created for situations like this — they're more meant for biographies, companies, etc., not for entities that have existed since the beginning of society. The article isn't so bad that it's unsalvageable, so we shouldn't trash it. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colleges usually teach a course called Western Civilization which includes this information. Class systems are common throughout history in many places. I think the article should be nammed commoners though, that how they are referred to. Never heard anyone refer to them as "common people". Google book results for "commoner" AND "Western Civilization" gets over a thousand results. [45] If I could remember the name of my old college textbook, I'd look that up. Dream Focus 06:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to keep the article, *if there was at least one source*Curb Chain (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or turn into a disambiguation page. A vague and amorphous term that can mean many different things in different contexts, for which there are many, more specific, synonyms or (for definitions by exclusion) antonyms (the OED for instance offers one definition as 'not a peer'). Attempting to pull them all into one article would likely result in WP:IINFO, WP:synthesis and the like. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Notable topic. It is historically more "common" to call the "common people" "commoners". Ergo, this article should be renamed. I added a ref. and attempted to put it in a proper sociological context with the opening sentence. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. J04n(talk page) 14:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but there are issues to be addressed.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Perhaps this doesnt hold in the continental traditions, but this is EN Wiki and in the anglophone world this is a hugely noteable concept, required for even a schoolboy understanding of economic history, social history, sociology and cultural studies. I have some books and God willing will soon improve the article, but just getting a vote in as this AfD seems to be due for closure. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a dictionary, and there is no general concept discussed in the article. The class described in the article is actually called "commoners", as in "House of Commons". TFD (talk) 06:27, 29 June 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as current article is way too much fleshed out to be labelled and dismissed as a "dictionary definition". Collect (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as the article is now 937 words, and has 9 inline citations and other references. More can be done, but article is now good enough to be kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe Common people is an important concept for understanding the social layout in history. More clarifications need to be made, but the current article is a good foundation.--CHASEMOON (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evenie Water Curling Club[edit]

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

Long unreferenced article about local sports club with no significant claim to notability. Contested prod prevented previous deletion attempt. Sadads (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Curling/Article_Guidelines#Curling_clubs -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does this club meet the guidelines? There is no references to show the coverage, and the article makes no claims as to meeting any of the other three numbered criteria. 23:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete This club does not meet the Wikiproject Curling notability guidelines by any measure I can see. I've found no references to the club hosting major events, having significant coverage for non-curling reasons, or any other aspect of the guidelines. Web searches return zero hits other than ones obviously spidering the wiki article itself. I'd love to have an article here, but I just don't see it as it stands. If someone is willing to step up and provide references, I'd be happy to reconsider my opinion 144.183.31.2 (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

~~sorry for the missed tag, the above was mine, didn't realize I wasn't logged in GormtheDBA (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

See below. After further research, I believe the club has enough Notability to satisfy under significant role in the expansion of the game, and significant coverage of modern events occurring. I retract my deletion vote in favor of a KEEP, at the very least pending article improvement.

REDIRECT Upon Second thought, the club is legitimate, and longstanding in Scotland, rather than a delete, I would propose a redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_curling_clubs_in_Scotland, ideally with a hashtag to the area 9 section. I admit to being uncertain how to *do* that, but if someone who has the ability to do so did it, I wouldn't complain in the slightest.GormtheDBA (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is Keep, i added two references. Mikeyandreality (talk) 19:47, 16 June 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, -- DQ (t) (e) 22:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On further searching outside the googleverse, I have found several more references which should help meet WP:NOTABILITY, such as

http://www.arbroathherald.co.uk/news/local-headlines/curlers_enjoy_recent_cold_spell_1_193900 (discussing outdoor matches) and
http://www.electricscotland.com/history/curling/chapter7.htm (History of curling in Scotland, discussing this club as a base from which otehr clubs sprung)

as well as multiple listings on the RCCC page discussing historical events. Assuming the original article creator has no desire to handle this, I will update this page to incorporate them, and that should satisfy the needs of the WP. Give me some time though, I work well, just not fast GormtheDBA (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. One of the sources I deleted was citing Wikipedia and the other source is the official website. Obviously advertising and marketing materials. So delete per WP:ORGIN. Kathryn.boast (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is used for advertising and marketing materials. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I have added additional sources in, including records discussing the club's role in the expansion of the sport to Norway and external coverage of recent events as well. Perhaps this isn't the most notable article in Wikipedia, but it ain't the least, either. I believe it's Notable Enough GormtheDBA (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're changing your mind, you should strike through the !vote that doesn't now apply. Peridon (talk) 22:05, 28 June 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and CLOSE DISCUSSIONGiven that at this time, no one has raised a legitimate Delete reason since most recent revision, addressing the one DELETE comment made by adding additional sources, I daresay there is NOT a consensus for delete, so since this has been relisted twice, I request this be closed and the page kept.173.73.162.10 (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, neglected to login before making that comment...GormtheDBA (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough. Peridon (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Karam[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this singer, reflecting notability. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources

http://www.eliaskaram.8k.com/ http://en.hibamusic.com/Syrie/elias-karam/elias-karam-288.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6UeCejbdvA http://www.6arabyon.com/artist.asp?artistid=152 George Al-Shami (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but IMHO none of those are what wp considers reliable sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep He is not very known in English speaking countries so you won't find much about him in English, just like you won't find much about ""Radiohead" in Arabic. On the other hand he is very popular in the Levant and he is often featured in talkshows music festivals etc...--Rafy talk 17:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have many Arabic-language singers reflected on wp, with RS references that support their notability. We also accept RS support in all languages -- it need not be in English. But we do need to have RS support, and can't keep an article based solely on the assertion of an editor that he knows them to be very popular.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to disagree with you, just take a look at those random pages (Fadl Shaker, Fares Karam, Bassima, Angham, Diana Karazon), why would theirs qualify as RS and these not?--Rafy talk 01:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only looked at the first one, but to answer your question re that one, multiple albums on notable labels makes a singer notable for wp purposes. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just added some more sources to the article.--Rafy talk 10:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 21 June 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dashrath Chand[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this person, reflecting notability. Speedy deletion was declined by Cunard. Zero refs, despite being tagged since 2010. Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Nepali revolutionary is discussed in Nepali Congress by Rajesa Gautama, Milestones of History, Volume 1 by Pramad Mainali and Decentralization in Nepal by Bhim Dev Bhatta. Perhaps the nominator might consider adding references such as these to the article under the wise advice of WP:BEFORE. Cullen328 (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under the wise advice of wp:before, I made a good-faith attempt to confirm that substantial RS coverage reflecting notability does not exist. I didn't see such substantial RS coverage (and still don't). Two snippets are not generally deemed substantial RS coverage, and indeed many among us would not rely on such bare snippets at all. The snippets are so truncated that we don't even see one complete sentence that mentions his name.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very interesting discussion about snippets that reached no consensus. I believe that in a case like this, a wide array of snippets available through Google Books and Google News Archive can establish notability, and confirm the general outlines of the claims in the article. Perhaps it would be best to list them in a "Further reading" section rather than as inline references. Here's a 2009 news story that begins: "The first Martyrs' Day after Nepal became a republican state by overthrowing the monarchy is being observed today throughout the country. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal garlanded the statues of martyrs at the Martyrs' Memorial Park in Lainchour Thursday morning." It went on the say: "Martyrs day is observed every year in the memory of four martyrs Dharma Bhakta Mathema Dashrath Chand Gangalal Shrestha and Shukraraj Shastri . . ." Admittedly, I can't read the whole story but what is there is clearly enough to show that this person is widely regarded as a national martyr in Nepal. It would be wonderful if this article was edited and referenced by a Nepali editor with full access to the sources, but I think that the best solution in this particular case is to keep the article and improve it a bit with the many sources we can glimpse, rather than deleting an article about what to me at least, is clearly a notable topic. I do understand your concerns about snippets, but feel that they are very useful for evaluating notability in deletion debates such as this one. Cullen328 (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Google Books source that gives a fuller description of this man's significance: International Encyclopaedia Of Himalayas (5 Vols.) by Ramesh Chandra Bisht. Cullen328 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 21 June 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete without prejudice. Aside from the nom, the only delete !vote I found convincing was Hekerui's as it's not required for an artist to be notable everywhere. Normally, if he's notable in Columbia and France then that's good enough. However, this is an unsourced BLP so I'm going to delete it without prejudice. If someone wants to write a new sourced article it won't be subject to G4. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rocca (Colombian rapper)[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this singer, reflecting notability. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If he is notable, it is obviously in Colombia, for international artists the notability criteria is to be worldwide known or at least cited in several revenues, so if an artists is only locally known he is not notable enough to have an article within wikipedia. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is very notable in France, he has 3 solo albums (discography http://musique.fluctuat.net/rocca/discographie.html)+ 3 albums with Tres Coronas + singles, mixtapes and so on. Sources: Partial discography - http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/Rocca/a/albums.htm Article on French Wikipedia - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocca .German page where it says his first album sold 70.000 units - http://www.banlieue-connexion.com/rocca.html .Report of new concerts in Paris - http://www.hiphop4ever.fr/la-cliqua-de-retour-a-paris-live-report/ --Damián del Valle (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please indicate which -- if any -- of the sources you point to are RSs? Also, the French wp article has zero refs. Similarly, see the comment below regarding the fact that the claim n the German wp article is similarly unsourced.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my question, as we need RSs to support any claim of notability. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His work with Tres Coronas seems to be the most notable as far as I can see. If deleted, the content should at least be merged into Tres Coronas under a "Members" section. Rennell435 (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't see how his work w/Tres Coronas satisfies our notability requirements. I would have no problem with deletion, and merger of any appropriate material, however.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And notability is not inherited. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence for criteria in WP:MUSICBIO given and no links to substantive coverage and I couldn't locate any via search. The German page indeed claims 70,000 units sold but gives no source and is itself not a reliable source. Hekerui (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 21 June 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteHe is only famous in Columbia and France, therefore he does not deserve to have a wikipedia article. Although the page states that his album sold 70,000 units, the source of this information is not given. --Asanti6 (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to ASG_(band)#Discography per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Amplification of Self-Gratification[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. no evidence of charting or significant coverage. [46] shows mainly directory listings. best i could find was this. even all music doesn't review this album [47] LibStar (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The WP page on the band indicates "The band plays a mixture of punk rock, southern rock, stoner rock and metal." Yeesh. I'm not going to give an opinion on the encyclopedia-worthiness of this page other than to ask a grand philosophical question: Is there a problem with having a ridiculously low notability gate on pages on albums? Or does the Pop Culture Compendium task of Wikipedia mean we should look the other way on truly forgettable releases by forgettable bands on the basis that there are people out there that would benefit, acknowledging that keeping the stuff in no way impairs WP's core mission of being a serious free encyclopedia? I don't know the answer to that. With all due respect to the nominator, what does a successful deletion here accomplish? And if we keep this gunk, what does it hurt? Yes, I know that this is not a valid AfD argument, that's why it's a comment rather than a specific Keep/Delete opinion... But, big picture: (1) why are we worrying about stuff like this? and (2) what are we gaining by making it go away? Anybody??? Carrite (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM. we keep articles because they are notable not because it is not harming anyone. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's an essay on AFD arguments not to make. I get that. What I don't understand is the reason we should be concerned about album pages in the first place. If a band is notable, isn't grinning and bearing it on the inevitable album pages a reasonable approach? I simply don't see a reward worth the effort of going through the deletion process on material like this and am curious if there's a reason other than tradition and The Sacred Rules Carried Down From the Mountain By Jimmy Wales why we should bother with this sort of stuff. Carrite (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To your philosophical questions, articles do have a cost, the cost of vandalism patrolling and the fact that a lot of minor albums are likely to be unwatched. Additionally, having too low of a bar for inclusion where pop culture is concerned is already hurting wikipedia's reputation. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:33, 21 June 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Steele[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of TR05401 (talk · contribs), who requested technical help. I have not independently verified any of the claims made here or any of the sources present on the article and submit this AfD in accordance with WP:AGF. I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While Steele did have a campaign of sorts, it was comprised primarily of stunts, such as his arrest, or standing at the roadside awaiting a Vice Presidential motorcade and giving the VP the finger. Whether Biden deserved it or not isn't so much the issue, as was whether Steele was a serious and/or viable candidate. Coverage was minimal, usually a part of a larger story not concerning him, and, as an example, what he got had more to do with his fringe perspective; this Burlington Free Press article mentions his phosphorous pollution abatement plan for the nearly 600 miles of Lake Champlain shoreline - an "industrial hemp barrier" for which he never during the debate or on his website afterward offer any facts or point to any studies in support of his proposal. He was routinely excluded from debates for not meeting minimal criteria for admission and so used those occasions to garner free media by standing at the entrance and complaining until the event started, and then he'd leave. He did not schedule events for voters to meet him since there was no visible support for his candidacy in the state, other than from a very small group (20-30) of likeminded secessionists. The event at which he was arrested was a Democratic primary candidate event for which, naturally, he was ineligible for inclusion since he was running as an independent and was not, as Ketcham's Times's January 31, 2010 article inaccurately reported, running as the "Second Vermont Republic's gubernatorial candidate" (SVR is not a registered political party in Vermont). Further, Ketcham wrote a self-published piece at the HuffPo on August 31, 2010 that was subsequently self-republished again at CounterPunch.org that I've removed from Steele's article since Ketcham revealed in another of his self-published pieces on March 15, 2011, that he'd written the August 2010 piece "as a favor to my friends in the Vermont secessionist movement" and that the piece was intended as "good advertising."

Since the election Steele's absented himself from any of the statewide policy discussions that in a small state like ours most can participate in with little problem. During the March town meeting this year that occurs statewide he made no effort to politically participate, either in his community or in the state at large.

He has never held or run for any other public office here that I can find in the Vermont Secretary of State's website.

There's considerably more but since I didn't see this much detail in the original deletion discussion so I don't want to overdo.--TR05401 (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor activist, non-notable. Neutrality^talk 02:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification. Still getting up to speed on AfD. Since DennisRFV or Dennis Steele is a blocked user I've left word for him at his Radio Free Vermont website contact page that this discussion of the 2nd nomination for deletion of the Dennis Steele article is underway.--TR05401 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In January 2010 Time Magazine did devote a couple paragraphs to Steele, including a few quotes from him, in an article here about Vermont Secession, which is more than many BLPs can say. This much better news search shows more than a dozen WP:RS news articles mentioning him, doubtless with more info that could be put in the article. It should be noted that User:TR05401's account - in its initial edits and in yesterday's edits - seems to be devoted almost entirely to working on/deleting this article, i.e., single purpose account. Please note: The Vermont secession movement is plagued by a few people who slander and smear it regularly and I believe some of them have registered (perhaps multiple times) for just that purpose; see for example Second Vermont Republic article which has had a number of such single purpose editors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Steele's was a one time, single purpose candidacy. Since the election he has completely absented himself from Vermont's political scene and has failed to weigh in on many important, statewide issues, such as legislative reapportionment, the ongoing battle to shutdown Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee plant or to pursue what he'd claimed as a primary purpose for his campaign effort, that is, to bring Vermont National Guard troops home. He was quoted in the Time article as saying he would do so but it should be noted that there is no constitutional authority for a Vermont governor to do so. News coverage contained spot references to Steele at most, usually of a disparaging sort, due to what journalists described as the fringe nature of his campaign; here's an example not included above. The suggested much better news search above contains many repeats which are AP reprints from the Globe regional page of Vermont articles and not original work. Please note: The Vermont Secession movement employs people who due Internet work on its behalf, one of whom has an extensive record of negative interactions on Wikipedia that include personal attacks, Internet stalking (including emails) and hate speech that is not the subject of this discussion. --TR05401 (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little of what TR05401 (talk · contribs) has said is valid rationale for deletion under the deletion policy (full disclosure: in addition to opening this AfD on his behalf, I have responded to his requests for help that are directly related to this AfD). However, Steele does fail WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate who received a whopping 0.80% of the vote ([48]). As for the "more than a dozen" news articles mentioning Steele, I skimmed all of the hits on that GNews search: the majority mention him only in passing in the context of discussing the two major party contenders in that governor's race, some sources do not mention him at all or are about the Vermont secession movement in general and not about Steele, one is about his fashion sense, and the one that is actually about Steele is an op-ed and therefore fails the reliable source criterion. I do not believe that these sources are enough to get him over the basic criteria of WP:BIO. If consensus is to delete, I would not be opposed to recreation as a redirect to Vermont gubernatorial election, 2010. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sensible, non-biased option. Of course, it is frustrating when far less notable bios somehow survive. I have COIs with the two most annoying far less notable ones I'd like to see gone, but haven't been able to get anyone else to nominate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sorry CarolMooreDC but of the sources you provided, none look like "significant coverage". Only the "Time" one comes close. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Big Dom 20:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quickbooks hosting[edit]

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

Unnecessary fork of Quickbooks, which already has a small (but reasonably sufficient) section on this. Was speedied once and subsequently prodded on recreation. Sending to AfD this time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Borderline WP:SPAM, and no indication of sufficient notability per WP:GNG for its own article. Article's creator has so far included an external link for the hosting provider in every edit made, including to some articles that haven't been deleted yet, indicating a possible WP:Conflict of interest. Gurt Posh (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reads like an advert, links aren't reliable sources. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sigh. Not sure what is notable about this concept; nothing more interesting than any other 3rd party hosting solution. Unsourced and unsourcable except for the fact that such services exist. Kuru (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested deletion - This page should not be speedy deleted because it was written to explain the differences between QuickBooks Hosting Providers (not specifically, but broken down by category.) We took the time to rewrite this awhile back because the original article was written poorly and primarily targeted to promote a specific service. The only solution that was listed in this article was Right Networks as they are Intuit's Enterprise Hosting Solution. This is information found on the software manufacturers own website... This shouldn't even be an issue.--Jboutin (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who is "we"? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The owner of Right Networks and I. Nothing in this article was written for commercial purposes, as we link to all of the different forms of QuickBooks Hosting, and explain what people should look for when thinking about joining the cloud. --Jboutin (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mashable[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely devoid of third party sources. I couldn't find any that said anything other than "Blah blah blah Mashable award blah blah". The last AFD had several WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:BIGNUMBER, with no arguments rooted in policy (and one that was outright insulting). Someone turned up four sources in the last AFD, but they are 1.) incidental coverage of an event, 2.) an opinion piece, 3.) a possible source and 4.) PR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep I am disappoint. The website has also been described in these three books as a resource for web presence. There are other sources of Mashable's notability in this discussion of Mashable around the time of AOL's bid, and the website is often cited by notable news sources such as CNN and The Washington Post. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book content is trivial. You really think one-paragraph blurbs are sufficient? And being cited ≠ notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that it were trivial if it was only a single book, but they are from multiple books. There are also these sources that substantiate Mashable's role on the web by reliable, independent sources:

this article from Entrepreneur directly discusses Mashable notability from its start as a social media tracker.
this review of Mashable and its CEO on Huffington Post.
this review of Mashable by TIME Magazine.

I agree on the idea that references in other media are sufficient on their own per WP:NWEB. But they certainly don't hurt. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 23:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are you gonna add them, or just hope they add the source fairy adds them for you? Improve the article, then I'll withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, no need to be patronizing. I acknowledge that the article needs to be cleaned up. The sources have been added. You were just as welcome to add them in yourself if you took the time to nominate the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 23:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The "keep" !voters win this one. There is a consensus that the subject meets WP:GNG. Draft or no draft, significant coverage is significant coverage. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Jurco[edit]

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

Subject of article has not attained notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adequate sources within the article to demonstrate that he meets WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --Ozgod (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He passes WP:GNG as demonstrated by the significant coverage he has received in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including:
The National Post feature article (January 2011)
The Hockey Writers feature article
The Hockey News headline article
Detroit free Press feature article
Dan Swallow's feature profile
The Sports Network feature profile

The published feature stories (non-routine coverage) about this player pushes this article over the GNG threshold required for a stand-alone article. Dolovis (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there wasn't a draft going on, there would not have been an article on this guy. The list above shows that. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these articles are from before the draft. Others are due to the fact that multiple reliable sources concluded that his being drafted was worthy of multiple full length articles. They provide significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. That there was a draft going on has nothing to do with GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dolovis cmt- plenty of sources, plus he was one of the potential first rounders who slipped into the top second round and taken as the top prospect by Detroit who had no 1st round picks. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just routine coverage. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these articles are full length articles specifically about Jurco. Nothing routine about that. A couple of the articles listed by Dolovis may not be reliable sources, but the others and the ones in the article are. Rlendog (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Big Dom 20:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo (film)[edit]

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

Article about a supposedly future film that never seems to have gotten off the ground. Article should never have been created in the first place as it fails WP:NFF. A good example of why WP:NFF exists. Rob Sinden (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability guidelines for future films as a project with no traction; likely not in active development. Looks like the project was announced as early as October 2008, yet this article from June 2011 talking about Soderbergh's five remaining projects before he retires does not even include Cleo. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk | contribs) 20:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Films can be in "development Hell" for years or decades. Thank heavens that NFF exists. I hadn't come across it before but this article certainly meets its definitions. If the project ever does get off the ground then the article can be recreated. MarnetteD | Talk 20:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- FunkyDuffy (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. An interesting discussion, with a few different points of intersection. First, the keeps have the better of it from a notability standpoint. The original nomination specifically addressed sourcing, and invoked the GNG; this was adequately rebutted, and a number of the comments acknowledged explicitly or tacitly the nontrivial coverage. Thus, the administrative action here is to close the discussion as keep. However, I see a strong consensus that the article should be renamed or merged somewhere, and given the degree of participation here I am prepared to call this a local consensus to the effect that, while notable, the topic is best addressed within another article. This well within editorial discretion, however, I do not see agreement as to a merge target. So, I am making an simple editorial decision (which anyone should feel free to revert) to move the article to Tau (2π), and there is absolutely no prejudice to further move or merge discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC) N. B. Almost forgot about the redirect. Several argued against it existing, and the only argument in favor was for attribution purposes. That's not at issue since the article was kept, so I will delete the redirect from Tau (mathematics). NEVERMIND. Runningonbrains (talk · contribs) simply retargeted the redirect, a more elegant solution to which I defer. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tau (mathematics)[edit]

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

The only source that this article cites (and it doesn't even acutally cite it) is a self-published source by a single mathematician. It fails WP:GNG, and certainly isn't a reliable source. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a non-notable use of the term in mathematics, basically the effort of a single educator that, for some reason, has been picked up by a few mainstream media outlets. In the extremely unlikely event that thus notion produces a lasting scientific impact as evidenced by its use in peer reviewed scholarly sources, the article can always be spun out afresh. There are, at any rate, much more established uses of the symbol tau in mathematics (in the theory of elliptic curves, for instance) that the present article's focus is assigning grossly inappropriate weight to a thoroughly marginal usage. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In light of the discussion below, it seems like a reasonable compromise is to merge either with Pi#Criticism or turn (geometry). However, I think there is adequate consensus that the title tau (mathematics) is totally unreasonable. Whatever happens to the content of this article as a result of the AfD, I think it is essential that this title should appear as a redlink. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly move somewhere. I agree with Sławek that the current title is bad because too many things in mathematics are called τ and this one is probably not in the top fifty. Just the same, the proposal to work with 2π instead of π has received enough coverage that it may be "notable" in our WP-specific sense of the word. It's kind of marginal, and I wouldn't like to see an article that pulls together independent proposals and makes a commonality out of them, unless some secondary source has already done so. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC) (Striking out so as to give a more explicit !vote below — I stand by everything I said here, I just have a clearer idea what I think should be done)[reply]
Keep. The la template above yields unfair results, since it looks explicitly for "Tau (mathematics)" a term unlikely to be used. Here's some other sources (found with a fair google search) math-blog.com, newscientist.com, physorg.com. The fact that dust has been thrown up, means that the concept was deemed noteworthy by other (news)organisations, and quite a few, too. Besides... It's just a damn good idea and simplifies quite a number of things. Other symbols, such as e and π, have multiple meanings too. Kleuske (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Possibly move without redirect to τ (π), if it's sufficiently notable. ~~(And, has been pointed out in the talk pages for this article and for pi, it's not a particularly good idea, it simplifies some formulas, and complicates others.)~~ — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that any article at this name is misleading, except as a redirect to Tau#Mathematics, hence it should either be deleted or moved without redirect, before any merging is done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable targets include Tau (π), Tau (2π), or just 2π (which would allow discussion of the 3-legged π, basically moving most of Pi#Criticism to the new article). Tau (mathematical whatever) is not good. I don't really like Tau (pi), Tau (2 pi) or 2 pi. However, as I noted below, "move without redirect" is not a "keep". I don't presently have a non-admin autoconfirmed account to check, but I think it requires an Admin to do that, and it used to be "move and delete redirect". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meta-comment Let's please not get distracted talking about whether it's a good idea or not. That has no bearing on our decision; we cover (or don't cover) good ideas and bad ideas according to the same criteria. --Trovatore (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in addition to the sources mentioned by Kleuske, here are a few other examples: [49], [50], [51]. Scog (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of which are reliable sources for determining usage in mathematics. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They do however show notability quite nicely. And wikipedia is not a maths-only encyclopedia, if i'm not very much mistaken. Kleuske (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But the title of the article is tau (mathematics) (emphasis mine), meaning that we should look for sources that indicate how the symbol τ is used in mathematics. As I and others have already pointed out elsewhere, this usage is quite marginal in mathematics. In fact, as far as I'm aware no mathematical sources even use this notation for 2π. If you want, you can move the article to campaign to rename the fundamental constant 2π to τ, but my argument is that this article, with this title should be deleted. I.e., tau (mathematics) should be a redlink. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title is what i came up with and i don't claim to be knowledgable on current en.wiki nomenclature conventions with respect to mathematical subjects. So shoot me for that mistake, if you must, but don't take it out on the article. The name is easy to change. Kleuske (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ enough news coverage, we even had Marcus du Sautoy talking about it on prime time Radio4 broadcast, article. --Salix (talk): 21:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- pi#Criticism seems to be the natural place for discussion on this topic, and there is adequate coverage there. Tau already has a link to that section so readers will be be able the material, and no need for a seperate page, hence delete.--Salix (talk): 06:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and wait a year to see if anyone even remembers this after that time. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete − per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:TOOSOON. The impact of the subject is not proven. There was a news furry for a single day, but that has already gone away. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this had been around for a few years, but maybe I'm wrong. I've heard of it from multiple independent sources, some of them not people who usually pay any attention to mathematics, so I'm slightly inclined to say keep (but maybe review the matter in a couple of years?). Michael Hardy (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I had read, the τ manifesto was only published on March 14 of this year. Also, we need to look at the bigger picture. If this article stays then it sets a president. People will be updating all of our articles with τ. We've already seen some WP:POINTy edits going on. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm quite sure I've heard about a movement to change from pi to 2pi as the fundamental constant before this year. I've seen both tau and another symbol used for this constant, where the other was a three-legged pi. (That might suggest a different page name, but not deletion.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "The Tau Manifesto" has "Tau Day, 2010" as its publication date; also, in the interview in the New Scientist on the occasion of this year's Tau day, Hartl says: "In The Tau Manifesto, which I published last year, ..."[52]. --Lambiam 04:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now I remember. It's π-day that's March 14 since π = 3.14… and in the US 3/14 means March 14. I knew I'd read it somewhere! — Fly by Night (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge if not kept. Which article to merge this into could possibly get argued about. Most likely $π$ , I think. Maybe a section listing the proposed advantages and crediting the proposer. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move without redirect to tau (twice pi) or something similarly unambiguous, then merge to pi#Criticism. The subject is notable enough to cover but I'm not sure it deserves a separate article. In any case it can't have the name tau (mathematics); that's just unreasonable. --Trovatore (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per David Eppstein. Certainly it should be covered, probably in its own article, probably not at this title as Trovatore says. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to pi as described above by Trovatore. The title "tau (mathematics)" is misleading: if such a page exists, the content should be along the lines of Tau#Maths. Jowa fan (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This topic is already covered by the main article Pi#Criticism. It is not notable enough to have a separate article. Lankdarhn (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. If you were to hand me a τ and ask what mathematical symbol I thought it represented, I would probably guess time. I might guess the period length of a periodic function or maybe (as Sławomir Biały pointed out above) a point in the complex plane defining an elliptic curve. If you told me that it was supposed to represent some fundamental object, I think I would settle on Ramanujan's tau function. I would certainly not guess that it means 2π—that usage is obscure, and I expect that it'll be forgotten in a few years. Everything we ought to say about it is already at Pi#Criticism. Ozob (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient coverage to establish notability – for a few more sources see below this recommendation. The fact that the proposal has not resulted in a change of mathematical practice is not relevant for its notability. --Lambiam 03:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eoin O'Carroll (March 14, 2011). "Pi Day: Why we celebrate 3.14..." The Christian Science Monitor.
- Elizabeth Landau (March 14, 2011). "La constante matemática pi tiene un rival: tau" (in Spanish). CNN México.
- Michiel Hendryckx (June 30, 2011). "Weg met 3,14159265... ?". De Standaard (in Dutch).
- Jacob Aron (January 8, 2011). "Michael Hartl: It's time to kill off pi". The New Scientist. 209 (2794): 23. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(11)60036-5.
Comment how about moving it to 2π, and generalizing it to cover all proposals to replace (π) with (2π) Like τ and the three-legged-pi, etc. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move without redirect to tau (2π), then redirect to pi#Criticism as suggested by Trovatore. And yes, it is definitely notable, significant news coverage was not only in the U.S. but basically all over the world! Nageh (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~tau (mathematical constant) doesn't really make me happy either, after all, it is not an established mathematical constant.~~ A redirect via tau (2π) seems sensible so a search for a specific tau may at least pop up in the search box. Otherwise, we've already got two disambiguation pages (tau and tau (disambiguation)) that both point to the usage of tau as 2pi. Nageh (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Turn (geometry), two articles about essentially the same thing.--RDBury (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it is already there at turn (geometry) (and you think that it does belong there), then why would you want to retain an insensible redirect? Nageh (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge means merge, in other words take the useful material in the article and copy it to the other article. There is already a section ("Mathematical constant") that talks about tau being used as a unit. I think the redirect makes sense; don't assume someone reading about tau as a unit will know it means turn. The media coverage makes it notable (media coverage is often capricious that way), but notability does not mean you should create content forks for every possible name.--RDBury (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue with the name. If I look up an article entitled tau (mathematics) I expect this to be an exposee about the usage of the symbol tau in mathematics in general, and not only for such a niche. Nageh (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. We already have Tau (disambiguation) so I agree it's superfluous to have a redirect also.--RDBury (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for the moment. If it loses notoriety over time, then it's ok to delete it. But not right now. -- Petru Dimitriu (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Turn (geometry) as a subsection in that article. -- The Anome (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Imho not notable as a math term (despite the recent coverage in some popular media). It could be mention as a side note in some other article though.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered just fine at Pi#Criticism, Turn (geometry) and briefly at Tau (along with other uses of tau). Kingdon (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to !vote delete on this one (if I !voted at all) but it showed up, with a reasonably substantive article[53], near the top of the Yahoo news stories this morning, so I reluctantly conclude that the GNG has been met (not by that story alone, but it's the one that shows the camel's back has been broken). Still, e (exp tau/2*i) = -1 is ugly where the original is elegant, and shows why this is a lousy idea. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for me there's no real question that the proposal to use a symbol for 2π instead of π is notable. The questions are, does it deserve a whole article, and if so, what should that article be called? I think the name tau (mathematics) is utterly unjustified. --Trovatore (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your take (though I slightly favor keeping the article). Ramanujan's tau would be more appropriate under that name. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is due to my ignorance of proper nomenclature. I'm happy with any alternative deemed appropriate. Kleuske (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo: On an irrelevant note,

e^{\pi \!\!\pi i/2}+1=0

seems a much better argument *for*

\pi \!\!\pi /\tau

than against—instead of connecting five fundamental constants it connects six, and the n-th roots of unity don't include a 2 for no apparent reason. If you're going to argue against

2\pi

at least give one of the better reasons. :)

Not that I feel strongly one way or the other—personally I use

\pi

not the other symbol.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more than a one-day thing. First heard of it years ago.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough notable to say to keep an entire article. But maybe you should start coming up with a more suitable name? Maybe tau (2π)? I could live with that (as a redirect, that is). (For "tau" in "mathematics", we already have two disambiguation pages at tau and tau (disambiguation).) Nageh (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Afd is not the place to sort out a new name. If you could live with tau (2π) (which strikes me as a good idea, BTW) then that is a Keep. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been around for ten years now, and has recently been covered by New Scientist and BBC Radio 4 (and that's just in the UK). Those alone are enough to demonstraate WP:N - end of story. We don't need articles for both Michael Hartl and Tau, but we should cover this issue, under at least one of those name, with a redirect from the other. Mathematicians who think it's a nonsense are simply irrelevant - the point is that the campaign exists and is notable, not whether it's right or wrong. As a physicist more than a mathematician, it also make a lot of sense from my viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for right now, but there are multiple issues on the article that I wrote briefly on its talk page. Depending on whether or not those issues are resolved, I may change my vote. --RAN1 (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added half an hour after the article was sabotaged (i.e. rewritten as a bad essay) by a conveniently passing anon. I have REAL trouble maintaining WP:AGF with respect to these actions. All the points added by RAN1 were eliminated or did not exist in the first place (e.g. recentism). Kleuske (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The anon isn't the issue, you should probably check my reply on the talk page. --RAN1 (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete, given what I said above, not enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. If kept, merge based on Trovatore's recommendation. --RAN1 (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this page to Tau#Mathematics and....merge SOMEwhere There is only one thing I fully agree with: this page should redirect to the disambiguation page for Tau, because there are many other more notable uses of the Greek letter tau in mathematics. My first instinct was that this is not notable enough for its own article, due to this really just being a media blitz based on a fluff piece on a very small group of mathematicians. However, even if this is slightly just notable enough to have its own article, it doesn't make sense: this is a stub article, little more than a dictionary definition with a couple lines of justification. Furthermore, unless this becomes a real movement (probably not^{[citation needed]}), this will never be more than the stub we have right now. This can easily be covered in the "Criticism" section of pi, and in fact, literally everything notable about this article is already contained there and at the main article linked from that section, which is turn (geometry). There is no reason to have a separate article for this one term when it is one of a few criticisms of the use of pi (which are voiced by a SMALL minority of mathematicians) which are all essentially along the same line. So a merge to pi really makes the most sense, and any additional information can be covered at turn (geometry).-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 21:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Right idea, wrong order. I think we agree that the existing search term, tau (mathematics), should not be a redirect to the 2π thing. However the history of the current article should stay with wherever the 2π material winds up, or with the redirect to that content.
- So the bottom line is, the current article needs first to be moved to some unambiguous title, from which the material can be merged somewhere. That keeps the history in the right place. Then tau (mathematics) can be either deleted or retargeted to tau#Mathematics. --Trovatore (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But my proposal is a merge of any notable content to Pi... and I think that page might be more established than this one. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 23:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without redirect to Michael Hartl. Merging it to Pi or almost anywhere else would be undue weight and should be quickly deleted. Dingo1729 (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not very logical except when you consider Michael Hartl to be kept. (Which is unlikely to be the case.) Nageh (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I didn't look carefully, so I didn't realize Michael Hartl was likely to be deleted too. I sort of feel that the two articles together are just about notable and that they are closely connected. So I guess I'd like to merge them under a "Michael Hartl" title, taking care, as others have pointed out, to delete any unreasonable redirects. Dingo1729 (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Turn (geometry), which already covers this constant. The idea is a silly one, but notable, given the extensive media coverage, and the importance of pi. However, an article already exists. -- 202.124.73.166 (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem with that is that it leaves a redirect to turn (geometry) from tau (mathematics), which we don't want. Nor can we just delete the redirect because that loses the history. So a move needs to happen first. Sorry for the broken record; I just think this is an important detail that people need to take into account. --Trovatore (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strongly with a possible rename as suggested above for disambiguation. Apologies for my formatting ineptness. I'm lookig for instructions/norms so I get it right and can edit better later. - Firstly this is not a silly idea. Please don't confuse the style of Hartl's rhetoric with the message itself, being the logic of the idea and its social implications. This isn't actually strict mathematics, but rather a thoughtful socio-historical campaign about how we view established terms and constructs. A Mathermatical (Michel) Foucault, with a Californian levity, as it were. Ignore the style, there is substance here, and it's beyond mere mathematical description. - Secondly, therefore merging to Turn (geometry) is a Terrible idea, because it would confuse a page about how we currently perceive the maths of circle geometry, turns, with he ideas about how we may wish to challenge those terms. And thiis page is not in maths territory, but more in (Thomas) Kuhn and social criticism territory. And no less important for that. A link to this (renamed) page from Turn (geometry) would suffice. - Thirdly, I'm fairly sure the others above have lists of a large swathe of media and academic followers who find this idea more than mere whimsy. There is enough interest in it that it stay, and as more than a flash in the pan: think of your grandad who still likes to use inches and fahrenheit rather than SI units, and see how resistant he is to change. Well, those who see this as frivolous are in many ways analogous to that very understandable stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.247.163 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC) — 82.35.247.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Whether or not any of us think it's a good idea is irrelevant to whether it should have an article here. Wikipedia is not the place to right things that people believe are wrong. We are here to decide whether the movement is notable enough to be covered in its own article. In my opinion it is not, but that's why we're having this discussion. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 23:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point Runningonbrains (the post you replied to was mine, not signed-in). To me, it appears to be notable enough, and I was merely cautioning against dismissing it as mere flippancy due to its rhetorical style. It's true that the data are quite recent, but not all new-ish things need be discarded: for example, new TV celebs get in here rather quickly. So many less-useful and less-long-lasting entries arrive in Wikipedia (often celeb bio details); this appears to have much longer-lasting potential influence. I suspect that if you're worried about numbers interested in this, if left for six or twelve months you'll find the diffusion S-curve steepens and numbers multiply exponentially. I advise caution, and waiting. Already academics as far from California as Leeds, are making youtube vids about it, (eg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF1zcRoOVN0) IMHO this doesn't happen to mere fly-by-night novelties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardhod (talk • contribs) 03:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I fully support Trovatore's very clearly articulated proposal. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references are just sufficient to keep it as a standalone article. After AFD I think it should be renamed to Tau (2 pi) or something similar. Merging it with PI would overemphasise it in PI and turn (geometry) doesn't cover it.Teapeat (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to turn (geometry) - same concept, different name. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, I think that the difference is that a turn is an angle, whereas tau is just a number.Teapeat (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Teapot for a different reason. Tau's page is not the same as the Turn article, because the reason for reading each page is different. One is to explain how turns in a circle work, the other is to explain how a naming convention is mathematical bad practice (occam) and aesthetically imprecise, and providing a solution. Different pages required. Richardhod (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Turn (geometry) is about the measure of angle called a "turn", which is equal to τ radians. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure Gandalf, do you happen to know whether

π

is equal to 180 degrees, or is it only

π

radians?Teapeat (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to turn (geometry). By definition, a "turn" is an angle equal to a 360° or 2π (called "tau" by some people) radians.Giftlite (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an old issue that has made it in the news now. It looks like its a fringe issue because it dates back from before the internet era. It's not a huge issue, of course, but enough to merit a Wiki article about it. Count Iblis (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but move to tau (mathematical constant) for consistency with e (mathematical constant). Disclosure: I like the idea, and even if I haven't used τ myself I do prefer to write e.g. (2π)³ than 8π³. (I don't care where the present title ends up redirecting to, provided there are appropriate hatnotes: after all E (mathematics) redirects to e (mathematical constant), not to E (disambiguation)#Mathematics and logic.) ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 16:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the difference between this and e is that e, unadorned, has a clear principal meaning in mathematics, so e (mathematics) makes sense. In contrast, τ does not have a clear principal meaning in mathematics, and if it did, it certainly would not be 2π. I think 2π is way way way down the list. Whether it should be or not is a different question, and irrelevant for our current purposes. --Trovatore (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of news coverage by major outlets. However, name of article gives it undue significance. Tau(two pi) or something similar would me more appropriate.--EdwardZhao (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meta-Comment. Move without redirect is not a subset of Keep, as Userfy is a subset of move without redirect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meta-Comment. Merge without redirect is a GDFL/CC-BY-SA license violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't a histmerge ameliorate that? --Cybercobra (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If your concern is the visibility of the history to non-admins, merging the content somewhere but turning the page at this title into a redirect to somewhere else (e.g. tau (disambiguation)#Mathematics) should be OK. ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 13:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concern is that Wikipedia requires attribution, and merging without preserving the history would violate that. - SudoGhost ™ 13:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Michael Hartl has been deleted, per its AfD. A merge there is, well, a delete. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, a merge there is moot. The people who wanted that did so on the assumption that that page would continue to exist, and we can't know what they would want now unless/until they tell us. ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 13:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is why merges are effectively keeps at an AFD. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 13:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you point us to the policy that says that, or is it just your opinion? For what it's worth, my opinion is that a Merge means that the content doesn't deserve its own article, but at the same time it shouldn't be deleted if possible. However, the merge target has been deleted. The merge !votes agree that the subject isn't worthy of an article, whilst suggesting a merge to an article which, via independent AfD, has been judged not to be worthy of an article. That's Wikipedia Limbo; which is very, very different to a keep !vote. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon badia[edit]

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

Contested prod. This article uses a non-notable neologism that has been coined by the author to deliver a borderline-spammy original research essay about the latest development of the technology business in the Arab world. It fails WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NEO. De728631 (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete per nomination. Whatever else can be said about it, this article has phrases in it like a technology capacity and best practice exchange forum between entrepreneurs in the Arab world and the United States. A law firm is described as leading global, never a good sign; will take a look at the article we apparently have on it. The founder is described as working within the early stage technology venture capital space. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response from author - The article is used to highlight a first event of its kind that happened in NYC this past month for startups from the Arab world and startups in NYC that in turn has resulted in the coining of the term "Silicon Badia." Check Silicon Valley and Silicon Alley and Silicon Wadi as you clearly don't know what this means. Each of these terms refers to the startup world within the West Coast, NYC, and Israel respectively. The fact that the event "Silicon Badia meets Silicon Alley" brought together the main players in the Arab startup world, and the fact that we and the press have decided to adopt this as the title referring to our region through this historic event means it should stay. Don't deprive us from creating our own history please.
Addition from author: If you have real suggestions on how to improve the article I am happy to edit it. I see a lot of similarities with the Silicon Alley page but think ours is written better...
- The problem is that we need reliable external and independent sources reporting about the importance and significance of Silicon badia; who is "the press" in this case? We'd need several nationwide articles with an in-depth coverage of this phenomenon and the name, not just a drive-by mentioning in some local newspiece. The point is that something that is completely new is almost never notable and important enough to have an article on Wikipedia and if you are personally involved in the topic then that is a further caveat. Neutrality is also important for the tone of an article, see the comments by Smerdis of Tlön above. De728631 (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism; even if this event were notable, the expression "silicon badia" isn't. Hairhorn (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response from Author: Thank you very much for your feedback some of it is very useful for me. BUT There are a few problems with your argument: 1) All of the sources I have provided are "reliable external and independent sources." If you have an email I can send you the press clippings (actual newspaper vs. online) 2) "Nationwide" is incorrect to use as wikipedia is GLOBAL vs. US-only. 3) My personal involvement has nothing to do with it I am not winning an award vs. trying to create exposure for this. I can have someone else submit this piece so this is irrelevant. I AGREE with you that it is a new concept HERE but locally in the Middle East "Silicon Badia" is commonly used. Anyhow I appreciate the feedback if you and the wikipedia audience thinks it is not relevant then so be it but it won't help us if it is deleted! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.50.104 (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response but you might not be aware of the relevant Wikipedia policies, so here's a comment to your answers.

This is obviously a press release by the involved parties and therefore it is a primary source and does not establish notability; this is another press release, this too and this also. This is only a brief news statement which would be ruled out by WP:NOTNEWS, this is again a primary newsfeed by Chadbourne, and someone's blog is also not a reliable source per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. This article in Arabic, headlined "A special meeting of the leading Jordanian companies in the field of technology in New York" is also only a news item at first glance but I may be wrong because I don't speak Arabic. Business.jo looks very bloggish and not like a reliable and independent site. "Posted by editor" – who is that editor? Are they independent of the subject or just promoting the event? And last but not least this is another brief news piece and hardly something noteworthy.
Nationwide coverage is generally a good minimum criterion for notable events but it does not exclude international coverage. You've posted articles from Jordanian websites but they are either not reliable or they aren't noteworthy themselves (see above). Wikipedia is not a news site but a subject needs enduring notability to be covered.
Your personal involvement is relevant per a policy called Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and per WP:NEO, even because you invented that term "Silicon Badia".

If that term and the related business sector keeps getting coverage and develops to become an established name then we can perhaps have an article but right now I think it is much too early to have this covered in an encyclopedia. De728631 (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response from author: thank you I will re-submit when there is more coverage. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.62.122.133 (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indy Summer Bash[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam for future event. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable event. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable.Kilmer-san (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Boucher[edit]

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

Subject of article has not surpassed notability standards WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't even come close to passing NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When I deprodded I thought more highly of the sources other than Star Ledger than I do now. DJSasso is probably correct about him not meeting GNG right now. Rlendog (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Being selected as a First Team All-Star at the 2011 IIHF World U18 Championships qualifies as a preeminent honours to meet criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about that. The IIHF site actually lists an all-star team for the 2010 U18s. But I do not see such a list on their site for the 2011 U18s.[54] Was the organization referenced in Boucher's article delegated the authority to determine the 2011 all-star team, or are the all-stars listed just one organization's opinion, rather than an official all-star team? Rlendog (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that the IIHF World U18 Championships matches the definition of a "major junior league", so the First Team All-Star selection allows this player to pass criteria #4 of NHOCKEY. Oonissie (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The major junior leagues are 3 specific leagues. Western Hockey League, Ontario Hockey League, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. The word "major junior" isn't a generic term. Like Major League Baseball refers to the two leagues the American League and the National League. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is quite so clear cut. WP:NHOCKEY states "in a major junior league such as those of the Canadian Hockey League." The Western Hockey League, Ontario Hockey League and Quebec Major Junior Hockey League make up the Canadian Hockey League. But the CHL is provided as an example, and obviously does not cover leagues outside Canada (and the few US cities represented)m which leaves room for interpretation for leagues outside Canada (and perhaps even within Canada) and for international junior tournaments, such as the IIHF U18s. Rlendog (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say that the USHL is a "major junior league". Dolovis (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's worded the way it is to show which league meets it. Other junior leagues outside Canada don't generate the kind of press the CHL does. In fact I would go as far as to make an educated guess that no other league does. The closest league might be the USHL and it gets little to no coverage in national media. Previous discussions have of course shown consensus doesn't agree the USHL is a major junior league so if it doesn't meet that level then its likely no other league in the world does. As for international tournaments, it was only recently agreed the World Juniors met it. The U18 is below that level, so I can't see that it would meet this criteria as there is very little coverage of that tournament at all, never mind the individual award winners. Remember each criteria doesn't have to apply to every part of the world, all the criteria do is indicate when press coverage likely exists for the person who meets it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that a U18 all star is inherently notable. I am just saying that as NHOCKEY is written, I do not think it is necessarily an invalid interpretation to say it does. Rlendog (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A player that passes WP:NHOCKEY still has to pass WP:GNG. If someone doesn't pass WP:GNG, then their passing of WP:NHOCKEY becomes moot (ie: "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept"). This player does not pass WP:GNG, therefore, delete. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he passes NHOCKEY (which I am not convinced he does) then there is a presumption that he meets notability standards. Do you have evidence that he does not? Certainly, his eliteprospects and hockeydb pages are reliable sources. There may be other reliable sources that are not readily available online. The purpose of NHOCKEY is to avoid the need for separately proving that a player meets GNG if he meets NHOCKEY. If he does meet NHOCKEY then I would have to conclude that he is sufficiently notable unless there is evidence to the contrary (including searches of off line sources and older stories that may no longer be easily accessable on line). Rlendog (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORTS specifically says meeting it does not mean they are notable and that you still have to prove they meet GNG. You don't have to prove they don't meet GNG (can't prove a negative). NHOCKEY is just a guideline to help you quickly guesstimate if they meet GNG. Yours is a common misconception that the entirety of NSPORTS tries to make sure people understand is not the case. Meeting or failing to meet any of the NSPORTS criteria is not in and of itself a reason to keep or not keep and that in the end you still have prove they meet GNG. NSPORTS is just meant as a way for people to not put articles up for deletion too fast because its harder to get the sources, but it doesn't switch the burden of proof around. -DJSasso (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NSPORTS (These are consecutive sentences, but I am ignoring the paragraph breaks): "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline, or the sport specific criteria set forth below. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines). Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." There is no requirement that having demonstrated that the sport specific criteria are met, one must also demonstrate that GNG is met too. Hence the "or" in the first quoted sentence. As well as the notation that notability will need to be established in other ways when "failing to meet the criteria in this guideline," not in addition to meeting this guideline. That said, I acknowledge that the last quoted sentence gives wiggle room to delete even if a subject meets the sports specific guideline. However, I would expect there would be a particular reason given for making an for treating that specific case differently from other subjects for which it has been demonstrated meet WP:NSPORTS. Rlendog (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How could I have evidence that he is not notable? The lack of evidence that he is notable is in itself proof that he is not notable. As DJ says, you can't prove a negative. Further, eliteprospects and hockeydb are statistical databases. While they are reliable in the sense of statistics, they are not reliable sources to establish notability. Eliteprospects has, for instance, begun adding minor hockey stats to their site (ie: midget hockey). The purpose of NSPORTS and within that, NHOCKEY, is to allow users to assume someone is notable because they meet that standard. However, anyone can question their notability even if they pass any subsection of NSPORTS, which would result in the need to show proof that the athlete in question meets GNG. In life, one is innocent until proven guilty. On Wikipedia, one is not notable until proven notable. There is no requirement to "prove" someone is not notable. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You indeed can question their notability even if they pass any subsection of NSPORTS. However, just because someone questions it doesn't obligate other editors "to show proof that the athlete in question meets GNG." That would defeat the purpose of NSPORTS or any specific guideline. If there are questions raised with reason to rebut the presumption of notability, then there is a need to prove the contrary. But I don't see anyone providing any reason why this particular player should be treated differently than the presumption of notability that any other player who passes NHOCKEY gets (assuming he actually passes NHOCKEY, which I am not convinced of). Rlendog (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of these guidelines is to give rules of thumb to people creating articles for what to think of when they create them and for people thinking about deleting an article. In other words it gives the person thinking about deleting an article an idea that there is probably (but not guaranteed) sources to meet GNG so they should reconsider nominating it. GNG of course being required of all articles which is stated on the GNG page. It isn't actually meant to be a way to overrule GNG which is what the sentences at the top of the page indicates that meeting this criteria doesn't necessarily mean the page must be kept. All that being said once it is brought to Afd it is expected that those sources be found if its notability is questioned. -DJSasso (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sports guidelines provide rules of thumb. But I've been involved in plenty of AfDs (and I think you have too) where the issue was settled on the basis of the topic specific guidelines without requiring a search for more sources - i.e., a dozen keeps come up saying meets criterion X of the particular guideline. I am not sure why this player should be treated any differently. Sometimes there may be a reason, but someone just making a demand without suggesting any reason why this player would not meet GNG despite meeting the specific guideline should not, and generally does not, force a search for additional sources (of course, there must be at least one for a BLP, but in the case of hockey players the stat sites make that requirement pretty trivial). That said, all the people arguing here seem to agree about this player's notability, so this debate has probably gotten way out of hand, probably my fault, at least with respect to this particular AfD. Rlendog (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Dolovis (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nurmsook has it backwards when he says that a player who passes NHOCKEY must also pass GNG. Countless AFDs have created precedents that support the practice that if a player passes NHOCKEY, then he is presumed notable and further proof of GNG is not required; however if he fails NHOCKEY then the article can still be kept if the player passes GNG. Reid Boucher meets criteria #4 of NHOCKEY so he is presumed notable, so the significant and reliable coverage found [55] [56] [57] [58] is just more iceing on the cake. Dolovis (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that isn't the case at all, yes they often close that way but GNG must always be met. Afds don't set precedent, that is one key standard on wikipedia. That being said your 4 sources the first two are blogs which aren't reliable for notability. The 3rd is the Devils site which isn't independent and the fourth isn't significantly about him. -DJSasso (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I definitely don't have it backwards Dolovis. When NSPORTS was created, it was done so that users could assume notability of an athlete. If a player is, say, an award winner, we can assume that player will have received significant coverage to establish his notability. However, that coverage is not always there. So, when the bio in question is challenged, proof the subject in question passes GNG must be provided. NSPORTS doesn't trump GNG. The whole purpose of NSPORTS is to "help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." This opening statement of NSPORTS identifies that an article is only merited though passing of GNG. This is an incredibly important thing to consider when we are dealing with BLPs. While the original creator of a BLP can assume someone to be notable through NSPORTS, if that notability is not proved and the subject does not meet GNG, it is in violation of BLP and faces AfD. You know, I can presume Casey Anthony killed her child, but according to a jury of her peers, I would be making an incorrect presumption. We can always presume something to be true, or in this case, someone to be notable. NSPORTS was created because 90% of the time, our presumptions are correct. However, there are those cases where we presume incorrectly. This is one of those cases. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 14:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I swear to God, I bitterly regret penning that "preeminent honor" clause, because people seem to have a far shakier grasp of what "preeminent" means than I would have figured. That being said, of course the U18 Championships aren't a "league," major or otherwise. It's a tournament, and we have never considered tournament play alone - short of the Olympics and the senior World Championships - to confer notability. If Dolovis or Rlendog wishes to advocate changing the criteria on this point, they should seek consensus on the NSPORTS talk page. AfD is an improper venue to do an end around on the criteria. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 14:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What the "preeminent honor" clause means is determined by consensus; and consensus has already decided that MVP of the Memorial Cup (tournament play) is a preeminent honor. Dolovis (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The Memorial Cup, of course, is the championship of the major junior CHL, and its MVP is analagous to the Conn Smythe winner in the NHL. However, the subject of this article has never played major junior hockey, let alone competed for the Memorial Cup, let alone won the tourney's MVP award, so I'm at a loss as to understanding the relevance of your comment. There is no league attached to these other competitions, and quite aside from that, no consensus claims any particular status for their awards. You cannot claim that a consensus on one issue presupposes that that will apply to all other issues. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 16:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Suellentrop[edit]

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

Topic of article has not attained standards of notability WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even close to meeting the NHOCKEY or GNG requirements. -DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DJSasso. Rlendog (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per DJ. Patken4 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this players does not pass NHOCKEY, and I am not able to find significant coverage in reliable sources to support this article under GNG. Dolovis (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Dolovis (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shameekia Price[edit]

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

Likely WP:AUTOBIO that makes a notable claim, but one that I wasn't able to verify at all. If it can be proven (from a reliable source) that she played professional basketball for the Atlanta Glory, and that that is a fully pro league, then I'll withdraw the nomination for deletion. As it is, she isn't the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources and no evidence can be found to say she meets WP:NSPORTS. The-Pope (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 08:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that there is no reliable sources for notability claims. Oonissie (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per lack of notable mentions. I didn't get any results on both Google and Yahoo. Most important rule for articles: Have good and strong sources. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Atlanta Glory were a team in the ABL, a fully professional league at the same level as (some say higher than) the WNBA. Since the team survived only two seasons, and the league folded midway through its third season, not much information is available online anymore. Using the Wayback Machine, I was able to retrieve some wire stories and box scores for the league (enter the address http:///www.sportserver.com/newsroom/sports/bkb/1995/abl/abl/feat/abl.html). But none of the articles from the 1996–1997 mention the subject of this article, which suggests that she played few games. Her playing even a single game would confer notability, according to WP:NSPORTS, but that seems difficult to verify now. Will Orrick (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Candy: Parallel[edit]

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

Thoroughly non-notable Lulu-packaged/self-published webcomic about which there seems to be no nontrivial secondary sourcing -- no GNews hits, GBooks hits are all Wikipedia collections, GHits are almost entirely promotional or webcomics directories. Only claim of notability is that its creator, known only as "Lord Dragon Master." has been nominated for something called the "Bondage Award", which seems to be given out by one person, has outlandishly long "nomination" lists, and has such rigorous quality control that Wally Wood is also nominated for Best Artist, despite having produced very little work since committing suicide in 1981.[59] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notibility of the comic is the niche market of BDSM related subject matter that removed the obligation for sexual intercourse, while still remaining true and exploring themes of fetishism. The bondage awards are a significant and notable award, as all facest of the BDSM community participate. As noted the creator of the awards receives threats from the industry/vendors regarding the seriousness of victory through the awards. [60] The comic has been featured in multiple podcasts and video comic reviews. [61] It's creator, Lord Dragon Master, is an Architect in Toronto. The comic ranks 13/20 of Wikipedia's top anime and manga inspired webcomic's [62] and 34/50 for Wikipedia's Yonkoma category. This article was already passed over for deletion at it's creation, and has more notability and followers then several other webcomic articles listed on wikipedia.

Whip into Deletion User-generated content links like Formspring and Youtube are not valid sources to support WP:NBOOK. Also, that last source is not "Wikipedia," it's some other wiki. And it may list page views, but we don't keep articles on Wikipedia because they get a lot of views. The awards won do not seem very notable per nominator's observations. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 21:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. and has such rigorous quality control that Wally Wood is also nominated for Best Artist, despite having produced very little work since committing suicide in 1981. - LOL. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takeshi Endō[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Searched using the Japanese and English spelling of his name without success (the Japanese spelling leads mostly to an education minister). I do not belive that the external links supplied on the page for this Japanese voiceover actor meets our criteria for reliable sources independent of the subject. J04n(talk page) 15:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable, secondary sources can be found. I had previously PROD'd this, a PROD which was endorsed and later contested. English sources I found were Wikimirrors, forum entries, and ANN's encyclopedia but the latter resource has never mentioned this actor in a news article. Japanese sources I was able to find (and I don't speak Japanese, eyes from someone who does would be greatly appreciated were limited to the Aoni primary production source. The contester of the PROD suggests a possibly notable role in a long-running series, so if that statement is entirely accurate, there would likely be sources and therefore notability, their lack here leaves me far less certain. Additional sources welcomed as always. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any reliable sourcing here to verify the claimed notability. The Japanese Wikipedia article is also similarly lacking so I don't hold out much hope. --DAJF (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked the Japanese Wikipedia for their article on this person. [63] He has had a significant part in notable roles. This includes a notable radio program called TOYOTA SUPER COUNTDOWN 50 for two years, a newscaster on a news show that had 8% of the viewing population of Japan, that millions of people, watching it, and many other things. I don't know if the anime characters he has done are main characters, but he has done a lot of that, plus work on video games, etc. And the primary sources are fine when not in doubt in anyway. If he is listed in the credits, that's fine. Dream Focus 22:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 22:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 22:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is virtually no difference between the Japanese and English Wikipedia pages J04n(talk page) 22:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have links to articles we don't have here, such as the radio show, and the news program I mentioned. Dream Focus 00:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response: which are also unsourced. J04n(talk page) 00:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you sincerely doubt the information? Dream Focus 00:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All that I can say is Verifiability. J04n(talk page) 01:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read about primary sources then. The credits on the shows list the names of people, and some are available on DVD. Probably some clips on YouTube or the official websites of various things, which show an episode with him in it, and listed in the credits. If millions of people watched something on television, such as the news program, thousands surely went to the article at one time or another, and they'd know if the information listing him as a newscaster was false or not. Dream Focus 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lack of any indication of reliable third-party coverage, and a Filmography-only article would appear to violate WP:IINFO (or at the very least, fail to differentiate Wikipedia from IMDB). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Big Dom 20:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Coffee Story[edit]

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

Non-notable book - fails WP:NBOOK. ukexpat (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless good secondary sources are provided. Also the author does not have an article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No secondary sources. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sharaf[edit]

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

Biography of an individual of limited notability. His main accomplishments described here appear to be operating several local businesses that are sufficiently unknown that we have articles on none of them.

(Note that this article, and a number of other pages online, are currently the target of a surprisingly large SEO linkspam campaign, for some reason. As such, the Google results for searches on this individual's name are pretty seriously skewed — evaluate anything you find there with a careful eye.) Zetawoof (ζ) 15:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not mean the notability guidelines and is un-referenced. --Ozgod (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails quality guidelines. I didn't get any hits on Google or Yahoo except for conflict of interest websites. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Arjun^codename024 06:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Class 66[edit]

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

The article is about a specific model of a railway locomotive. Not the class of locomotive the model is based on (British Rail Class 66) or the manufacturer. It is a product that doesn't meet WP:N - a real locomotive is notable, a model railway manufacturer might be. In outside sources the model only gets a mention in model railway magazines: in the product reviews section, or in product catalogues. Wongm (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This nom was a bit ambiguous, as is the article. The article in question is about a miniature model locomotive, not the actual big engine used on rails. It apparently fails notability due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. A toy or model does not automatically inherit notability from the real locomotive class, which has its own separate article, British Rail Class 66, the notability of which is not being questioned here. Not even a redirect is indicated. Edison (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Class 57[edit]

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

The article is about a specific model of a railway locomotive. Not the class of locomotive the model is based on (British Rail Class 57) or the manufacturer. It is a product that doesn't meet WP:N - a real locomotive is notable, a model railway manufacturer might be. In outside sources the model only gets a mention in model railway magazines: in the product reviews section, or in product catalogues. Wongm (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This nom was a bit ambiguous, as is the article. The article in question is about a miniature model locomotive, not the actual big engine used on rails. It apparently fails notability due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. A toy or model does not automatically inherit notability from the real world thing it imitates, which has its own article, and whose notability is not in question here. Not even a redirect is indicated. Edison (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Big Dom 08:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moorside hotel[edit]

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

Hotel, written up in spammy tone with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant and spammy advertisement, full of phrases copied from the hotel's website. Not one guidebook or newspaper article is cited to support the numerous peacock claims. Edison (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as obvious advert. Should an evidence of notability be found, you'd have to delete the whole article and start again anyway. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. On a side note, I had to remove a lot of text that was close-paraphrased and took out a lot of promotional text as well that was intertwined.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drops from the Kingdom[edit]

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

Self published book from an author with no article (who appears to be the author of the article). No references, no coverage from independent reliable sources. Contested PROD. MikeWazowski (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While a self-published book could in theory still be notable,the lack of independent sources shows this is not. Edward321 (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no automatic notability for self published books. No references were provided to show that the book satisfies notability. Edison (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St George's Day (film)[edit]

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

An upcoming film that is currently in production. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there is no indication that this unreleased film is so notable that an exception should be made to have an article on it already. Pontificalibus (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable; a search engine test shows no mention of the film by secondary sources that are reliable (as in, Google News Search shows nothing). It's possible that the film could receive coverage when it is released, since such low-budget films do not get much coverage before then. If this is deleted, St George's Day (disambiguation) should be deleted too. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Big Dom 08:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adryan Oliveira Tavares[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He might be notable later on, but right now it looks like he has not yet played a game. Oonissie (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the usual failure of WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Deadly Premonition characters[edit]

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

Unnecessary article spinout. A page full of WP:INUNIVERSE info that does not attempt to establish any notability through reliable, third party sources. Also far too detailed for Wikipedia, thus falling under WP:TRIVIA. -- Teancum (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Teancum (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into main game article, where its inclusion raises none of these issues. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Character information belongs in the plot synopsis in the main article. Marasmusine (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Jclemens and Marasmusine. No compelling reason for spinout, information should be merged but a delete of this article is fine as the redirect serves no perceptible purpose. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that the list meets the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists. As all content is a plot-only description of a fictional work, the list falls into what Wikipedia is not, so it is not acceptable per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. This article is an unnecessary split without verifiability. I do not favor a merge since all content is unreferenced, it is generated with original research by synthesis and the characters were never described in older version of the main article (Deadly Premonition) as the plot is enough to understand the game and Wikipedia is not a video game guide to add unnecessary details. Jfgslo (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Big Dom 08:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Lambert[edit]

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

Unreferenced Biography for over 18 months, with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources able to be found. Lots of coverage in blogs and related organisations, so I may have missed something, so if references are able to be found, then I'm OK for the article to remain. The-Pope (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per nomination. --Ozgod (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 19:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. less than 20 cites on GS for his books. Not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I remember reading one of his books years ago, so I had a look for sources, but I likewise can't find sufficient to justify keeping the article. In any case this WP article is just a copy of his own text about himself, e.g. as provided to the non-copyright website that I've just added as a citation. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ariconte (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Big Dom 08:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Pearson[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and as stated above. --Ozgod (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and he has not played in a fully pro league, so he fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. At present, there is no proof that Cardozo has played in a fully professional league. If evidence comes to light, there will be no prejudice against recreation of the article. Big Dom 20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Guillermo Cardozo[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not received significant coverage, nor has he played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Ozgod (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

possible keep Sorry to spoil your rush to delete this page but according to the guidelines it should be kept if he has played in a fully professional league. If evidence can be presented that he did actually play for Deportivo Merlo in Primera B Metropolitana in 2002-03 it should be kept. For future reference The top two national level leagues in Argentina (Primera División and Primera B Nacional) are fully professional as well as the two highest regional levels (Primera B Metropolitana & Torneo Argentino A) reliable source for the regionalised 3rd division being the last professional league in Argentine football another source (Translation - "Primera B Nacional is one of the 4 profesional leagues in Argentine football"). Regards King of the North East 00:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for anything reliable to show that he actually played for Deportivo Merlo in a high enough league before I nominated the article and was unsuccessful. The one source that is provided in the article doesn't show anything other than he was with them in 2002–03. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that there is no reliable source for notability claims. Oonissie (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Played professional footbal in Argentina, Spain and Italy. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Big Dom 20:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vinkler Vladimir[edit]

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

Unverifiable. The article uses three different names for the person, "Vinkler Vladimir", "Frantishek Vinkler" and "Vladimir Frantsevich". It also uses two names for his wife, "Elena Musatova" and "Elena Pavlovna". The only thing that I could find that relates to this person is a number of sources mentioning a "V. Vinkler" who created a large sculpture for the theatre in Omsk. However, I couldn't find his full name, nor any other information about him, using a number of different searches, and looking both at reliable and unreliable sources.

For those more able to look through cyrillic sources, "Винклера" seems to be the Russian version of Winkler (another version of V. Vinkler). If anyone can find reliable sources in cyrillic (or other non-western scripts), I would be more than happy to withdraw this AfD, but as it stands this is a 99% unverifiable biography. Fram (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of verifiable sources, the lack of lead in, and just general confusion, I cannot see what makes this subject notable - no lasting impact, no major awards, no coverage. Delete. --Ozgod (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject's Russian name, in the standard order of given name, patronymic, surname, is Владимир Францевич Винклер or Vladimir Frantsevich Vinkler. Different combinations of the three names, including diminutive forms (which "Frantishek" appears to be), can be used to refer to a person, with the wife probably having the full name Elena Pavlovna Musatova. There is some coverage of the subject here, here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. (Yes, I know the subject wasn't Russian, but most potential sources seem to be in Russian)—Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources, and it does not seem easy to verify any of the content. It is true, as Phil Bridger has explained, that confusion over different forms of the name makes it more difficult to find information about the subject, but even allowing for that, there really does not seem to be sourcing. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lone Ranger (film project)[edit]

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

Not notable in its own right. Fails guidelines at WP:NFF which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" and there is nothing here that isn't already included at The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film, which is where it should be as per the guideline which also states "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available". Just by calling it a "film project" shouldn't be a way to circumvent established guidelines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NFF's criterion about principal photography is unfortunately supported by bitter experience. There is already another failed film version covered at The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film, and this incarnation won't be any more notable if it's cancelled as well. Smetanahue (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly the article includes this earlier failed attempt - looks like the editor that created the article copied the section verbatim. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to the Article Incubator and let it continue to be developed there until it is ready to be reincluded in mainspace. As of now article fails both WP:NFF and WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article to speak of. Just information copied verbatim from The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film. Would suggest that information could be expanded there until it is ready for a breakout article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to think that the information could not be expanded or that more reliable sources will become available in the near future or that all the current available sources are being used. Policy dictates that all alternatives to deletion be exhausted before deletion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it could be expanded at The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film, where the text has been copied from. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that information stop being added to The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film, just that editors who wish to continue to develop the article in article form be given the chance so that when it is ready it can be reincluded in the best possible state.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the notability guidelines for future films, which states not to have a stand-alone article until the start of filming. The "film project" articles are not supported by guidelines; they are the so-called occasional exceptions that need to be justified. (For example, The Hobbit had a stand-alone article due to WP:SIZE since there was much more coverage than normal, with a lot of reported-on activities.) This Lone Ranger project has been in development since 2002, over nine years, and news coverage of this non-topic is appropriate in the broader article about The Lone Ranger. The point of the threshold for the start of filming is to have a near-guarantee that a film will be made. Can anyone imagine an article created for this project back in 2002? It would be an article that would violate the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL over the years, constantly anticipating for a film to be released to no avail. An article about a fictional work is supposed to discuss its reception and significance. The start of filming as a threshold is very early since outsiders will not be able to assess it for a year or two, so to have an article even before that threshold is extremely premature. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about incubation as a solution? Also I do not see the need for redirection as the disambiguated title (film project) is not highly searched.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The negative aspect of incubation is that it puts coverage out of readers' sight. In addition, it is difficult to update both the "planned film" section in the mainspace and the incubated article in the project space. Incubation works best, IMO, if there is not that much coverage in mainspace. Some projects will have more pre-filming interest than others. This project seems covered enough in the mainspace; it doesn't seem like the kind of project that will draw a lot more coverage until after filming starts, unlike some superhero films. As for redirecting, the goal is to preserve page history. Redirects are cheap, and if filming does begin, we can move the "film project" article to the appropriate name to build on the existing page history. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information can be kept at both locations and good example of this is Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Wolverine (film) and X-Men (film series)#The Wolverine. The move will both keep page history and allow to the article to develop in article form. Incubation is not meant to be substitute for the mainspace, infact it is meant to work alongside the mainspace.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to update both spaces, it's fine by me. :) I just think that incubation works when an editor is actively interested in working on both and making the same kind of expansion twice. For this project, I think it's a bit more energy than needed because it seems to me to be fairly easy to put together a stand-alone film article using the "planned film" section. It becomes a "Production" section, and the rest is easy to build around it. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This might be a better question to ask the editors who were already involved in this article, if they would rather maintain both or just the section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can withdraw your nomination, i have moved the article to my userspace. it can be found at User:Rusted AutoParts/The Lone Ranger (film project) and i will move it back when filming is announced. I did this because it would be a shame if all that info is removed. And RobSinden, i said why i copied info from the planned movie section of The Lone Ranger in one of my edit summaries. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:13 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please let the AFD conclude. Unilateral action was unnecessary. Even people who want to redirect to a "planned film" section don't just bypass AFD and create the redirect themselves. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean your edit summary that reads "making film project page. Don't yell at me for transferring info!"? That's hardly an explanation. Transferring info that was more suitable left where it was is all you have done, and used a "film project" article as an excuse to circumvent existing guidelines. And your comment that "it would be a shame if all that info is removed" seems strange, as it is still all where you copied it from. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article should not be moved out of mainspace while there is an ongoing AFD. We are not on deadline here. Since filming has not begun, and since many film projects never get made or languish in development hell for many years, the adequate coverage in The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film is all that is called for at this time. If the project moves forward, use the refs to expand and improve that section of the existing main article on the fictional character, until such time as it is long enough to make sense as a stand-alone article. There is no benefit in "userfying" this article which duplicates the section mentioned of the other article. Edison (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate this premature article per being WP:TOOSOON and not yet meriting as a possible exception to WP:NFF. Further, set a redirect of title to the section at The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film, so readers can veiew the topic in context until such time as the incubated article may merit a return to mainspace. I agree with User:TriiipleThreat about incubation, in that articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, can continue to be collaboratively edited before either "graduating" to mainspace or ultimately being deleted. When a rationale has been put forward by at least one person that the article could meet inclusion/content criteria if given time, and a willingness has been established by at least one person to work on the article, we have a very reasonable and guideline supported option that improves the project. If the article is improved, it might be returned. If it is not, it is deleted. Seems a win-win for Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is The Lone Ranger (film project) actually a useful redirect though? If this film does go into production and becomes an article, it wouldn't be disambiguated as such. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, before redirecting, we'd have a temporary "move" of the current article to the "film" title The Lone Ranger (film), and then a redirect of THAT title as a reasonable search term. This then preserves the history for such time as when the article might properly merit a spot in mainspace. Will only take the deleting Admin an extra half second to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Edison made a fantastic point. Once the film actually gets worked on and completed, the article will deserve to be made. Until then, all info should be added to The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Edison's points were adressing a premature userfication in that an article should not be moved during the course of an AFD, and that per WP:NFF what is currently in mainspace at The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film is enough mainspace space about this project, for now, until such time as an independent mainspace article might be merited. His points were not addressing incubation for continued work out of mainspace, which reasonable option is entirely supported by guideline and serves to improve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Innovate-Med (project)[edit]

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

Contested PROD: Ephemeral project. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In an increasingly competitive environment, Mediterranean SMEs working in traditional economic sectors are pushed to develop new competitive strategies if they aspire to survive in the global economy.... The active involvement of chambers of commerce and development agencies will ensure the bottom-up participation of the key business stakeholders and a top-down process of capitalisation of results. Prose like this is not an appropriate response to the challenge of a blank page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Big Dom 09:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solar man[edit]

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

Unable to find any notable sources on the subject. Also have reason to believe that the main contributor is the owner of the site in question) which constitutes a conflict of interest. PROD was also deleted. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems an easy call. No sources, probable COI, PROD deleted... that should be enough. Jus da fax 06:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not For Delete-

I am the creator of this article - ravdag. indeed, I am also the owner of the website solarcomics.com. the website's goal is to educate the children of today , which are the grown up's of tomorrow to start use solar energy instead of petrol and atomic energy. And most important - the website is a completely non profit website! My only goal is to try to make our world a better place for the benefit of the next generation. I have invested a lot of time and energy in order to create these comic figures and children really love them ! think of it - how many comic figures like batman, spider man, x-men etc. have an educational influence as well ? and all the figures mentioned above ( and hundreds of more ) have their own Wikipedia page. Big companies like Marvel Comics can use all their energy and funds in order to create publications for their comic figures, and no one would think about deleting their Wikipedia pages. So just to be fair - if you are offering to delete this article then i think the same should apply towards all other comic figures in Wikipedia. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 08:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comic characters are all notable enough to have plenty of reliable third party sources. Also, you seem to be suggesting that Marvel Comics etc create their own pages, which is not the case. Not to disparage you or your work, but I believe that other comic figures have more notability and, as such, more reason to have a Wikipedia article. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am pretty sure that companies like Marvel have no problem creating a Wiki User or paying someone to do it for them. 2. " The comic characters are notable enough " - Meaning - They spend millions of dollars on commercials on T.V , Internet etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 08:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're focusing too much on other comics and not on the article you have created and, if that is what you want to think, then by all means think it. All I am going to say is that, under WP:NOTABILITY, there are no reliable third party sources and you have already admitted to being the owner of the comic site which brings up possible conflicts of interest (WP:COI). --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. My single Interest is to help and make a change for the best of our earth. I really don't think that it contradicts the Wikipedia policy. 5. You keep on saying that I am the creator of the website and the page. yes- it is true. as you know it;s very easy to open a new user with no contact to me. I am trying to be fair and just and not bend the rules. Please Consider that. 6. If you think the page can be better you are most welcomed to edit it by yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 08:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know as I only have one account, as per the rules. And I don't think the article could be "better". I believe that the article has reached the extent of what it can be. I don't just tag pages for deletion willy-nilly :). --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable subject -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. It's impossible to know if you have more Wiki user names or not because unlike me non of the users listed above are using their real identity. so I have to ask : a. Why not use your real name as a Wikipedia editor?. b. How can I know that you are not a marvel or some other companies employee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 13:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 8. Regarding the notability issue - How can you claim it's not notable when there is a full comic book about this figure ? What makes it more or less notable then any other comic figure ? If tomorrow I will set an advertising campaign of 100 million $ about the solar man comics will that make it more notable??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 13:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 9. I think it will be fair if only users using their real name and identity would take a part on this debate as my Linkedin profile is published above. 10. Please read my arguments and reply to them in a logical way and not just write to delete or not to delete the article. 11. There is a third party source- The Comic book of solar-man ( and all the people who read ( and liked it )) ( if you are interested I will send you an edition of it ) and the website solarcomics.com which contains this comic book. What is the different between these third party sources then any other comic book that exists in the world? Please adhere to my arguments before replying or changing the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG. Let's go through your arguments one by one. You have clearly not read Wikipedia policies.

1. I am pretty sure that companies like Marvel have no problem creating a Wiki User or paying someone to do it for them.

Even if that were the case, Marvel characters are covered in-depth by third-party sources. They are subjects of films, reviews, and commentary, among other things.

2. " The comic characters are notable enough " - Meaning - They spend millions of dollars on commercials on T.V , Internet etc.

The amount of money spent on a character is not primarily what we look at. We look for evidence of coverage by independent, third-party sources. Read through WP:GNG to understand this.

4. My single Interest is to help and make a change for the best of our earth. I really don't think that it contradicts the Wikipedia policy.

It does contradict policy if you cannot find sources that meet WP:GNG. Please read it.

5. You keep on saying that I am the creator of the website and the page. yes- it is true. as you know it;s very easy to open a new user with no contact to me. I am trying to be fair and just and not bend the rules. Please Consider that.

We applaud you identifying yourself. That being said, you have a conflict of interest in making this article, and it is difficult for creators to be unbiased about their own works.

6. If you think the page can be better you are most welcomed to edit it by yourself.

Several editors have looked for third-party sources (including myself) that would cover WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS, but we have not had any success. Editing the layout of the article or the cleanliness of the article is not the issue here.

It's not possible to know, I agree. But honestly, it's unlikely that another comic employee was sent to put your article up for deletion. Also, real names are discouraged usernames because they can attract other users to disparage or slander them.

8. Regarding the notability issue - How can you claim it's not notable when there is a full comic book about this figure ? What makes it more or less notable then any other comic figure ? If tomorrow I will set an advertising campaign of 100 million $ about the solar man comics will that make it more notable???

If you ad campaign gets multiple reliable, independent sources to write about your character, then yes. However, a full comic book does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS.

9. I think it will be fair if only users using their real name and identity would take a part on this debate as my Linkedin profile is published above.

You are missing the point of Wikipedia. Our identities are not the main problem here, but the discussion of your article's notability is.

10. Please read my arguments and reply to them in a logical way and not just write to delete or not to delete the article.

OK.

11. There is a third party source- The Comic book of solar-man ( and all the people who read ( and liked it )) ( if you are interested I will send you an edition of it ) and the website solarcomics.com which contains this comic book. What is the different between these third party sources then any other comic book that exists in the world?

References need to be independent of the subject matter.

If you can find evidence that meets the criteria of WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG, please post it here or on the article page. Thank you. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 22:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - In answer to your questions ("so I have to ask : a. Why not use your real name as a Wikipedia editor?. b. How can I know that you are not a marvel or some other companies employee"), I do not use my real name because I expect a small modicum of privacy and there is nothing I can do to convince you that I'm not a Marvel employee. If you wish to ask me any more questions could you please direct them to my talk page, as this is not the correct forum for things like that --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12. If you expect " a small modicum of privacy " - then why did you deprive that right for privacy from me by publishing my linkedin profile? - by doing so you are contradicting yourself and also violating my rights for privacy. In very simple words - it's just not fair and not just , and not ethical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravdag (talk • contribs) 16:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted privacy, you shouldn't have created a LinkedIn profile and made your Wikipedia username so similar to your actual name, which is found in many revisions of this article (example). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have written back on your talk page concerning what you have said. It is pretty much what Eagles has said. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and all other policies linked above. This "comic book character" is part of a campaign for this solar energy company and it is definitely not notable by itself. Ravdag, please read through the guidelines linked throughout this discussion if you decide to create another article in the future. Failure to do so will likely result in another deletion discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I see that someone is changing the earlier posts and not notifying anyone about it as user Skamecrazy123 (I have no idea what this name stands for and if I should take him seriously) have deleted part of his first post on this page and erased the link to my linkedin profile that has started this debate. I believe that this is not only a violation of the Wikipedia rules but also a violation of any possible debate or discussion. So I think it is beneath my basic honor to participate in this kind of debate when : 1. I am the only one identifying his real name and identity, and 2. The other participants of the debate take for themselves the right to change their previous posts without notifying about it.

If you look at the edit history, he clearly states he removed it, because it's not available. Administrators can see this and no, it's not a violation of anything in Wikipedia. Stop this nonsense. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed the link, as clearly stated by both I, Jethrobot and the edit summary, was because either yourself or the admin staff at linkedin deleted the profile that I linked, meaning that there was no need for the link on the discussion page. May I also point you towards WP:AGF as you seem to be assuming that I am trying to break the rules in order to get your article deleted and WP:CIV as you have no idea whether to take me seriously or not, which isn't being particularly civil. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. No coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. The article survived four previous AfDs. This AfD serves no purpose beyond disrupting the project. Owen× ☎ 16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soggy biscuit[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable subject matter per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Current sources are still only an urban dictionary and a dictionary of slang. Quick search found not much more than forums and a few mock youtube videos. Section that attempts to establish notability completely unsourced. Calmer Waters 05:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The term is clearly referenced in multiple, reliable sources that are posted in the prior nomination discussions, but none of these amount to anything more substantial than a definition of the term or references to different terms that resemble the described activity. In all the prior nominations, no sources have served to expand the notability of this term beyond a slang term, and I have not been able to find any myself. This term is not likely to grow beyond a simple definition or usage of the term:

Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. The full articles that Wikipedia's stubs grow into are very different from dictionary articles. -- from WP:DICT

It is not appropriate on Wikipedia because it is unlikely to grow anything beyond its definition and usage. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Perl Programming[edit]

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

Seems to be an average programming book. No indication of what makes it notable. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Wikipedia is not a catalog WP:NOTCATALOG. Msnicki (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cited in 7 other books. The (non)-existence of some independent book reviews from reliable sources could still sway my vote either way. As the nominator has not bothered to look for those I'll go with keep for now. —Ruud 10:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If we kept every computer science publication that had 7 citations we'd have a ridiculous amount of barely notable material here. You have just voted to delete some with 16 citations at Natural Constraint Language. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because a scientific paper citing a scientific paper is more common than a popular/regular book citing another book. They should be weighed differently. —Ruud 13:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think so. Instead with commercial publishers it's quite common to see in the preface: "this book addresses such and such audience and covers such and such and such material. For books on such and such related material or for such and such slightly different audience see <plug our other books here>". FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in WP:NBOOK do I see any provision that makes mere citations relevant to establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in WP:NBOOK do I see any provision that makes mere citations not relevant to establishing notability. —Ruud 14:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself ..." [emphasis added] seems unclear? (This book certainly doesn't appear to meet any of the other criteria.) Msnicki (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The part where it says "if" instead of "if and only if". —Ruud 15:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typically in mathematics and related subjects, "if" is equivalent to "iff" in a definition because it gives a characterization of whatever is being defined. I imagine the policy here follows a similar style. 203.79.116.199 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking to see how other publishers are treated in Wikipedia. For example Springer has Graduate Texts in Mathematics, a single article for the whole series. The individual blue links are to math articles not to book articles. I'm certain that every book in that list has some reviews in mathematics journals. They do no qualify for individual articles according to WP:NBOOK though, which requires at least one such review in a venue of general interests, which mathematics textbooks are unlikely to have, as are programming books. Perhaps creating an article for O'Reilly Media#Animal books would be more reasonable. The series can be presumed to be more notable than the individual books. (Oddly enough someone created an article only for their less notable Head First (book series)) Right now O'Reilly Media#Animal books lists only a handful of books, the selection is haphazard, and the individual articles do not even show how they pass WP:GNG, let alone the more demanding NBOOK. I doubt the other/missing books in the series differ significantly in (real-world) notability. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact the publisher has reused the title for completely different book (as "2nd edition") is another argument for non-notability. Compare with Oracle PL/SQL programming, another book from the series with multiple editions or with Learning Perl, which also has multiple editions and at least claims in the preface of the 5th edition to have had half a million readers, a significant number for a programming book. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A minimal effort, i.e. looking through this page for the sources that Wikipedia would consider reliable, demonstrates notability. I'd do the rescue legwork like I did at Perl Cookbook, but I'm feeling like I should spend some time on my actual job. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability-establishing cites now added. If anybody thinks there's a problem with the two I did, let me know and I'll keep going. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources exist as demonstrated above, the other O'Reilly Perl books articles have been improved and kept, but those of us who've rescued those articles have other things to deal with. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm reserved on those sources, which are mined by the company itself and even if assumed true, are of little value as RS. "Jeremy Beker, Williamsburg Macromedia User Group, May 24, 2003 ", "-beirne@ald.net from Cuyahoga Falls, OH , 09/27/97, rating=8, Review on www.amazon.com " (srsly?) There may be some in-depth reviews satisfying WP:GNG, but those have not been put forth here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like I said, they have to be filtered for Wikipedia reliability. But they do a fine job of illustrating just how unlikely a total sourcing failure is. IMO, the question that an AfD nominator should be asking themselves before writing the nom is "do I think somebody who's really trying to source this article is going to fail at it?" If the answer is "no", then what exactly would one be doing by writing the nom anyway? Either 1) trying to delete an article that one knows should not be deleted 2) using AfD as a cattle-prod to force labor out of other volunteers. Neither of these is acceptable. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rescue legwork now done (I had to go all the way down to the sixth entry in O'Reilly's flack page). —chaos5023 (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a book index, and this book isn't quite Gone with the Wind--rogerd (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:CRUFTCRUFT, not an argument founded in policy or guidelines. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? Thanks for enlightening me. Well how about this: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and notablity of academic and technical books. I work in IT, and have dozens of various Wrox, O'Reilly, IDG, Que, etc., books, most of them are about as notable as this book, and they don't and shouldn't have articles written about them. These technical books have a pretty limited printing, are not widely distributed, and do not receive coverage or reviews in the media. In the past few years, even large Barnes and Noble bookstore have been reducing the number of tech books that they shelve. Just because you and I read them doesn't make them notable. --rogerd (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm. Well, you did a great job of demolishing a couple arguments I never made, there. Could I introduce you to the General Notability Guideline, and the citations I've added to the article demonstrating that this topic meets it? And I don't even know what to do with "these are technical books, so they don't get coverage in the media, so they're not notable" when you have to be staring right at citations of the book's media coverage. WP:BK#Academic and technical books is trying to establish a basis for using things like academic citations for establishing notability for academic and technical books so that we don't wind up throwing out academically important works because of their lack of mainstream media coverage, not cause us to throw out books that have notability-establishing mainstream media coverage. —chaos5023 (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that "you and I read them" (in the figurative, not literal, sense) would seem like the very definition of notability to me. —Ruud 10:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I went to Amazon.com to look up this book, I searched under books for "Perl programming". I got 764 results (just books) and sorted by "bestselling". This title was number 188. Maybe we should write articles about numbers 1 thru 187. There was another book with the exact same title with a different publisher and author listed at number 107. This is an obscure book on a very specialized topic with a rather limited audience. That was my point about "you and I read them". IT professionals, especially ones who write Perl code, is a pretty limited subset of the population. --rogerd (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with anything? "Notable" doesn't mean "I think it's important", it means "has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources". —chaos5023 (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources"?? The article has references to two obscure publications (yea, I get Network Computing, too, and so can anyone else who has an email address), and you listed a collection of blog posts that from the publisher's web site (but thankfully didn't include that as a reference, since it doesn't qualify). Big deal! Between the two of us, we have written about as much about this book as your "multiple independent reliable sources" have. Remember from GNG, "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent". I know you think this is a cool book, but there isn't much else to justify keeping it. I am trying to assume good faith, but what is your great concern with keeping this obscure little book from being deleted? --rogerd (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. You can review WP:RS for what a reliable source is and why your personal belief that a publication is "obscure" doesn't relate to it, and I'll note that "oh gosh I really want to AGF but I just cannot imagine that you would argue the way you're doing without a hidden COI" is not what success at AGF looks like. Beyond that, I'm done. If the article gets deleted because of this nonsense, it'll be trivial to get it back at DRV. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, Chaos5023. This can't be the first AfD where someone's taken a position you don't agree with. Anyway, it appears you have the !votes to win, but that's not enough? I think you could agree to disagree, be a gracious winner and move on. There's no need for histrionics about going to DRV if you don't get your way. Msnicki (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 04:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Rogerd. A couple of positive book reviews do not confer notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have I logged into Bizarro Wikipedia today? "A couple of positive book reviews" are precisely the sort of thing that confers notability, as significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic satisfies the GNG, having been noticed by multiple sources — here's another. The information might be more usefully presented as part of a general bibliography of books about PERL but that's not a matter for AFD. Warden (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a break, that's an ad in another book by the same company, not a review. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's a review in Linux Journal. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, 'an average programming book' . We've recently seen either the Camel or Llama books (maybe both) at AfD and either of those had a really significant impact on Perl and the Perl community. This one didn't. It's a good book, but there's just not much to say about it - which is reflected in an article here that says less than a typical Amazon review would. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teppei Fukushima[edit]

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

WP:N Long-term unreferenced BLP, long-term tagged for notability. Unable to find reliable, secondary sources to evidence the notability of this manga artist under the general notability guideline. Previously a contested PROD, additional reliable sources, as always, welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Ozgod (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. --J04n(talk page) 18:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Westboro Baptist Church#Counter protests. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

God hates figs[edit]

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

While I am certainly not defending Fred Phelps, this particular article is about just one of a myriad of counter-protest signs that have been mentioned in numerous media appearances about Westboro Baptist Church counterprotests. While many of them are humorous, and make good points, individual signs certainly do not meet Wikipedia's threshold of WP:NOTABILITY for having articles about them. This one should be no different. It should also be pointed out that the sign/slogan that "God hates figs" parodies, God hates fags, is also a redirect to the Westboro Baptist Church article. I would think the same redirect for this article would be appropriate as well -- we could even go one step further and redirect directly to the counter protests subsection in the WBC article. WTF? (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Westboro Baptist Church#Counter protests I agree with the redirect, but I disagree with a one general statement the nominator has proposed. Individuals signs do have notability if they are covered in-depth by multiple, reliable, third-party sources. It should not matter if it's an individual sign. The slogan is covered in-depth by one source on the article from NBC. There continued mentions of the slogan by Fox News (not in current article), Huffington Post, and ACLU. However, I acknowledge these are not in-depth, so they may not be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. I think the counter-protest section of the WBC article could be supplemented with information from the current article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 04:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to add to the mainstream sources invoking this, there's the AP feature Voices of Faith, seen here in the Deseret News. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am not saying that the content of the article should not be included in Wikipedia anywhere. The Deseret News & NBC articles do assert the fig claims in regards to the bible (the rest of the "news stories" are really single sentence mentions of it or talking more about the counter-protests in general with a mention of "god hates figs" amongst other signs. And it should be pointed out that the ACLU "citation" is really a blog post, as well as the Stranger article (below), and as such, do not meet WP:RS. Anyway, what I am suggesting is that this material is much, much better included in strengthening the counter protests section of the WBC article, as opposed to being its own content fork by itself. WTF? (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is certainly a different song than what you were singing when you were repeatedly deleting all of the content of the article, redirecting it without any attempt to merge, and threatening to have me banned if I restored the material. However, you may wish to review WP:RS; blogs are not barred from being WP:RS. Self-published blogs generally are, but SLOG is published not by its author but by The Stranger (newspaper). (You may also want to take a look at WP:FORK; it doesn't point to what you think it points to.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? My intention has always been to have this included in the WBC article, hence my intention to redirect. You wanted to revert that, and I took it here prior to violating WP:3RR. As far as my "threat" to have you banned, that was in reference to WP:3RR as well -- if you continued to restore beyond three times, you would be banned, per policy. As for "The Stranger", it's an "alternative weekly" publication, also described as a "tabloid". I read that as being about as reliable as the National Enquirer (not very),. . . WTF? (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had your goal always been to merge the content, you could have, well, tried to merge the content, or better yet proposed a merger. You did not. You deleted the content and when your edits were reverted, you did not continue with the WP:BRD cycle but instead went on with threats and then filed an AfD with no call for merging. You may want to read up on that WP:3RR - no, violating it does not send a user to being WP:BANNED. Not that it would matter, because had you simply blanked the page a third time, you would've found yourself reported (not under the bright line of a 3RR, but under general edit warring.)

As for "alternative weekly" and "tabloid", those descriptors fit such respected outlets as the Pulitzer-winning The Village Voice and L.A. Weekly. "Tabloid" describes not the content, but the dimensions of the pages. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, there's currently a push to get a Pulitzer Prize for the Onion, too. That's probably about as for from Wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines as they come! So just because something got a Pulitzer doesn't make it "reliable" for use in citations.

As for my "threats", I only did that mostly because I assumed that you were some silly high school punk/vandal creating stupid vanity articles as some sort of high school game. I tend to have a pretty short fuse with these people, and I use more forceful language with them to try and get them to go away and make them realize that Wiki means business. 99.9% of the time, it works, and the vanity articles go away because the ADD high school kids see a squirrel in the yard or something and move on,. . . ;-) WTF? (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veering from topic, moved further responses to his talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the sources listed above, the slogan is covered in major non-self-published online sources such as The Stranger and The Atlantic. These brief pieces go beyond coverage of the sign, but displayed or link to coverage of a flyer on the full argument, and thus covered the "God hates figs" argument in more depth. The sign has been sighted at non-WBC events, such as the Rally to Restore Sanity, and thus (while obviously inspired by WBC) not exclusively a WBC-related phenomenon. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tacking on to note that a simple redirect, as nominator has repeatedly and without consensus attempted to do, does not make sense, as the only material currently on the WBC about "God hates figs" is a See Also to this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, as the phrase's only notability is in the context of the WBC. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a minor topic, but covered by reliable sources. A person might want to know what the sign means, and not feel like wading through the other article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very easy merge and redirect. Those recommending "keep" above fail to account for the "in depth" part of the coverage required by WP:GNG. That type of coverage just isn't out there in this case. L H M 00:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, not notable enough to have its own article. If we started doing this, it sets a precedence to have an article for every 'clever' protest banner. 119.15.97.76 (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the logic that we shouldn't cover any item in category X, because then we'll have every item X, is faulty; working under that, Wikipedia would be rather empty, covering no people because we don't cover all people, no bands because we don't cover all bands, and so on. We have ways of differentiating. We're facing the question of notability here, and in this case we have a campaign that's the headline on that NBC piece, which reproduces several paragraphs of the flier photographically, and it's the focus of half of that Associated Press piece. That Wikipedia does not inherently exclude this protest cartoon does not mean that we therefor include all protest cartoons. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not "a sign" - a well-covered website, unfortunately down now. Article should be altered to reflect this. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Westboro Baptist Church unless more significant coverage is found. I found a number of references to God Hates Figs in reliable sources, but they were all passing mentions, none in-depth. The content currently in the article could easily be condensed to a few sentences in the WBC article, and it is unlikely that there will be more to say in the future. —Mark Dominus (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. 12:23, 5 July 2011 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Veritasism" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veritasism) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veritasism[edit]

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

Article about an unverifiable religion with no coverage in secondary sources. The proposed deletion was contested with the edit summary "Reason for deletion is insufficient, for sources back up the article and one can not deny the existence of a religion." However, the sources currently cited in the article do not mention a religion or Veritasism by name. Additionally, since the article was created by Veritasism (talk · contribs), I'm concerned that there may be an element of self-promotion (although not blatant advertising) and that a conflict of interest is present. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is indeed made by a name that is the same name of the religion, but with no intention of self promotion in any way. All views of this article are written from a neutral point of view (just as required by Wikipedia's guidelines), just as the Catholic people who contributed much of the Catholic Wikipedia page. The sources used did not mention the existence of Veritasism because Veritasism is not yet as large as many other religions. It is rather newly introduced to the world and is hoping to gain the same respect from the viewers of the page as the viewers of Judaism, Mormonism, Christianity and Islam get.-Veritasism (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am pretty sure I can see no evidence of promotion in the text, the conflict of interest concerns me, as does the lack of any sources at all, let alone notable ones, when the religion was searched for. I would say Delete on the grounds that there appears to be nothing at all on the subject of this religion. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All sources cited in the article support the beliefs of the religion do not acknowledge the religion's existence because it is not their purpose to. The purpose of the sources are to provide insight to the goals and beliefs of the religion. Also, as stated above, the religion is very new, however this does not provide any reason for the religion to be treated as anything less than what it is. -Veritasism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritasism (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources you have used say that the religion does not exist, how can you back up claims of its existance? Also, if the religion is very new, how would it have been able to gather enough notability for it to warrant an article? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not in any way say that the religion does not exist, they are just on a different topic and do not mention any religion of any sort, for they are research articles/papers. As for the notability, I will say this. According to dictionary.com, a religion is: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. That is the guidelines of Veritasism, aside from the superhuman agency (which is clearly noted as not being accepted in Veritasism), and the followers of Veritasism follow these guidelines in the manner of any other organized religion. The followers alone verify the validity of the religion.-Veritasism (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, there could well be hundreds of different religions. The point I am trying to make is that whatever gets put on here needs to have notable, reliable sources whether it is a religion or a football team, and I do not believe that the article has notable, reliable sources. May I suggest you take a look at WP:NOTABILITY --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few more aspects to my article. Veritism is the set of beliefs from which Veritasism stems from. I urge you to read the works of Alfred Globus and then reconsider your views on deleting this article.-Veritasism (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me reading the works of Alfred Globus will do nothing to change what I have already mentioned. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I know nothing else that can convince you the notability of Veritasism. I have presented you with proof of its existence and you outright objected to it. Alfred Globus writes about veritism and the set of beliefs that is uses, and Veritasism is almost literally veritism, but in an organized fashion. The system is believed to be written in the mid to late 1960s, so it is nothing new to the people who associate themselves with it.-Veritasism (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not "outright objected" to it at all. What I am saying is that its a bit silly trying to convince one user when such sources (if they exist) should be going into the article in order to prevent it from being deleted (which is, I assume, what you want). --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Kill with fire~~ Delete: Discussion of this alleged religion is completely unreferenced and unverifiable. Clearly fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS, WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:CRYSTAL, and is also written as essentially promotional material by one of its adherents. This is a likely candidate for WP:SNOW. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete The creator of the article seems to be under the impression that just because something exists means it is notable. It's important for information on Wikipedia to be verifiable, and I acknowledge that it is a real concept, but it is not sufficient. The topic appears to have no scholarly impact as it has not been discussed in relevant journals. It does not appear in news sources, and the hits for the Internet bring up forum and YouTube listings. Veritasism is a slam-dunk candidate for not meeting WP:GNG and should be deleted fast per WP: SNOW. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only fractionally better than some kid's made up subject. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be made up or unverifiable. All references provided are tangential at best, with no support for the core assertion of the article. Acroterion (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I, personally, have read much of Alfred R. Globus' works and he wrote an entire book on veritism. The religion, "Veritasism", whether is notable to the average reader or not, supports everything that Alfred Globus writes about. To my knowledge, this all seems to be not made up, Alfred Globus has been around for many years. -Fullinstinct (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Fullinstinct (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Then I'm sure you can provide the appropriate citations to support the assertions made here and in the article under consideration. Acroterion (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The whole thing's WP:BOLLOCKS from start to finish.—S Marshall T/C 13:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The argument that the article is not sufficiently referenced and unverifiable is irrelevant. There are many articles on wikipedia that don't have ANY sources to back them up. The sources in this article prove the basis of the religion. The source prove and show studies to back up the claims of the environmental effects on the human mind. Which was what the basis the article is about. I personally see no reason to delete that article. It is a new topic and one can not expect there to be others articles about this topic on the internet.-037adb (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— 037adb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See also WP:DUMB, point #3.—S Marshall T/C 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am sensing hostility from your part whereas this is supposed to be from a neutral standpoint. All ideas and religion were created at one time by an individual or groups of individuals. By saying it is a stupid or irrelevant is close-minded of one. A person with views of that sort shouldn't be deciding whether articles are deleted or not, for they have a biased opinion on the subject.-Veritasism (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When it's time for the discussion to be closed, an independent administrator will make a decision on the matter. The decision will be based on the discussion points raised here, and particularly how the subject meets (or fails to meet) the Wikipedia guidelines for articles. The administrator will also discard or weigh lightly any arguments by editors with clearly biased opinions one way or the other or by single-purpose accounts, especially if there is the appearance that they were created just to skew the outcome. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Considering the SPAs involved, recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE I see this as a new growing religion, and it should be given a chance to prove to us that it can be notable, and be use to many people on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SteezyVegas (talk • contribs) 07:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— SteezyVegas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And yet another WP:SPA: [64]. Why hasn't this been snow-closed yet? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources don't verify the existence of the religion, but merely the overall concepts that the religion espouses, then it constitutes original research to collate those sources into proof of a religion whose existence can't otherwise be verified. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Gonzalez (educator)[edit]

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

I'm not seeing anything notable about this person at all. —Chowbok ☠ 02:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources point to Gonzalez's own products and blog. After searching for news or google hits with his name and the titles of his works, no secondary sources could be found. Does not meet WP:GNG, and should be deleted soon under WP: SNOW. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 04:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of coverage by independent sources to show notability. Nsk92 (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as a spammy autobio. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Jus da fax 06:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Out of the Vein. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Baller[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined speedy. Credit to the author for providing valid sources, but the song fails notability now just as it did the first time we did this - it has never charted on Billboard's major charts, or to my knowledge even minor charts. There is no reason for a separate article when this information can instead improve the article page. I urge the author to consider this suggestion before commenting; a redirect can be used to bring up the article page. This is normal for non-notable singles. CycloneGU (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CycloneGU (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Out of the Vein the track isn't independently notable, but it is a valid search term, so should redirect to the album's article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per Steve, since it has never charted, it fails WP:NSONG. ArcAngel (talk) ) 16:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Fails WP:NSONG. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sprott[edit]

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

Contested Prod: Notability not established, doesn't appear to be anyone other than a investment manager. Sounds more like a CV The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Ozgod (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tag it to wikify The article is written poorly so far -- I agree. Notability? -- School of Business in Carleton University in Ottawa is named after Sprott. I guess such recognition is quite notable. Cheers, Lamro (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having work in University, It usually means he donated money to have it built. There is a reason Schermerhorn halll is devoted to Anthropology department at Columbia University instead of it being called Boas Hall. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 04:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said in my prod edit, it's little more than a CV and while that may no in itself be a reason to delete, there's no evidence that it can be expanded into a real article and that is a reason to delete. RxS (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion will orphan other articles. Cheers, Lamro (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is that a thing? Is that a reason to keep an article that would otherwise be deleted? RxS (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why it would be deleted otherwise? It will be rewritten and updated with time. The initial reason was notability. My argument: naming a business school after this guy is quite notable an event. In US and Canada, there are overall about 25 such "named" b-schools, to the best of my knowledge. Lamro (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see how a donation of 10 million dollars in this case makes someone notable. That's the only reason for the renaming. It's not a notable event at all, schools are named after people all the time, if that's the only claim to notability it's not enough. RxS (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        There are other notabilities mentioned in the article, plus other articles within the wiki, linking to the article in question. I ask to tag the article "wikify". Deletion is too drastic a measure. The article lives less than a year, it's simply too young to die. Spare it some time for improvement. With best wishes, Lamro (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Jelin[edit]

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

The subject appears not to be notable under the WP:GNG. The book "Saving Sammy", apparently written by his mother, seems mostly to be a source about PANDAS, although that book is probably also not notable enough for an article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 15 June 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) 00:34, 22 June 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) 00:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references listed are to amazon.com, a website about the subject, a Youtube video, and a link to a website with a PDF. The article fails to make clear the subjects notability or any specific work or achievement they have made that has any lasting impact. --Ozgod (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems like a clear case of WP:BLP1E--or WP:BLP0E... TallNapoleon (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of the Bs[edit]

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

None notable release per WP:NALBUMS, album did not chart nor did it receive independent coverage. If anything is a minor release as it was only released to a single retailer. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 22 June 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) 00:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage found for this album, nor any evidence that it has charted was found either. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to review this on my talk page on 6 December 2011. I can see that I went delete based on the argument that this was unreferenced and therefore OR. We don't generally merge OR we delete it. However, there is evidence of marginal sources so a selective merge is an appropriate outcome so I have history restored and any editor is free to merge any source-able content. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xebian[edit]

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

No references (and the one external link seems to be dead), no assertion of notability, article is too much 'how-to'. RJFJR (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POTENTIAL. Source review (hit the 'books' and 'scholar' links up there) shows probable notability. Not an A7 candidate, so does not need to assert notability; "too much how-to" is a content issue and not relevant to a deletion debate unless removal of all WP:NOT#GUIDE information would leave no article. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:38, 28 June 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) 00:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to XBox Responding to the argument to keep per WP:POTENTIAL, close analysis of the scholar articles show that they do not provide in-depth coverage on Xebian's underlying structure, rather, it seems to be exclusively used to hack the XBox console to boot it with a new OS to perform other tasks. Furthermore, in the "books" search, the same sort of sources appear, which also include a how-to for installation of Xebian. Again, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Although the Xbox page already mentions Xebian as an X-Box OS, some details from these sources could be used to show what Xebian can do. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 04:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above or weak keep. The books Practical MythTV and Advances in Digital Forensics III are good for verification. I find their significance to be borderline. Marasmusine (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I quickly was able to find coverage in numerous secondary sources. Obviously exceeds satisfaction of WP:NOTE. This includes 75 results in news articles, in addition to 32 results in books, and also 8 journal articles from academic sources. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not enough to just quote the number of hits on these searches. For example, the Books search does say "about 32 results" but its actually 20, 14 of which refer to other uses of the word, and the remainder are trivial mentions or unusable (e.g. Books Llc draw their material from Wikipedia). Above I identify the two usable results. Marasmusine (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. soft deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hattori Foundation for Music and the Arts[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews. and mainly directory listings in google. not that WP:GOOGLEHITS is a reason either way for 370 ghits is quite low for any entity. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This organisation is not always referred to by its full name: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it still fails WP:ORG. Small mentions in 6 gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 25 June 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) 00:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ithihadu Shubbanul Mujahideen[edit]

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

nothing in gnews, gbooks reveals Books LLC which uses WP as a reference. google just shows a whole lot of WP mirrors. maybe there is foreign language coverage, but this has been unreferenced for 4 years and I can't find reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 22 June 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) 00:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per lack of notability since September 2010. I didn't get any in both Google and Yahoo. I would even suggest that this organisation may not, but it may simply be because it's from 1966. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Lufthansa heist. There is a consensus that Rodriguez does not merit his own article. As there is an appropriate redirect target, there is no need to delete the article. Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Rodriguez[edit]

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

Rodriguez is not notable, he is only known for being a member of the team of the Lufthansa heist. Rodriguez does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators. Rodriguez falls into WP:ONEVENT as he is only known for the one event of the Lufthansa heist. Vic49 (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — --Vic49 (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- --Vic49 (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - seems to not fail wp:criminal, has had a "long career" if you could have one as a mobster.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Lufthansa Heist. Subject's only notability is their involvement in this crime, which already has an article, so I suggest a redirect. --Ozgod (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Common criminal who had an involvement with a big crime, and there is already an article for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelobet sei (talk • contribs) 12:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James H. Collins Jr.[edit]

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

Fails to meet the criteria for notability for music or other claimed activities. It appears to be an advert for a non-notable member of a non-notable band. The only sources given are trivial or passing references. Article has been tagged for as a possible advert and for a lack of sources for over six months. No reliable source have been forthcoming and neither can a good faith search find any. SabreBD (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 19:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 22 June 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) 00:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not make clear the subject's notability. --Ozgod (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FK Borac Ostružnica[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No evidence that this club has participated in the national cup, therefore failing WP:FOOTYN; also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. They played in the qualifying stages of the Serbian Cup in 2010–11 according to RSSSF. The team that plays at my old school has a better ground than this team, judging from the external link, and they play at the 12th level in England. So if they moved to Serbia they would be deemed notable? Hmm. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, but I'm still not convinced of the club's notability. Could be a time to ignore the rules and apply some common sense? Giant Snowman 13:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are many more of them though and you know that we'll be accused of bias if we systematically nominate them all. The inclusion criteria of cup notability needs to be thoroughly discussed. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:53, 28 June 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) 00:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article meets the current notability criteria, with no prejudice against another AfD if wider discussion concludes that such clubs are not notable. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Saraswati Datta Maharaj[edit]

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

Bio of an Hindu swami with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 new sources today.Wipsenade (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as a keep.213.81.117.254 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is unreferenced and doesn't make clear the subject's notability or their long-lasting impact. --Ozgod (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths attributed to extremist groups in the United States[edit]

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

List is original research.
1. List topic is not notable. Search for sources produced negligible results.
2. Reliable sources have not been supplied which demonstrate that groups singled out in the list had any "deaths attributed" to them. In fact the entries are individuals, not groups. – Lionel ^(talk) 16:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Extremist" is not defined. Please note that many acts of terrorism are committed in the name of moderate causes. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Groups" is not defined either, nor is the question of who attributes what to whom discussed. So, for example, where does the 1963 Montgomery Church Bombing fit in? It was the act of a group of extremists, but were they an extremist group? And does the author really expect us to think that the long sordid history of Ku Klux Klan terrorism is going to be documented blow-by-blow? Not a completable list, even if there was consensus established for inclusion criteria. Best to leave this one alone. Carrite (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And for that matter through most of its history the Klan was defending the status quo. Is that extremist? Steve Dufour (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope nobody misunderstands me. Before around 1965 the Klan was an evil, terrorist group; but not extremist since their views (if not their actions) were supported by most white Southerners. Now it is extremist since few people now support a return to segregation. In the same way anti-abortion and Puerto Rican independence terrorists are also not supporting extreme views. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. & others. OR & terms not defined.--JayJasper (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject to original research. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow people[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet standards for notability. G-hits turn up ghost enthusiast websites, conspiracy blogs, Art Bell fan forums, etc. but I am unable to find multiple, serious and independent sources meeting WP:RS that cover the concept in a significant way. The subject originated on Coast to Coast AM talk radio several years ago but has since failed to gain any mainstream traction: no academic folklorist or established news outlet has seen fit to cover it in depth (or even in passing). Examiner.com, About.com and ghost-hunting websites are not particularly reliable sources and do not justify a standalone Wikipedia article, per WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Perhaps a suitable target article can be found for a MERGE, but I'm not optimistic. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE with ghost ~~or WEAK KEEP~~ Obscure reference (WP:N) to a well known subject by another name. Author might develop the concept further and show its relation to other relavent topics--User:Warrior777 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a WP:RS can be found equating 'Shadow people' with ghosts or some other potential merge target (in which case merge/redirect). Very little mention except in unreliable WP:FRINGE media. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google books returns several results for "shadow people" "shadow ghosts". Are these different from what is described in the article? utcursch | talk 04:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The results for "shadow people" certainly are (the phrase seems to be used as a metaphor in the titles of these books). Those for 'shadow ghost' seem to be closer to this context, but seem to be used mostly as a simple two-word description, rather than a specific subtype of ghost (let alone providing any discussion of such a subtype). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Google books hits is that the phrase 'shadow people' is used to describe a very wide range of concepts from native tribes to secret societies to homeless people. And the book hits that do sync with the context of this article are either fiction/fantasy or written "in universe" by authors who are pushing a fringe view. I don't see any book hits from academic sources or anyone remotely independent to the subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've only just noticed this Shadow people page exists. If is kept, I am willing to try to add refs as lack of verifiability is a big problem for the article. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 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) 00:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should focus more on the "Scientific explanations" section which is well sourced. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is however unclear whether any of the sources for these "Scientific explanations" actually even mention "shadow people". Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction doesn't. Thus this material borders on WP:Synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one does Illuminating the Shadow People. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having watched this article for years, I have to agree with Hrafn. The sciencenow material is about "the feeling that someone's following you". It's unrelated to the Coast To Coast AM-inspired "shadow people" claims that this article was intended to cover (see earliest article history) but for which no sources compliant with WP:RS can be found. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have an article on the feeling that someone's following you? Steve Dufour (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find countless references from many sources relating to this topic. Many of those references might not pass muster for some as they may be blogs, "conspiracy" sites, occult sites, etc., however this type of topic is unlikely to have scientific or mainstream journalism references (although possible), being a "paranormal" subject. i.e., most journalistic entities might not write about ghosts, vampires, astral travel, alien sightings, etc. and, real or not, they fall within modern culture and beliefs. There seems to be at least one published book^[8] and also an upcoming motion picture^[9] as well. LaLaFoote (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a topic of recent interest to me, so perhaps I am not spoilt by being wrapped up in the "Coast to Coast" element -- and I think I see part of the problem. I'm not a greatly experienced editor here, so perhaps someone who is could be of help. It seems that the term "Shadow People" is becoming more and more popularized as "the" term for a phenomenon (or whatever your preference is to call it) wherein people experience "sensed presences." There are many of these described within the article on Sleep Paralysis throughout different cultures. There is an article here^[10] which seems to neatly describe this somewhat, and has its own sources listed. I realize that some of the sources might not be allowed as proper references here -- another part of the problem.

Then there is a very well-researched article relating to this from the University of Waterloo^[11] concerning Sleep Paralysis and "Associated Hypnagogic and Hypnopompic Experiences." Much of what is described here falls within what the becoming-popularized term "Shadow People" encompasses. On the talk page for this article, someone mentions "Old Hag Syndrome," which term redirects to the Sleep Paralysis article. Also related is SUNDS, Sudden Unexplained Nocturnal Death Syndrome, which has many of its own references, and tied to this by many is the sense of a malevolent shadowy figure who "presses down" on a person within sleep paralysis, usually on the chest -- and this is a common element through many of the different cultural descriptions within the Sleep Paralysis article.

There is also a nice write-up about Shadow People at the CrystalLinks.com site^[12] which is a site that's been around since 1995, and its author, Ellie Crystal, seems to be regarded as a paranormal expert. She doesn't have her own Wikipedia article, but is referenced in at least a couple; she's a published author and has made many TV appearances, including on Jon Stewart's "Daily Show." She would seem notable enough to warrant an article, and I wonder if her site could be sourced here as being authoritative enough?

Then, I've found there is another upcoming feature film, starring Alison Eastwood and Dallas Roberts, which actually ties together the Old Hag Syndrome, Sleep Paralysis and SUNDS, also called "Shadow People."^[13] The link there is to news articles related to the film, and I also wonder whether any of these (as IMDb-recognized news partners) would be acceptable sources here. The film is being produced by Infinity Media, which was behind the Oscar-nominated "Capote," as well as "Just Friends," "The Devil's Rejects" and other well-known films.^[14]

What stands out is that this seems to be its own distinct "thing" apart from what people know as typical ghosts, apparitions or what-have-you and does seem deserving of its own article. As I've seen the talk page and history, I'm a bit afraid as a new editor to attempt to make edits to the piece as they might be ripe targets for the article's detractors. So perhaps a more experienced editor, such as Stevo1000 who volunteered above, might like to take a crack at this with some of the information I've given here? 71.138.116.179 (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well I can certainly have a crack at improving the article if it is kept. Although I am busy at the moment improving other articles such as the Granada Television page. Verifiablity is a big problem for this page though but if we could get 20 good refs, then the article would be fine. Also I just want to make the point, if this article is considered not worthy because there are no refs from independent sources or outlets then many of the paranormal articles shouldn't exist either. Stevo1000 (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevo. I'm sure you know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not really a valid criteria for keeping an article.

@71.138.116.179. It's not a question of "detractors" vs. "supporters", it's ensuring the article is compliant with WP:N and WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rule, but the more I hear of it the more I consider it a farcical rule. My argument is about consistency across Wikipedia and establishing a accepted standard of criteria which is perfectly valid. Stevo1000 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case we already have a valid and accepted standard of criteria that applies: WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that given the shear size of Wikipedia, an exception-to/violation-of (depending how you look of it) almost any standard, guideline, rule or policy can most likely be found. Therefore basing an argument on such exceptions/violations can be used to support pretty near anything, so such arguments are, quite reasonably, heavily discounted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be two jobs here, one is to establish that the subject is notable, and then to find proper sources to improve and reference the article. So I've done some work to hopefully help with this.

The subject must be notable because there is so much written about it. Part of what seems to make it difficult to build a proper article could be in tying shadow people to the experiences described as part of sleep paralysis, but this can be done if properly sourced. There are at least two feature films already mentioned here and there is also at least one feature length documentary "Your Worst Nightmare ~ Supernatural Assault" available on YouTube which discusses the beings encountered within sleep paralysis, with experts including professors from Harvard and the University at Waterloo and others. Also there seem to be at least seven different books written about this.

According to WP:IRS, one acceptable source may be "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject." Whether or not one believes in something, the paranormal, fairies, gnomes, unicorns or even the Almighty, each subject will have people who are considered authoritative about it. Heidi Hollis is so regarded and appears to be the first to have written a book about Shadow People and the Hat Man, "The Secret War: The Heavens Speak Of The Battle," Writer's Club Press, ISBN-10: 0595203310; and has authored two other books and numerous magazine articles, including a regular paranormal advice column. She has appeared on the "Coast to Coast AM" radio show at least four times, three of them discussing this topic as an expert. She has also appeared on "Discovery Channel's Mystery Hunters," Fox Wake Up News, participated in the Steven Spielberg/Sci-Fi Channel series "Taken," and many others. She has been the host of two paranormal radio shows: CBS Radio's "Heidi Hollis~The Outlander" and HV Talk Radio's "Heidi HOLLERS (with Heidi Hollis)." She often speaks at conventions and expos across the country. Her personal site is http://www.heidihollis.com, and her site discussing this topic: http://www.jesusisnojoke.com/theshadowpeople/

Those credentials should establish that what she writes about the subject is able to be sourced here. The next two book authors have also been called upon as experts and could probably be similarly vetted, and then their writings allowed as sourceable materials:

"Shadow World: True Encounters with Beings from the Darkside" by Brad Steiger, Anomalist Books, ISBN-10: 1933665270, ISBN-13: 978-1933665276 http://www.bradandsherry.com

"Darkness Walks: The Shadow People Among Us" by Jason Offutt, Anomalist Books, ISBN: 1933665378, http://www.anomalistbooks.com/offutt.html (Brad Steiger also writes the foreward in which he praises it as "the most thorough and complete work yet written regarding the mysterious beings that we have come to call collectively, the Shadow People")

About.com article, "Shadow People: What Are They?" by Stephen Wagner includes an interview with Jason Offutt), http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghosthuntinggeninfo/a/shadow-ppl-what.htm (About.com is owned by the New York Times Company, and this should be sourceable, or Offutt's statements as an expert, likewise)

"Dark Intrusions: An Investigation into the Paranormal Nature of Sleep Paralysis Experiences" by Louis Proud, Anomalist Books, ISBN-10: 1933665440, ISBN-13: 978-1933665443

"Shadow People: A Journal of the Paranormal" by C.T. Shooting Star, Publisher: iUniverse.com, ISBN-10: 9781440115653, ISBN-13: 978-1440115653

And a fictional story based upon the phenomenon, "The Non: A Story of the Shadow People" by Vaalen Rhane, AuthorHouse, ISBN-10: 1425969704, ISBN-13: 978-1425969707

While sleep paralysis seems to be a common starting point for shadow people experiences, it has its own WP article and has its own scientific explanations, and then the paranormal or hallucinatory experiences are worthy of a related but separate discussion. Out-of-body experiences would be a good comparison, some think they are real and some think they are vivid dreams, and likewise the common experience people seem to have with near-death experiences. It's the same type of thing and each of these has its own article and authoritative experts to source. I hope this offers a little more perspective on notability and possible sourcing. LaLaFoote (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep :: this page perfectly described several events that happened to me when younger. It was interesting to hear that others had similar experiences even though they may not be well referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.116.6 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@LaLaFoot. Any sources that don't promote a FRINGE position on the subject (i.e., the supernatural exists)? I could not find one in your list. Fiction, if notable, is best located in an author/book/fiction article. Generic material about sleep paralysis belongs in sleep paralysis.- LuckyLouie (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Medical cannabis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canasol[edit]

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

Unreferenced, dubious, non-notable, lacks content, orphan. Mjpresson (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Per Mjpresson. Though i'd change it to keep were someone to fix it up a little. Cloudpersona (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I thought it odd that the same user created Asmasol and Canasol, and used the same non-existent reference as the only source.Mjpresson (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar, this is all there is: "One of the first patents awarded for NPs research was in 1959 for an antibiotic named Monamycin active against the Panama disease pathogen (isolated by Ken Magnus and Cedric Hassall with IP assigned to the British NRDC). One of the most recent patent was awarded in 2002 for a potent antihelminthic called Eryngial (isolated by Wayne Forbes, Ralph Robinson and Paul Reese) – this IP is shared between the UWI and the Scientific Research Council. Several other natural products in commercial production include hypoglycin, canasol and asmasol (the latter two are registered products in Jamaica derived from Cannabis sativa". If kept, mention needs to be made that this is a Jamaican product with no apparent NDC Reg. Mjpresson (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Medical cannabis. Too little material for a stand-alone article.Novangelis (talk) 02:27, 23 June 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) 00:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to medical cannabis - per Novangelis. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]