< 28 March	30 March >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With the consensus clearly leaning towards deletion, and beacuse we already have Islamic economics in the world. Fram (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economic history of the Muslims[edit]

AfDs related to this article:

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

Created as a joke, basically: a parody of Economic history of the Jews. See that AfD for further context. Note that Islamic economics in the world already exists. This is essentially a POV WP:content fork of that, intended to highlight the slave trade. Note also that every paragraph but the lead is simply a summary of an existing WP article. 28bytes (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and link forever to Economic history of the Jews. A brilliant little parody written for us Wikipedia volunteers, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Stricken. I've got this completely wrong. Carrite (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify content coatrack to slavery There might actually be a good article possible on Muslims and Economics - but the initial section is not it. The topic is notable for sure - but it needs substantial editing to get close. Collect (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Stubify May have been created as a joke, but Muslim Economic History is a notable topic and given the right attention this could turn into a valuable article.Qrsdogg (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note, Islamic economics in the world does already exist, as does Early social changes under Islam#Economic reforms. Both have the advantage of not using the somewhat pejorative "the Muslims" in their title. 28bytes (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I missed that one for some reason. Also, I did not know "Muslims" was a pejorative. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Muslims" isn't pejorative, but "the Muslims", "the Jews", "the blacks", etc. can be seen that way, especially when used as an article title. "Islamic", "Jewish", etc. work much better as neutral article titles. 28bytes (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh yes, I see now. That makes sense. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like we already have an article on this exact topic. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletearticle was made for a point, plus that point is lost completely since the article already exists under a different title. Passionless -Talk 07:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge slavery content. POV is not just about hyperbole to emphasize bad things, it is also using euphemisms to diminish bad things and worse, ignoring them. There is a connection between economics and slavery. Agree with 28bytes, with the slight distinction that 'the X' adds unnecessary distance to the subject. It is not wrong or bad, just colder than it has to be. 'Muslim economic history' would add dignity without removing facts. Anarchangel (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator is violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA by attacking the creation of this article (by me). It is highly offensive to call it a "joke" when it conforms to all WP standards of WP:CITE; WP:RS and WP:NPOV. See Economic history of the Jews as an example of this genre of articles. This article was nominated for deletion withing 24 hours of its creation without any serious effort at discussing it. Tens of thousands of WP articles have been created this way. The article is a serious WP:STUB with many WP:RS. The nominator is requested to note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and to withdraw this hasty nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK you still maintain a "delete" comment for the Jewish entry, yet you create these and argue to keep them? You are in violation of WP:POINT and every comment like the above that you make furthers that violation. Please stop.Griswaldo (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Griswaldo, you are clearly violating WP:AGF, or for some reason you just dislike this topic on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and feel that picking on me instead is more productive. Please re-read everything I wrote on that AfD, and you will clearly see that I strongly recommended that that article be renamed as Jewish views on economics as per all articles in Category:Jewish views, making my "Delete" vote there conditional. As it stands that other article is too biased but the ones I created are all within WP:NPOV and are just stubs that need improvement and are not the last word on the subject by any means, as you can see from the "Keep" votes here. I would have been happy to discuss renaming this article too but I was left no option since it was nominated for deletion within 24 hours of its creation as a stub. IZAK (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Christians. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both but rename one. It's not appropriate to use wikipedia to perpetuate creaky anti-Jewish stereotyping. If you've already got "Islamic economics in the world", then change the other one to "Jewish economics in the world" for the sake of consistency and fairness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I personally see some similarities here to what happened in this case, but leave it up to other editors to decide if the it's the same thing going on here. In that case, a group of editors tried to get the article Allegations of Israeli Apartheid deleted by creating several other articles such as Allegations of Brazilian Apartheid, Allegations of American Apartheid, etc. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Cla: There is no "conspiracy" going on here and no other editors have been involved in my decision to expand an important topic in a WP:NPOV reliable manner, as well as the new Category:Economic history by religious and ethnic group. Stop conflating and mixing up separate topics. The term "Apartheid" is a specific and pejorative word, while Economic history is a legitimate field of study. IZAK (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, please see also. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This seems "POINTy" and slapdash - obviously it omits major basics, and I'm not sure for example why it has a section on Islam and slavery and the Arab slave trade, for example. The difference between this and economic history of the Jews is that Jews do struggle with strong anti-Semitic economic stereotypes, blaming them for everything from capitalism to communism (and oddly enough, with no one anyone on the spectrum seeming willing to give them any special thanks). I think that the Jewish article should be split up to address outside perceptions, Jewish philosophy, and objective data all separately, and the same may apply here - I think it's the confounding of these three that really tends to offend people. But in the final analysis, even this article, contentious scrap as it is, could survive under a half dozen tags until someone saw fit to update it into a more reasonable exploration of important issues. Wnt (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is little more than a coatrack and an example of original research by synthesis, obviously created as a counterpart to/retaliation for the equally bad Economic history of the Jews. Prioryman (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an interesting set of articles because it demonstrates the ease wigh which Wikipeida can be used for special pleading. the article Islamic economics in the world, which I noticed only after beginning ot expand Economic history of the Muslims is a notable case. A long and well-sourced article, the ordinary person coming to the page would very likely accept it at face value, not knowing that it paints a kind of Sunday-school version of economics and Islam. All sunshine, and very little light thrown on any negative aspects of the economic history in Islam, of which the history of all systems is filled. Economic history of the Jews is almost the opposite of Islamic economics in the world. Also a long and well-sourced article, it insidiously directs the reader by innuendo and omission to a sinister interpretation of the relationship between Jews and money. History on Wikipedia is very unlike physics or chemistry on Wikipedia. Too many history articles are mere special pleading and well-sourced polemics. If all three of these articles stay, the Christian and Muslim articles will certainly need long sections on kidnapping and piracy as historic and economically enterprising Christian and Muslim economic institutions.I.Casaubon (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very interesting read. It is useful for comparing how the "economic history" of christians, and jews differs from that of the muslims. That is the purpose of Wikipedia, isn't it?--Therexbanner (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork of Islamic economics in the world. I really liked the claim that this article satisfies WP:NPOV. The most informative part is simply a copy&paste version of content from Islamic banking; the remainder claims that the economic history of Muslims consists of slavery, piracy and plunder. That's NPOV? Really? One probably might write an article on this topic, but this isn't even the beginning of such an article. Huon (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficiently sourced, neutral, interesting comparative material. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The topic is highly notable. I understand that the article was created to prove a point, but in my firm view the editor in question has actually merely served to prove the opposite. In fact, in my view, the case for an economic/financial history of the Jews is actually very much stronger, since the Jews, unlike the Muslims, are also an ethnic group/tribe/race/culture (depending on viewpoint) and are clearly not just a religious grouping, and whilst there can be atheistic Jews there is no such thing as an atheistic Muslim. This topic is notable: [1]. Period.

The content of the article is, of course, biased and requires tidy up, the removal of some content and the insertion of much balancing content.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add to my earlier comment that I do feel that the title should be changed to 'Islamic economic history', per the majority of sources.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that would differ from the already existing Islamic economics in the world how?Griswaldo (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One (should be) a broad topic overview, one a historical narrative focused article, like we have Economy of the People's Republic of China and Economic history of the People's Republic of China. They may be some slight overlap but this can certainly be reduced. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The China example is apples and oranges. None of these articles are comparable in any way to an article on the economy of a nation-state.Griswaldo (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the example could just as easily have been Harvard University and History of Harvard University. It is very common to have an overview article for a topic and then a separate history article.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the same Use Common Sense argument I presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. This page was created as a counter-WP:POINT of the Jewish article. I believe there is a viable topic here, but it is already being covered in an existing entry. Even if there wasn't I'd say delete and start from scratch since this article is just as tainted as the Jewish one.Griswaldo (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep' I don't see why you have a vendetta against these articles, each culture has its own history with money. LiteralKa (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who has a vendetta? Please note that Islamic economics in the world already exists, that the nominator clearly stated this in the nomination, and no one is arguing that it shouldn't exist. This particular article was created to prove a point, not to further knowledge. The creator didn't even do enough research to figure out that the other article was already in place.Griswaldo (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete/userfy. First, I had a hard time finding a WP:RS that even attempts to cover such a vast topic. There are books on the econ history of various parts of the Muslim world in different epochs. I've added a fair number of them to further reading. This article could be written based on those so that it's an actual economic history instead of a parody collection of summaries from other articles. In its current form the article largely duplicates the one on Islamic economics in the world with a negative spin. Finally, I found one source that attempts to cover the topic as a whole: K. N. Chaudhuri (1999). "The Economy in Muslim Societies, chapter 5". In Francis Robinson (ed.). The Cambridge illustrated history of the Islamic world. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521669931. Unfortunately, its treatment of the topic is nothing resembling this article. So, I conclude that the only solution is to WP:Blow it up and start over. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Content is already covered by Islamic economics in the world. 18:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
~~Merge~~Stricken. content into Islamic economics in the world. Reason is that there are some important topics covered and sourced in the article under discussion that are now missing in the target article. For example, the Jizya, on mnon-pagan, non-Muslim peoples living under Muslim rule, had a significant role in the early centuries in supporting the Arab occupiers as a militarized upper class ruling large Christian populations in the former Roman Empire in the Near East and North Africa.I.Casaubon (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Economic history of the Arab world Reason is, Discussion of the Arab world and its history is an encyclopedic topic. I and other editors have now made this into a reasonable article on this topic, albeit with room for expansion. Islamic economics in the world is a pretty big topic. It probably makes more sense for economic history articles to focus on coherent topics, and Economic history of the Arab world is a long overdue companion to Economic history of Europe, Economic history of Africa, Economic history of Britain, Economic history of France, etc. Economic history of Germany is a particularly good model. The since unified German state is not much more than a century old, and the article does a reasonably good job of covering such topics as guilds, the rural economy and peasants, and the development of towns that were similar across the German world, just as many economic institutions have been similar across the Arab world.I.Casaubon (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have made only one trivial edit to the article since my comment above [2]. Nothing of substance has changed. The article is absolutely unsuitable as Economic history of the Arab world as you propose. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the substantive edits that I made last week. Particularly about waqf.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What's good about this appears to be a redundant copy of Islamic economics in the world and Islamic banking; the rest of this is just an attack page, created in a WP:POINTy attempt to mimic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. No worthwhile content not elsewhere duplicated, hence a WP:POVFORK. Suggest that Islamic economics in the world might be redirected to by this title after deletion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article as it now stands in fact contains a large number of sections and a good deal of material not found in Islamic economics in the world.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economic history of the Arab world I lifted the salvagable material form the article under discussion here and made a start on fresh article, Economic history of the Arab world.I.Casaubon (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe, unless someone expanded it, those are just copy-pastes from other articles. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need content forks, especially ones as bad as this. Swiftly cobbled together to make a point about the now defunct "Economic history of the Jews" page, this should just as swiftly be deleted. --Folantin (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Important point Whole sentences - indeed, whole paragraphs - of this article appear to be copied and pasted from other Wikipedia articles without attribution to the original authors. My understanding is that this is not compliant with Wikipedia policy. It also means the article is a redundant content fork of material available elsewhere. --Folantin (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to existing economics article, and move the slavery sections to its own article (unless such an article exists, and then just delete those sections outright) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sections are just exact copy-pastes of paragraphs from Islam and slavery and Arab slave trade. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As with Economic history of the Jews, there is a valid encyclopedic topic here. The comment above that a more proper construct should be Economic history of the Arab world is a good one. Unlike the ill-fated Economic history of the Jews, this is a keep-and-improve situation here, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Delete - Holy crap, I'm just gonna give up... Okay, third time is a charm here: Economic history of the Arab world takes care of the key information in this article, which had some sort of POINTy origin related to the ill-fated Economic history of the Jews piece. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Carrite and Adam Cuerden. This article seems to be an incarnation of content forking and POINT. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is a pointy coatrack that was created by copying much of another deleted article, using synthesis.
Delete deja vu all over again.[3] 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus clearly leans towards deletion, merging to Christianity and slavery is not needed as the contents came from there, and ending up with a redirect from this title to Christianity and slavery would be not really NPOV. Fram (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economic history of the Christians[edit]

AfDs related to this article:

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

Created as a joke, basically: a parody of Economic history of the Jews. See that AfD for further context. Could an actual encyclopedic article be written on this topic? Possibly. But until someone is interested in actually doing so, this WP:POINTY WP:COATRACK POV-skewed mess does not belong in the mainspace. 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify as the incarnation now is entirely a construct based on Christians supporting slavery. Frankly, an article tracing the trade routes developed as a result of the Crusades might make an interesting article. This one is not it. Collect (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete: No need to keep such a WP:POINTy article, subject is not so notable as to merit a placeholder, unless someone wants one. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify per Collect. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the coatrack/joke/pointy label, because even if a serious article could be constructed on this topic, of which I am not yet convinced, this is a ludicrous way to go about it: fundamentally unrelated texts and authors shoehorned together. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify per Collect.--Shrike (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy userfy this was a pointy article which, due to its incompleteness is very pointy and far from having any value to wikipedia. Passionless -Talk 07:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Additionally, I doubt that such a wide topic can be generalized in a non-speculative manner. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional Keep~~ ~~Unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Muslims, no target for merge has been proposed. Until I see a target to merge to, I vote Keep.~~ POV is not just about hyperbole to emphasize bad things, it is also using euphemisms to diminish bad things and worse, ignoring them. The connection between economics and slavery cannot be severed, it can only be painted over or hidden. Anarchangel (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economic history of the Jews was deleted at AfD; it had a similar smear, and a slam-dunk counterargument, part of which I wrote. Christians and Muslims were forbidden to lend money, Jews were forbidden other occupations, et voila, Christians complaining that Jews were lending money. Who knows, maybe there is a counterargument for slavery. I doubt it. Admit it, censor it, whatever; I no longer believe anyone here is interested in the truth. Anarchangel (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just because the article was created as a WP:POINT doesn't mean it should be deleted as a WP:POINT; reliable sources seem to exist backing the notability of this topic. No prejudice against stubifying or merging. TotientDragooned (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator is violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA by attacking the creation of this article (by me). It is highly offensive to call it a "joke" when it conforms to all WP standards of WP:CITE; WP:RS and WP:NPOV. See Economic history of the Jews as an example of this genre of articles. This article was nominated for deletion withing 24 hours of its creation without any serious effort at discussing it. Tens of thousands of WP articles have been created this way. The article is a serious WP:STUB with many WP:RS. The nominator is requested to note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and to withdraw this hasty nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you recommending "delete" for the Jewish entry? Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, as you did when you created this entry.Griswaldo (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Griswaldo, you are clearly violating WP:AGF, or for some reason you just dislike this topic on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and feel that picking on me instead is more productive. Please re-read everything I wrote on that AfD, and you will clearly see that I strongly recommended that that article be renamed as Jewish views on economics as per all articles in Category:Jewish views, making my "Delete" vote there conditional. As it stands that other article is too biased but the ones I created are all within WP:NPOV and are just well-sourced stubs that need improvement and are not the last word on the subject by any means, as you can see from the "Keep" votes here. I would have been happy to discuss renaming this article too but I was left no option since it was nominated for deletion within 24 hours of its creation as a stub. IZAK (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Muslims. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I personally see some similarities here to what happened in this case, but leave it up to other editors to decide if the it's the same thing going on here. In that case, a group of editors tried to get the article Allegations of Israeli Apartheid deleted by creating several other articles such as Allegations of Brazilian Apartheid, Allegations of American Apartheid, etc. Cla68 (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Cla: There is no "conspiracy" going on here and no other editors have been involved in my decision to expand an important topic in a WP:NPOV reliable manner, as well as the new Category:Economic history by religious and ethnic group. Stop conflating and mixing up separate topics. The term "Apartheid" is a specific and pejorative word, while Economic history is a legitimate field of study. IZAK (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, please see also. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (without prejudice to future attempts) to Christianity and slavery, a well established article. There is a place for a more general article, and I would support its creation, but right now it doesn't have any of the content needed to build one, outside the narrow category of slavery, and you could probably think of a better title once you got your content together. I don't think that you should lose anything in such a merge. Please note that I do not support the deletion of this category of articles in general, only the merging of this particular one due to its similarity to an existing article. Wnt (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Wnt: The Economic history of the Christians is not "just" about the slave era. Many scholars study economics from a Christian perspective. See the introduction. The article is a stub in its formative stages and includes much more. IZAK (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, there are several notable sources listed in the introduction. The problem is that it doesn't actually tell us what they say, but just lists them with a very brief description of what they're about. When I put aside the part that could be merged with Christianity and slavery I don't feel like I'm looking even at a stub. Admittedly, this could be redressed rather easily if you have the sources in hand, but the same would be true even if the article got deleted, and certainly if it is merely merged. I should note again that I don't have any desire to prevent the recreation of the article once it covers a bit more ground - someone could certainly add enough in a day to change my vote to keep, if interested. But I'm not sure anyone's really working on the article, because of the circumstance of its creation. Wnt (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is little more than a coatrack and an example of original research by synthesis, obviously created as a counterpart to/retaliation for the equally bad Economic history of the Jews. Prioryman (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. Economic history is just as important as political, cultural, and religious history. Assuming that Jews, Muslims, and Christians, have certain cultural and religious aspects, there's no reason why religion might not influence the economic behavior ass well. Plus it is well-sourced.--Therexbanner (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No doubt this article's creation is the result of Economic history of the Jews, but that does not negate the quality of the sources or notability of this article. If Wikipedia is going to host articles on economics and religion, then the rules should apply to everyone - not just Jews. Perhaps an alternative would be creating a mega article that enumerates religion/ethnic groups and their economic history/financial legacy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Christianity and slavery, or delete. I'm not even sure if an article on the "economic history of the Christians" could be written (for example because economically there's little in common between the Christians in western Europe and those in Ethiopia), but this is not even the basis of such an article. Huon (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to merge: Text is an exact copy-paste of the leads to Christianity and slavery and Invisible Churches (Slavery). The material existed on Wikipedia long before this article (Why fork if you're not going to add anything new, anyway?) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There is a lot more that rightly could and should be added. I just dropped mention of an older book into its lede, Wiki's article just on that classic book is 27k. Apparently the parody missed that one. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There is considerable coverage of the topic of Christian economics in general: [4], and within that more than enough for a detailed historical treatment. The title is clumsy however and should be 'Christian economic history'

I understand that the editor created this and similar articles to prove a point, but in my view they have actually served to prove the opposite. In fact, in my view, the case for an economic/financial history of the Jews is actually very much stronger, since the Jews, unlike the Christians, are also an ethnic group/tribe/race/culture (depending on viewpoint) and are clearly not just a religious grouping, and whilst there can be atheistic Jews there is no such thing as an atheistic Christians.

The content of the article is, of course, biased and requires tidy up, the removal of some content and the insertion of balancing content.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the same Use Common Sense argument I presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)\[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. This article was created as a counter-WP:POINT to the Jewish one. There is a viable topic here but the entry is too tainted to exist and should be deleted so someone who isn't violating policy (WP:POINT) can start afresh.Griswaldo (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/delete or stub to lead. Currently, the body of the article uses zero sources about the general topic. It chooses to select two sub-topics, which are thinly sourced, and presents as them as the mainstream view of the whole field. The two sections don't even discuss slavery from an economics viewpoint. This is a fail-grade WP:COATRACK essay. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the lead is useless a summary of the topic as well. It's merely a bibliography in prose format. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't see why you have a vendetta against these articles, each culture has its own history with money. LiteralKa (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are Christians part of "a culture"?Griswaldo (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely pointless article purportedly on an incredibly varied non-cultural grouping, but which actually focuses (poorly) on a single issue - slavery. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; we already have Christianity and slavery to cover what this article is ostensibly trying to cover. No prejudice against the creation of a serious article on Economic history of Christianity, though. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Necrotheap and as a violation of policy against content forks. Article apparently quickly cobbled together as a pointy counterpart to now deleted "Economic history of the Jews" via false analogy (more appropriate analogues would be "Economic History of the Gypsies/Kurds/Berbers/Swahili" etc.). No evidence economic historians have written books under this title. Bad, undue weight-violating page. --Folantin (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Important point Whole paragraphs of this article appear to be copied and pasted virtually unaltered from other Wikipedia articles without attribution to the original authors. My understanding is that this is not compliant with Wikipedia policy. It also means the article is a redundant content fork of material available elsewhere. --Folantin (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We had an Economic history of the Jews that coatracked anti-semitic canards, a pointy Economic history of the Muslims that recycled existing material and may well represent a content fork, and then this even-more-pointy, even-less-worthy piece of junk. As with Economic history of the Jews, there is a valid encyclopedic article to be written here. Also as with that article, this piece of crap needs to be blown to bits so the backhoe can lay a proper foundation for a real article. For the record: if anyone ever wants to get serious about this topic a good source would be C. Osborne Ward's two-volume The Ancient Lowly: A History of the Ancient Working People from the Earliest Known Period to the Adoption of Christianity by Constantine. [1888]. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is also a fairly vast literature on the "primitive communism" of the early Christian communities, if I'm not mistaken. Christianity and slavery would be a fairly enormous sub-topic... This would be a really big, really difficult article if done correctly. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another sub-section: Role of the Christian church in feudal Europe... Carrite (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Carrite. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is a pointy coatrack that was created by copying much of another deleted article, using synthesis.
Delete clever retort to Jews and money but WP:POINTy to put it in article space. Would have deserved a smile if released in user space instead (especially on April 1) and linked in appropriate project-space venues. As things are, WP:TROUT to the author. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular ^talk 11:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HotPads.com[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB extremely low sourcing what so ever and none found through Gnews The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nearly nominated this myself last night; the only reason for not doing so was the age of the article caused me to pause. It reads like advertising to me and per WP:ORG doesn't appear to meet notability critertia. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The press page (http://hotpads.com/pages/press/recentNews.htm) has links to recent articles from the AP, NYT and Fast Company which establish notability. Previous versions (such as 28-dec-2010) did not read like an advertisement. I will revert changes and watch for spammy updates. --Matthew Komorowski (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That still reads like an advert and the companies press releases do not establish notability. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Hmm. Poor article that appears to have been used for advertising, but this and this are definitely reliable and, depending on interpretation, significant enough to meet WP:WEB. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable website and WP is not a directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. HotPads.com receives a feature in the Washington Post by Andrea Caumont. The nontrivial coverage in this article from USA Today goes beyond a directory listing in that HotPads.com receives scholarly analysis:
Pros: This is where to begin if you're starting from a premise as broad as "rent or buy." In addition to a search that shows sale and rental properties together by monthly payment, it has a "rent ratio heat map." This shows the areas that are better to buy in, vs. those where it's more practical to rent, according to the price-to-rent ratios (an affordability calculation arrived at by dividing the price to buy a house by the annual cost of renting a similar house). There's also a map of homes in foreclosure and listings for those properties.
Cons: Some rogue listings mistakenly appear in the wrong place — for example, a listing on a Washington, D.C., map was actually for a property in Oak Harbor, Wash.; a rental in Upper Manhattan was actually for a property in West New York, N.J.
These two sourcs are enough to establish notability. However, there are more references, all of which are already present in the Wikipedia article. See this article from Washington Business Journal (titled "HotPads gets new digs, plus a cool $2M in funding") and this article from TechJournal South. Significant coverage in four independent reliable sources, two of which are from indubitably major publications, substantiates the fact that notability per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (web) is fully established. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep the whole shebang with leave to renominate any of these individually. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McNulty (footballer)[edit]

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

Article about a player who has not played in a fully professional league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL, and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, failing WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the notability criteria listed above. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the League of Ireland isn't fully professional, it is the national league, and the league is a reasonably high ranking one in terms of UEFA coefficients. It is ranked just behind Finland, which wiki says is fully pro and therefore allowed to have player profiles. I have proposed lots of deletions of Irish footballers who weren't notable, but these players are notable. Some of these players have won national football awards, both as individuals and with clubs, which certainly makes them notable. These players do not fail WP:GNG because they receive significant, reliable coverage from independent, secondary sources.

Also, why are only Cork City players up for discussion here? Should you not have listed the majority of players from all clubs in the League of Ireland and IFA Premiership if you're going about a mass deletion? Hsetne (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the players meet WP:GNG and are borderline WP:NFOOTBALL Mondogmon (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They fail WP:NTEMP, and unfortunately they are on the wrong side of that NFOOTBALL border! Giant Snowman 14:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether we think the League of Ireland is (or was) fully-professional or not, delete Gearóid Morrissey, Spillane, Kenneally, Murphy, Kavanagh, Holland, Escudé-Candau, Krzanowski and Rory Morrissey as these players have not even played at the top level of Irish football or any other league that is sufficient for them to pass WP:NFOOTY (I think that's everyone - long list!). J Mo 101 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm a little surprised that all 20 of these players are AfD'd together. WP:BUNDLE says "If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately. Or to put it more succinctly, if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not." This AfD lumps players with long careers at the top level of their country's football, appearances in Europe, and plenty of media coverage, in with 19-year-olds who only just made their first-team debut. Struway2 (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will hold my hand up and say that including the experienced players with honours alongside younger players without them was a mistake on my part. I nominated them because there was nothing substantial in the articles about their careers in European competition. As a result of your findings, I have no objection to removing O'Halloran, Horgan and O'Brien from the discussion. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep O'Halloran. As far as football notability is concerned, player made his senior debut for Cork City aged 17 in the 1998/99 Cup-Winners' Cup against CSKA Kiev, and played for them as they progressed through two qualifying rounds of the 2005/06 UEFA Cup to the rounds proper of that competition against Slavia Prague. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't enough media coverage to pass WP:BIO on a player who, apart from playing in Europe (with Derry City and Shelbourne as well as Cork City), is a former under-21 international with a long career behind him at the top level of Irish football, including League of Ireland titles with two different clubs, took his club to a tribunal to obtain release when they failed to pay him, and has his own regular column on a major Irish football website. Struway2 (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everyone but O'Halloran, who has played at a sufficent level in European competitions - the rest all fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's factually incorrect. There's a lot more players in the above list than just Greg O'Halloran who've played in European competitions. Hsetne (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Horgan. Played in the same games as O'Halloran in the 2005/06 UEFA Cup. Played in the Champions League qualifiers in 2006/07, progressing through one round then losing to Crvena Zvezda (Red Star Belgrade). Player has a 10-year career at the top level of Irsh football and won the LoI with Cork City. Sorry these !votes are coming individually by player, but it takes time to check each one, and there are an awful lot of football-related deletions currently open, not just at this AfD. Struway2 (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mark McNulty, Ian Turner, Stephen Mulcahy, Greg O'Halloran, Davin O'Neill, Vinny Sullivan, Derek O'Brien, Alan Carey, Timmy Kiely, Neal Horgan have all played as full-time pros when the League of Ireland was fully professional. Shane Duggan also played as a full-time pro, but was deleted. Hsetne (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there were seasons in which the LoI was fully-professional, do you have reliable sources to prove it? because if so, it would be constructive to bring them up at the Fully pro leagues talk page. There was a discussion once before that didn't really convince people that it ever had been. Struway2 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be difficult to get reliable sources and I'd prefer not to get dragged into that discussion at the moment. I do agree with comments in that discussion in relation to how "professional" is defined, and that even if the League of Ireland isn't full time now that players in it are notable, taking the UEFA Coefficient ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficient#Current_ranking ) the League of Ireland is ranked just below the Veikkausliiga. The UEFA Coefficient is a much better indication of whether a league's players are notable than wikipedia's definitions.

I would like to direct attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability: "Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below: (1) Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional. (2) Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition." They should cover those players. Also "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability". Hsetne (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to sporting notability, the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability is an essay which was never accepted outside the project. WP:NSPORTS, which is significantly more restrictive, is the current guideline. Struway2 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but WP:NSPORTS is seriously flawed. There should be some sort of revision made to WP:NFOOTBALL to take into account official governing body league rankings such as the UEFA coefficients as mentioned above. If these players don't satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL, they still do satisfy WP:GNG. Hsetne (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep O'Brien. Played for St Patricks Athletic as they progressed through two qualifying rounds of the 2008/09 UEFA Cup to the rounds proper of that competition against Hertha Berlin. Struway2 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - close this AfD and renominate any that haven't played European football - I think the amount of articles nominated/evidence presented etc. etc. is getting a bit confusing. Giant Snowman 15:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all They satisfy WP:GNG, they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Loitid (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avionyx[edit]

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

I read WP:COMPANY and I don't think this one is notable enough. Jeff Song (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no refs provided to establish notability; created by an SPA so probable spam. Dialectric(talk) 01:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unambiguous advertising for yet another behind the scenes tech business whose activities are described in the vaguest terms: an engineering services company, providing on-site and outsourced embedded software and hardware engineering services for electronic equipment manufacturers requiring strict process control and quality assurance as in the avionics, medical, automotive, railway and other industries. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battery (drink)[edit]

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

Non-notable product info. If the catalog info was cut out, there'd be no content. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. I could find no coverage, and no reliable/independent citations are provided in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria--יום יפה (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Nugent-Hopkins[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline.He is an undrafted junior hockey player who won WHL Rookie of the year, but the community should decide if this satisfies the WP:NHOCKEY guideline for ice hockey players. Onthegogo (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but because he passes WP:GNG. Besides the one in-depth article already cited, and the ten or so other cites that are various levels of routine/trivial, there are a number of other in-depth article about him: Faceoff.com, but credited to the Vancouver Sun, TSN, Vancouver Sun, though admittedly a little short, Calgary Sun, etc. That's not to mention the numerous trivial/routine mentions of him if you do a google news search. Additionally, the fact that he's a featured blogger on NHL.com, adds to his notability and GNG as well. (As for the question posed by the nom about winning the WHL Rookie of the year; no, I don't think that satisfies WP:NHOCKEY, but, again, thats moot as he clearly satisfies WP:GNG.) Ravendrop 22:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it hasn't been explicitly defined, I think the major league's ROTY awards fit NHOCKEY. In this case, its moot due to the extensive coverage received elsewhere. Canada Hky (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rookie of the year hasn't generally been considered one of the major awards. However, its a moot point because he clearly meets WP:GNG with non-routine coverage in papers in multiple cities including a national story on TSN. And thats just using the links above, there are many others when you look on google. -DJSasso (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously, obviously notable per above. Onthegogo really should re-read WP:BEFORE, because he is clearly just wasting our time with this nomination. And personally, I would consider the ROY a major award, but that is a discussion that should be held at WT:HOCKEY than here. Reso lute 14:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm of the opinion the ROY would satisfy WP:HOCKEY's requirements. But since this subject meets GNG anyway, it's an easy keep. Patken4 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - speedy deletion per lacking evidence of notability (also unreferenced BLP). Materialscientist (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Cooper Filmmaker[edit]

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

The article is an unsourced BLP that show no notability and is about a non-notable filmmaker. Article fails WP:BIO Jessy ^T^/^C 22:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had originally proposed this through WP:BLPPROD. This article is unsourced and appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Enfcer (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article about a 14 year old, who hasn't achieved notability. Cullen328 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given how little information is in the article, it's difficult to even look for references. Everything I did find, however, points to a non-notable person. Rnb (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dusk and Dawn[edit]

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

Not really an ambiguous phrase, as none of the examples provided on the page include "Dusk and Dawn", or even come passingly close enough to justify disambiguation. bd2412 T 21:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a phrase that needs disambiguation. DAB pages already exist for "dusk" and "dawn". --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 4 April 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) 00:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No matches at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here requires disambiguation, because all the phrases are different from each other. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Woodford[edit]

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

Not a notable person. A lot of the info just promotes her JDDJS (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Her name generates a few relevant Google News hits and a few more Google search results. BurtAlert (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a former warden of San Quentin State Prison and a former director of the CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Woodford merits an article. Thezacstone (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Content of the article notwithstanding, the sources rise to WP:GNG. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ms. Woodford is a notable individual. stefunny98 (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore comments made by sock. JDDJS (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that a 3000+ word biographical article in the New York times [5] pretty much guarantees notability Bob House 884 (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal Fitzgerald[edit]

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

The article claims that Micheal Fitzgerald is an actor who is also a race car driver. The article lists no reliable sources that Fitzgerald is an actor. IMDB is in the External Links, but IMDB is not considered a reliable source WP:RS/IMDB. His race car driving notability is not established by an article about Sony working with his employer, Cork Racing, that only mentions Fitzgerald's name in passing. Another reference to his employer's website should not be used as the sole source of notability. A third reference mentions a Michael Fitzgerald being named best dressed man at an event; however, Michael is spelled differently ("ae" vs "ea") and does not otherwise qualify that this is the Michael Fitzgerald who starred in movie "XYZ" and is a race car driver with "ABC". This article is potentially building Frankenstein WP:DBTF, as no reference even mention the actor and driver are the same person. There is a press release that I found on the Internet that supports this article, but the press release is from Fitzgerald's employer, Cork Racing, and is hosted online by a PR firm. This article is lacking reliable sources that are not affiliated with his employer and that establish this is all the same Micheal (or Michael) Fitzgerald. Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has been updated with further reference to the subject's recent acting profile. The subject has been named in the Irish Examiner article (a 100 year + national publication), dated 2006 as a driver for Cork Racing. Much effort has been completed in validating the information sources and notability. The subject should not be labelled as dubious because Micheal is reported as Michael. This is a common translation error. The mispronunciation/mispelling of the subject's native name in a report should not be negative. Hunterscarlett (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Hunterscarlett (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Bagumba (talk • contribs) is the nominator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Hunterscarlett (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Irish Examiner source is the sole independent reliable source in the article, but this three-sentence source's subject is Sony and Cork Racing, and Fitzgerald is only mentioned in passing. The dubious tag placed throughout the article is not so much for the spelling, but the fact that it is not verifiable that the actor and the race car driver are the same person per WP:DBTF. —Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Arguably fails verifiability but definitely fails notability not matter how one chooses to look at it. For general notability, I cannot find any coverage of significance to match this Micheal Fitzgerald regardless of it being pelled "ea" or "ae". As an actor, his imdb resume shows only one acting credit being "Agent #1" in a single episode of a TV series. As a race car driver, it is asserted he races Formula Ford which is a lower level series, and for which I can find no coverage to indicate that he is a notable driver. Perhaps somebody with some motorsport expertise can weigh in on whether he passes any of the motorsport critieria set out in WP:NSPORT. -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject passes verifiability as proved by The Irish Examiner article. The subject passes notability because the subject has actually achieved more acting and writing credits than actually listed. The subject will gain further notability and reference with the 2011 releases. Hunterscarlett (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regards his racing experience Formula Ford is not a professional racing series, nor is Cork Racing an employer. In fact if you look up the webpage michealfitzgerald.com it automatically redirects to corkracing.ie indicating it is possibly a webpage set up by the subject himself. As for the acting experience he is one of probably hundreds, if not thousands, of actors who have had minor parts in the series' 20+ year run. I can see no current notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlough (talk • contribs) 21:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darlough has very few edits outside this topic

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further references added Hunterscarlett (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)— Hunterscarlett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The new sources are not from third parties; they are all affiliated with Fitzgerald. WP:DBTF is mostly resolved. The best dressed man article is still dubious if it is him based on the claim that they look alike, but that doesnt establish his notability anyways. —Bagumba (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing any true notability, minor acting parts, no coverage of significance. Off2riorob (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article shows as much, if not more notability and interest, as other motorsport drivers and Formula Ford drivers such as Wayne Boyd, Conor Daly, Tim Mullen. Many newspapers in Ireland which would have further references only publish in hard copy. I think there is a big danger that this is turning into an American Idol vote instead of an objective collation of growing achievements. Hisensed (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)— Hisensed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - How does this article show notability? His career as an actor/writer is not substantial. And there is barely any mention of his motorsport activity. What exactly is he notable for? -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I echo the question "How does this article show notability?" Just stating it without explaining why is not enough. Comparison with other articles is of little relevance (see WP:OTHERSTUFF) even if it is true that those other articles do not indicate more notability than this one, which is open to debate. I don't know what you mean by "an American Idol vote". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is within the scope of WP:MOTOR, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Hisensed (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a very strong argument. Please explain this article's notability on its own merits. —Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a valid article on a person who has achieved in Motorsport (in Formula Ford) and is achieveing in an acting career, This article is within the scope of WP:MOTOR, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. Exisitng articles exist with respect to other Formula Ford drivers. More Examples: Callum MacLeod, Josh Hill, Tim Blanchard, Tom Blomqvist, Jeremy Metcalfe in additon to Wayne Boyd, Conor Daly, Tim Mullen. This article demonstrates the individual is achieving in two distinctive careers in 3 different countries on 2 different continents. Hisensed (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It needs to be questioned whether the negative comments are from users without an interest in motorsports and this might cloud an objective commentary.Hisensed (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"keep" struck through as user has already registered a keep"
Comment The idea that only users with an interest in the topic should comment is foreign to the nature of Wikipedia. I am also not at all sure why being an outsider might "cloud an objective commentary": if anything I can see a reason why the opposite might apply. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ With respect, one of the main point of contention raised is that that Micheal is 2 different persons. If that is not now an issue as, then that particular point needs to be addressed and corrected while further efforts are made to address the citations that have been deemed dubious or further 3rd party sources needed. The issues need to be seperated to enable each to be solved on its own merits—Hunterscarlett([User talk:Hunterscarlett|talk]]) 01:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"keep" struck through as user has already registered a keep"

It is still a problem. There is still no one source that says they are the same person. What is needed is an independent reliable third-party that says "Micheal Fitzgerald, the actor, is also a race car driver." See examples in WP:DBTF. —Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should order some fingerprints if the current photo match ups are not substantial ;-). hunters 01:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Under Construction Further 3rd party refences being sourced to satisfy the queries. Article tagged with "Underconstruction" tag. hunters 11:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

*KeepThis man is doing Irish racing drivers proud and his uncredited racing films are superb. He is proving there is life beyond racing using the skills gained in racing. A true life coach in the making. Keep her lit boyo! Irelands loss is Australia's gain. JdRacingPaddy (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JdRacingPadd has few edits outside this topic

Unfortunately none of that relates at all to Wikipedia's notability criteria. In fact it amounts to no more than a long way of saying "keep because I like it". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe issues are:

1] Can the article facts be verified. {YES, as per the references).

2) Is there evidence of notability? (MAYBE, The subject is only notable in Ireland?)

3] Does subject have less references or is less notable than a number of other subject articles (NO, The subject has shown more distinct references and equal notablility as other aticles, why is that every fact in this artilce that has a reference has been further challenged for more reference when the following examples of similar subject material on Wikiepdia have multiple facts with little or no references at all?) Examples: Tom Kimber-Smith;Valle Mäkelä;Wil Traval;Peter Scarf;Mark Furze;Andrew Bibby;Myles Pollard. The main issue here is double standards, one harsh application of standards to this article while other articles in the same sphere are accepted. JdRacingPaddy (talk) 00:55, 01 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As previously commented above, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an acceptable argument. You are invited to be bold and improve those articles, or nominate for deletion articles that you have found do not meet standards. —Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. None of the "keeps" from SPAs (one of which looks to me suspiciously like a sockpuppet) really addresses the notability issue. I have looked at all of the references cited, and they all suffer form one or other of the following limitations: (1) does not mention Micheal Fitzgerald, (2) makes only brief passing mention of Micheal Fitzgerald, (3) not a reliable and independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bite the newcomers "Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account." Trying to make a contribution with motorsport related facts from Ireland. Do not appreciate the "biting". Very deterred from further contributions. New users must spend more time under these "biting" attacks than time to research to add to articles or or add new articles.JdRacingPaddy (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I did not say "one of which looks to me suspiciously like a sockpuppet" on the basis of the account being new: I said it on the basis of a careful study of the account's editing history. If there is evidence of sockpuppetry then to hide the fact because the possible sock puppet account is a new one would not be constructive. Secondly, if someone sets up an account and uses it only to edit in one area, then why is it offensive to call it a single purpose account? Why would anyone new to Wikipedia coming across that expression even think that it is offensive? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: JamesBWatson (talk • contribs) is the creator of a secondary wikipedia account.JamesAWatson. - hunters 23:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterscarlett (talk • contribs) [reply]

WP:NOTAGAIN"If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination. If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article." My thoughts exactly - this article needs time for the sources to come in. They are out there. hunters 00:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterscarlett (talk • contribs)

The nomination looks to me as though it is intended seriously. On what grounds do you categorise it as "frivolous"?
There has never been an earlier deletion discussion on this article. As far as I can see your remarks about an earlier nomination for deletion must refer to a PROD, which you removed a little over two months ago. The author of an article removing a PROD from their own article does not constitute "a consensus to keep it in the past". Or have I missed something? I have searched thoroughly, and cannot find anything else relevant. As for "this article needs time for the sources to come in", aren't two months enough? If not then the sources must be rather hard to find. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Time

The article was created on [03:55 31 January 2011].
Before a cup of coffee could be made to celebrate my first contribution to Wikiepedia. The article was nominated for speedy deletion [03:57 31 January 2011]. The kettle hadn't even had a chance to boil.
Inching along with the new markup language reference sources were added [05:34 31 January 2011]. It was a fair contribution for a first effort. I thought it was a good achievment to leave it at that and go to soccer training.
Before I had a full nights sleep on it. The article was proposed for deletion via WP:PROD BLP [17:37 31 January 2011].
Before the week was out. The article was supplemented with specific citations as requested [00:59 03 February 2011].
On [00:17 17 March 2011] references to the article subjects education background were removed.
On the same day, [02:41 17 March 2011], the article's citations were removed.
Further, on the same day, [21:45 17 March 2011], the article was painted with further citation requests.
)On the same day,[08:06 22 March 2011], the article was nominated for deletion. hunters 00:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Work & Life / Wikiepdia Balance Being a new contributor to Wikipedia, The first article contribution was made in good faith. The timeline shows that when more experienced users have questioned the article, the advice was addressed. However, in more recent weeks, this has become harrassment and is dressed up with references to Wikiepdia protocols which is unfair as how are new users to be aware of the library of protocols when they start. Being a full time student of Media(Communication & Journalism) with humble resources, this user cannot justify extended "chat room" discussions from hidden usernames. I would prefer to manage this time best by further contributions and references when I can, college schedule and life permitting. Not all subjects have instant modern internet enabled archive newspaper references, most exist only in traditional paper form. This whole exercise demonstrates new contributers are not welcome to wikipedia. Users are not given time to develop their wikiepdia skillset and articles are not given time to build the sources hunters 00:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You should develop the article in your own user space until it meets quality standards before reintroducing it to the mainspace per WP:MINDREADER. —Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fan go fóill; ~~Coimeád~~ Is feidir libh an airteagal as Gaeilge a léamh ar Vicipéid anois. Ta suil agam do deanamh sibh an athas oraibh. JdRacingPaddy (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Start Irish to English Translation) Wait It is now possible for you to read the article in Irish at Vicipéid(The Irish Wikiepdia). It is hoped you will be pleased with this effort. (End Irish to English Translation) In additon, hopefully this Irish translation will grow the Irish/English Wikipedia integration. It is planned that this translation will enable the wider Irish speaking community to contribute the neccessary sources and references to the article.JdRacingPaddy (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient independent sources to establish notability. Claims that the article has not had enough time to mature are exaggerated: It was created on Jan 31st and it is now early April. If sources haven't been found yet, that most probably means there are none. --Crusio (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any detailed coverage of him in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Féadfar an t-alt seo a fheidhmiú ar fhoras sealadach gan fuireach lena dhéanamh amach an bhfuarthas na nua-shócmhainni;JdRacingPaddy (talk)

Comment - Creating an unreferenced article on the Irish Wikipedia in hopes that maybe somebody in the future might add some reliable sources does not address the fact that this article in the English Wikipedia does not have such sources. -- Whpq (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep on the issue of "keep vs delete", no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Semington Aqueduct[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. not all aqueducts are notable especially one as unremarkable as this one. this one gets nothing in gnews [6] gbooks reveals WP mirrors. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I see that there is a category for navigable aqueducts in England. Is there anything that differentiates other aqueducts that have articles (and presumably have been considered notable to this point) from, say, this one? Kansan (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Semington Aqueduct article. Mjroots (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is only likely to cause confusion - they are two different structures that happen to be located near each other. Merging articles when their subjects have a similar location, while keeping other equally notable subject's articles separate is not very useful.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree with the nominator that this aqueduct is not notable enough to sustain a separate article. However, I see no reason why the info should be deleted, and it would quite happily sit as a section on the Semington Aqueduct article. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Necrothesp (talk) 01:25, 15 March 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) 02:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally, named bridges are regarded as being notable, and this is one of a small number of aqueducts in England, and one of only several to have been recently constructed.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Semington Aqueduct as the two topics go naturally together and the naming is not so clear that we can be sure that readers will be wanting the old or the new. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two totally different structures. I think that readers will benefit from the clarity in having two separate articles. As noted above, named bridges are generally notable. Unscintillating (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Sculpture[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Insufficient secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 21:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find much in the way of reliable sourcing, doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article suggests that this company is tangentially related to some artists who may be doing something notability but I am finding no claim in the article which would indicate notability for the article's subject. Beyond that, I am not finding anything in Google which would indicate this company's notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Police (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mumbai Police (film) (2nd nomination)

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

The article is about a film that has not started production. Nominating for deletion per WP:NFF. Arfaz (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete production hasnt started yet Bob House 884 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see the first nomination. Salih (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NFF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodabottle (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Medallion Shield Final[edit]

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

This article about an individual final in a schools rugby competition fails to meet notability guidlines. Article lacks content of note to merit a separate article and the subject matter is covered adequately in the main competition article at Medallion Shield. Weejack48 (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a game between two secondayr schools. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Days Gone By[edit]

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

Non notable future release per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSONGS Mo ainm~Talk 16:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSONGS. HrZ (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's confirmed that it will be the new single. It does not fail WP:CRYSTAL as there is a reliable source provided. 63.248.11.9 (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Listed for 2 weeks with only one delete !vote aside from the nominator which is based on WP:NOEFFORT. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page or somebody can be WP:BOLD and just do it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jolt gum[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Ridernyc (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article that originated two years ago as poorly written and has not improved since then. If no one steps forward during this AfD to improve the article, delete and wait for someone with an interest in the topic to come along and recreate. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jolt Cola. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smencil[edit]

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

Non-notable product. No significant independent coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 04:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources only indicate passing mention by school fundraisings selling Smencils. Aka scratch-and-sniff pencil. But no reliable sources indicate significant coverage to justify its individual article, and if ever found the article needs to be substantially rewritten. Delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No signifcant coverage provided at the article. Google News finds just press releases or passing mentions. --MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

qi peng[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am admittedly not an art expert, but I fail to see how this man passes WP:ARTIST. The article, which is without references and the external links provide little in the way of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. The article was started by a now blocked account that spammed several other articles with links from a blacklisted site and those links were written by, yes, qi peng. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Smacks of being promotional. No opinion as to notability. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN and non-encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A Paquin III[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 the BLP, thus does not meet GNG or BASIC. The subject also does not meet POLITICIAN in that he has not held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, he merely ran for state office. This article was previously deleted via PROD but reinstated after the decision was contested. J04n(talk page) 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails our notability guideline for politicians, and there is no evidence that he has received in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources for his political consulting work. Sources provided don't qualify. Cullen328 (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my prod rationale. I could find no non-trivial sources independent of the subject. The best simply noted his election losses. And for the record, I'm not an American, let alone a "whiny democrat" as suggested by the ~~pot~~ editor contesting the prod. Or perhaps Joe was the target of that. None the less, I have no COI here. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles about non-notable local politicians are inevitably targets for either puffery (as is the case here) or attack jobs, given the absence of reliable sources on which a proper article can be built. That's why we delete them. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please point out the "Puffery" as it doesnt seem to appear to me... Merriam Webster defines a politician as: 1: a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government 2a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession. This subject falls under at least one if not both of those definitions. As far as verifiable sources - does anyone here know about google? It took 10 seconds to find the following: High Traffic Local Media Outlet lists subject as "Who is 'Hot' in RI" http://www.golocalprov.com/politics/side-of-the-rhode-whos-hot-and-whos-not-in-ri-politics/ Yet another piece from same outlet. http://www.golocalprov.com/politics/gop-candidates-downplay-party-endorsement-of-opponents/ Local Paper http://www.cranstononline.com/view/full_story/10084730/article-No-seat-goes-unchallenged-for-Cranston-City-Council?instance=right_col_latest_news State Paper http://www.projo.com/ri/cranston/content/CRANSTON_RACES_24_07-24-10_U5JAA0O_v17.3a691ba.html State News http://southcounty.abc6.com/content/clegg-congressional-campaign-announces-new-public-appeal Need I go on? It may need some cleaning up, but this is an accurate reflection of a person who makes a difference in the world of RI politics, especially given his age. I do know the subject, but everything I have posted here is factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.166.51 (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to argue for keeping the article, you need to provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject -- sources that discusses the subject directly and in detail. Not trivial passing mention (two of your links do nothing more than state his name), not some political spiel for his failed local district elections for which he clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, not your personal opinions of the state of RI politics, and certainly not Merriam-Webster's definition of politician. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Political consultant who once ran for state office and lost. None of the puffery (and yes, that's what it is) is sourced; note particularly the unverified claim that he "has been recognized on numerous occasions by such esteemed organizations as..." --MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trithogonal[edit]

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

Seems to be a neologism, google search only finds two authors who've used it, and those are in the context of matrices rather than lines. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Non-notable neologism. The only usage in Google Web Books and Scholar is for a completely different meaning relating to tridiagonal matrices. No hits on Zentralblatt. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unneeded. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Newly invented, useless word. And don't the copyright notices on the bottom make it eligible for some kind of immediate deletion? Dingo1729 (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nergaal (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not seem legitimate, and it is poorly source, even if that last text is trying to pass as a source, which it is failing to do. Heck, speedy deleting wouldn't be a bad idea either. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardis Technology Park[edit]

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

pure unadulterated spam WuhWuzDat 19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This user is trying to vandalize topics edited by me after taking things personally, as such this is pure vandalism. and should be speedy kept according to WP:DENY. for more information please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA).

On the note of credibility and importance I share with you 1 very credible link for now , if you need more just search google. this is the link to United Nations Industrial Development Organization regarding the park in question. [7] Thanks, and Wuhwuzdat, lets be adults eh. Rmzadeh ► 19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? I suggest you study the term! WuhWuzDat 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's what they call it, more information here Wikipedia:Harassment Rmzadeh ► 20:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brusque as Wuhwuzdat can be at times, I don't see any evidence that his nomination is in bad faith. If he checked your edit history and to see if other article you were involved with met the guidelines, that's something that lots of other editors do regularly. —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very well, just clicking on the news link above, I found the following links to [8] business week article, msnbc article, bbc, and... in the case that he is really not doing this as a personal attack, I would highly recommend him to do a little digging before nominating article, it is not too good to be trigger happy, people spend hours writing these things. I will work on improving it, Thanks Rmzadeh ► 21:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it were "pure unadulterated spam", then criterion for speedy deletion G11 would have applied. It doesn't, IMHO. Now, the article needs major cleanup and some more sources, but I'm not convinced that the article can't be saved. Had this article been tagged for maintenance for a while, I'd have been more likely to !vote to delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems a bit promotional in places (and I've removed some nonsense about Charlie Sheen), but I certainly wouldn't call it "pure unadulterated spam". Technology parks like this often seem to be considered notable, though it could do with a few more sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source alone is example enough of the information that could be added to the article. Clearly a notable place. Silver seren^C 14:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: no valid criteria raised that couldn't have been addressed with a G11 tag. It needs cleanup but it's far from "pure unadulterated spam." elektrik SHOOS 04:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. elektrik SHOOS 04:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a major government project according to Business Week [9] Dream Focus 08:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are certainly assertions of broader notability, nullifying the nominator's reasoning of "pure unadulterated spam". Kansan (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable now, and being improved during this discussion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—There are independent news stories from reliable sources about this park. I added a couple of cites.—RJH (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK#2. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Long (municipal councilor)[edit]

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

Disputed speedy. This is an article which asserts the basic existence of its topic, but fails to demonstrate any actual notability — he's a local councillor in a municipality which isn't large enough for its mayors to pass WP:POLITICIAN just because they exist (and as per WP:OUTCOMES, we have much lower and more flexible standards for mayors than we do for aldermen.) And the only sources here are a generic election results table and a photo on the municipality's website; although the disputing editor asserted that Mr. Long meets WP:GNG on those grounds, both of those sources still fail to provide any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So no matter how you slice it, I still don't see how this is anything but a delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contrary to the nomination, I disputed the speedy deletion on the basis that a credible WP:GNG argument could be made, given the local press coverage that the subject has gained. There is nothing in WP:POLITICIAN (or WP:OUTCOMES) that makes a local politician non-notable even when they pass the GNG, and of course, it is not necessary to demonstrate notability at all to survive speedy deletion, only credible significance, which any elected politician with press coverage certain has. At the end of the day though, the question remains; is the GNG met? The subject has certainly been quoted, mentioned and discussed in a large number of local newspaper articles about council business. Generally though, none of these articles are about Mr Long specifically. So in the end, my considered opinion is that the article should not exist at present. Thparkth (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMES is a summary of established AFD precedent, as established by past discussions on similar topics — and it's already a standing principle of AFD that with extremely rare exceptions, a city councillor normally only qualifies for a Wikipedia article if the city whose council they serve on is a major metropolitan city which is internationally famous in its own right — and even the rare smaller-city exceptions typically require the ability to point to reams of coverage spilling out well beyond the bounds of their own hometown media. That is, a city councillor in Vancouver or Toronto or San Francisco or New York City or London is likely to qualify just for being a city councillor — but a city councillor in a municipality the size of Langley has exceedingly little chance of clearing the bar unless they somehow get tied up in a story of national or international scope. (Outside of Canada's seven or eight largest cities, frex, the only municipal councillor who's even come close to being notable just for being a city councillor, at any point in the entire past decade, is Dar Heatherington.) Our established precedents are useful things to be aware of — because if something doesn't constitute a valid notability claim in the first place, then by definition its presence as the only notability claim in the article doesn't fulfill the criterion that the article contain a valid notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mis-statement of the notability guidelines. Meeting WP:GNG is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Thparkth (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this article, as written, fails to demonstrate any evidence that he meets WP:GNG. The criterion isn't whether it's possible to find sources; if that were all it took, WP:OUTCOMES would have to permit every city councillor in any city that has a newspaper. But it doesn't — it requires city councillors either to serve in major metropolitan cities or to have pre-existing notability on other grounds independent of their councillorship. And even WP:GNG requires the sources to be present in the article — at its core, notability is about the quality of the article, not a judgment on the topic. Bearcat (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and I couldn't find anything other than passing mentions on Google News. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G11, also WP:CSD#G5, yet another re-creation of self-promotional article by a yet another sock of indef-blocked user Dr. Jagatjit Singh Kohli (talk). JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jagatjit S. Kohli[edit]

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

IP, likely a sock of the author, removed CSD. Article meets WP:CSD criteria A7, G11, and G12. Copyrighted material has been copied from lots of places, including [10] and [11]. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, requesting speedy delete on at least the G12 grounds. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note2, the whole thing is copied from [12] but I suspect that page has copyvio problems as well. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution of Hindus in Guyana[edit]

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

Unnecessary stat list, which is essentially a duplicate of the census. This is not notable per Wikipedia guidelines, as an collection of stats/indiscriminate list. Contested PROD on grounds that as Hinduism is main religion in Guyana that this is inherently notable, see Talk for contester's full objection. Ravendrop 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or summarize please, this violates WP:LIST as being too long, too indiscriminate, and too detailed. Many if not most of the samples, districts, or examples are not notable, and at least some subjects of a list ought to be notable in themselves. I also suspect this is just a cut and past of a government document. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This comes awfully close to violating WP:STAT. However, I think that Hinduism in Guyana, which was redirected to Hinduism in South America, should be turned into an article and that some of the information here should be linked rather than repeated verbatim. It is notable that Guyana, a South American nation would have a 30 percent Hindu population (in comparison, the figure in the United States is 1/2 of 1 percent) and that they constitute a substantial, though no longer a majority, group in certain regions. Neighboring Surinam is the other South American nation that has a large Hindu population. While I don't see this as a stand alone article as it is, I think that the subject is notable enough to be its own article, rather than part of an article about the continent. Mandsford 17:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by the reference to WP:STAT; it's not a policy or guideline that can be violated. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hinduism is one of the largest religions in Guyana. We don't even have an article for the major religion in Guyana. Axxn (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That brings to mind another problem I have with this article-- not just a sprawling list of statistics, but a synthesis-- not very good synthesis either-- of percentages of selected religions, ethnic groups and nationalities. Hindu, Muslim, White, Brazilian... I don't get it. Incidentally, Christianity describes 57 percent of the population, but its diverse range of denominations, the largest of which is Pentecostal (17%), followed by Roman Catholic (which has its own article), Anglican and Seventh-Day Adventist (5%). Mandsford 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Hindus are East Indians. The ethnicity is added in order to specify that. Axxn (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the current format. Hinduism is undoubtedly a major religion in Guyana and worthy of coverage in Wikipedia; according to the 2002 census, Hindus make up about 28% of the country's population. However, this article breaks down the population down to the village level, including census areas with as few as one person. If, instead, the article focused only on the country's ten regions, it would be much more usable. Furthermore, the article includes columns or rows for religions (such as Hindu and Muslim) and racial groups (such as Indians, Africans, Amerindians, and others) mixed together without any clear organization. I would recommend instead including a table of religion by region, and another table of race by region, in Demographics of Guyana, and including a map showing the ten regions there. But this particular article looks unworkable, and for that matter, the majority of the statistics in this article aren't about Hindus. The village-by-village statistics would, in any event, just be very long copies of information from the census and can be noted as an external link from Demographics of Guyana for those who are looking for them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also note that if one is looking for, say, the number or percentage of Hindus in Georgetown, Guyana, the country's capital and largest city, one won't find any mention of Georgetown in this article. My guess is that the census breaks the city down by census tracts/neighborhoods, thus making it difficult to identify which tracts/neighborhoods are part of the city in this table. In any event, the breakdown of the population by these small tracts/neighborhoods is unlikely to be helpful to the general reader. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I recognize that someone put a lot of work into this, it's a table full of the statistics "that anyone can edit". I somewhat get the explanation by the article creator on what he or she chose to display here-- the largest of the ethnic groups, 43 1/2 %, is of Indian descent, most of whom, 70% perhaps, are Hindu and others of whom are Muslim-- but taking selected stats to make a point is original synthesis. As stated, I think that there is room for an article about Hinduism in Guyana, but not for someone's interpretation of statistics [13] in a particular document. Mandsford 13:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list has some major issues:

The title: From the data presented it could equally be called: List of Muslim or Indians in Guyana; or better something generic: ethnicities of Guyana or religions.
The data presented does not follow its single source. The source differentiates between ethnicities and religions and provides separate lists for them, each summing up to 100%. The present list combines the data in a weird way, so that the percentages sum up to something between 110% and 140%. Indeed, it is not clear how the data presented has been taken from the source.
The list makes up its own definitions, e.g., "East Indian" in the source becomes "Indian" in the present list. While most readers will relate the latter to the current Indian Republic, the former likely refers to people who have immigrated from the much larger colonial Britsh India.

There should be a place to include the Guyana census data on Wikipedia, and the above issues could perhaps be fixed. However, the list cannot be maintained in this weird way that, at least by title, focuses on one part of he population. In consequence, many of these article would be needed to be created, all displaying more or less the same data. This shows how the existence of this list goes in the wrong direction. Tomeasy_{T C} 22:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad al-Yaqoubi[edit]

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

This article has been the site of spammy promotion for months now -- SPAs show up to make big additions lacking appropriate sources. What this means is that, if he were in fact notable, we would surely have seen sources for it by now -- and since we don't see the sources we should conclude he is not notable (fails e.g. WP:ANYBIO) and delete. There is a small number of other sources available -- an article in the Guardian, for example -- but giving only incidental mentions rather than extended treatment. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Agree with Xxanthippe. FrostySnows (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability standards. --יום יפה (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn without other objection joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Mulley[edit]

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

Withdrawn by nominator. Changes made to the article since nomination clearly (in my opinion) establish notability through the GNG criteria. Respectfully, Cind.amuse 09:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Only sources are the author's website and a review on the Daily Mail website. Author is a past winner of the Daily Mail Biographers' Club prize, but this doesn't equate to receiving significant critical attention. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cind.amuse 15:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clare Mulley has written an important book on a notable subject, Eglantyne Jebb, founder of Save the Children. As illustrated in 6 external links, the book has received favorable reviews in print and electronic media, including The Times, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Express, the BBC and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Nihil novi (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I concur and in response have withdrawn the nomination. Thanks for the additions you have made to the article. When I presented the article for deletion, it was only supported with one reliable and independent reference (Daily Mail). The fourth ref does not support the content that it reportedly cites, and the other refs are to the authors personal website. The recent external links are improperly formatted, making it difficult to determine how they support the article content. That said, the additions to the article since nomination clearly (in my opinion) establish notability through the GNG criteria. I would recommend that you reformat the external links as inline citations. Best regards, Cind.amuse 09:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is Clare Mulley. Thank you very much to those people who helped put the appropriate references etc on this page. Dear moderator, is this discussion now closed, and if so can I remove the red 'this article is considered for deletion' box form the top of the wiki page? Thanks all, Clare — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret Webb (talk • contribs) 11:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clare, please wait for the discussion to officially close. At that time, an administrator should make the appropriate notations on the article. Thanks, Cind.amuse 11:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, many thanks. Clare Margaret Webb (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Hijri[edit]

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

This article, Mustafa Hijri, should be deleted from wikipedia because there is no a reliable source claiming he is a notable person, and the source does not say anything about him. Nautilyus talk 13:54, March 29, 2011

Completed nomination for above user. I took the timestamp from the edit where he actually added the AfD template to the article. lifebaka++ 14:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN as the winner of an Iranian parliamentary election in the 1970s, even though Khomeini did not allow him to be seated. Also notable as long time leader of a Kurdish political party, and has received ongoing coverage by the BBC. Cullen328 (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added more references to the article as well. He clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN. And note the BBC archive coverage [14]. The actions of the nominator (User:Nautilyus) are highly dubious. Note that he removed a reference and then tried to get it deleted.[15], and has done the same thing with multiple articles [16] and then via another account (User: Aschillez) removed the references again from this article [17]. Voceditenore (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:POLITICIAN. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, needs work but afd is not the proper venue Rmzadeh ► 20:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fistful of Carrots[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY -- this is a comic strip that has appeared in one school newspaper for less than a year, with no substantive ghits or gnews. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – nn comic lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. ttonyb (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ttonyb's rationale, and may I suggest adding Crazy 6 to the AFD, as it's similarly non-notable. Shire Reeve (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Mauga[edit]

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

Singer has released no albums; only claim of notability is a large number of twitter hits, and a claim about some music chart which, as far as I can tell, doesn't exist. Singer may well eventually become notable, but is not notable yet. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A7, obvious sockpupptery in the tag removal. In fact I count two socks in here, plus the main account User:JacobMauga which has the same name as the subject of the entry. Hairhorn (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jake Mauga is an Actual Musician / Singer / and Songwriter I beg to differ that he or his bio is not notable at all, is there any way that I could make this page without having to include an argument I want to thank you for helping me along the way of understanding things around here, it's just I've been a fan of him for quite some time and just want everyone to know his talent and who he is aswell as his long time friend sincerely Bella Jane Sanders (Bella Sanders 12:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)) --Bella Sanders mistakenly put this on the wrong page because I gave xem the wrong link; comment cut and pasted here to assist new user. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete-A7 Non-notable, no credible claim for notability. Does not conform to criteria listed in WP:MUS or WP:GNG. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - much of the information is inaccurate, for example Anchorage, Alaska is a large city of hundreds of thousands of people. In any case, I'm not sure that the new editor understands that we have minimum standards for musicians's biographies, because not every professional singer is automatically notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. In this case, the singer, who may be great, just has not yet hit the big time. Maybe this can be re-created next year or so. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO. Wikipedia self-citation (without article names, no less) + WP:OR at best. No citations or methodology for statistics that even hint at notability, like "total estimation of over 95,000 digital downloads on www.filestube.com", let alone evidence for actual notability. Even if the numbers were true, notability is not established simply by people downloading a subject's work; if that were the case, thousands of Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons uploaders would be notable by now just based on downloads. --Closeapple (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ParentInterview[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Previous AFD closed without consensus; WP:NPASR. Only sources are the organization's website and a press release. (Initial A7 CSD removed.) Cind.amuse 12:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources. There was an assertion at the previous AFD that this was a big deal at the time, but there was no evidence offered to support the assertion, and I can find none either. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article about a website, referenced to a press release and tbe website at issue. Google News knoweth it not. -50 notability points for mentioning that which must not be named. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand Whpq's point about the previous "assertion". Elaborate? A3camero (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - See the keep !vote at the previous AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numediart[edit]

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

Previously PRODded. Does not appear to meet WP:ORG based on the article content and references. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but spam. No evidence of notability.--Dmol (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this were a notable project, it would not be described in this unreadable manner: The topics covered by the Institute are the following: audio, image, video, gesture, and bio-signal processing, for applications in which the interaction between man and machine aims at creating emotions.... The activities of the Institute are coordinated by a strategic board, the numediart Consortium, which counts some fifteen members coming from the world of research, arts, entertainment, and industry. The Consortium meets every three months and ensures optimal adequacy between the research projects carried out by the Institute and the regional needs so as to foster scientific, economic and cultural development. The numediart Programme is structured around three R&D themes: HyFORGE, for content-based hypermedia navigation; COMEDIA, for body and media interaction, and COPI, for digital luthery. In case you're curious, luthery is the art of building lutes, guitars, and the like, and so by definition not digital. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bounty (Ghanaian rapper)[edit]

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

Slightly out of the scope of CSD-A7 IMHO, but no credible claims of notability... signed to DMG records, which he is also CEO of; one single released. No references, other than external links to facebook, youtube and twitter. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence the subject meets the general notability guideline or WP:MUSICBIO. Another spam autobiography of an aspiring rapper. Is there a prize for number 100,000? -- Rrburke (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore does not meet the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Algebra (song)[edit]

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

Non notable, non charting song. Was redirected to band, but that was reverted by an ip user. Ravendrop 11:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless article that says, in effect, that Algebra (song) is a song, and has some links to prove that it is a song. As the nom says, it never charted. Describing singles, of course, is a fine line, since the lyrics can't be quoted verbatim without violating copyright. For those who are curious, Jason Derulo uses the word at the beginning of the song, seems that he's got more problems than an algebra equation, and then doesn't mention it again. Simplify this one, solve it with an X. Mandsford 19:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability as per WP:NSONG. There are no reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the song and no claim of notability.--Michaela den (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Larkin[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Shire Reeve (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Shire Reeve (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Shire Reeve (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any independent news sources about this Shaun Larkin. Now the criminal or the basketball player might be notable. There are some sources about this person online, but they seem to be primary. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also couldn't find any independent reliable sources about this Shaun Larkin. Does not seem to meet the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone from HCF has decided to use wikipedia for promotion. That is not what wkipedia is. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^talk 11:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reader's Circle[edit]

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

Delete. Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable and independent sources. Brief mention or listing in refs provided. Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Cind.amuse 10:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The two sources I've already cited are both independent and reliable. I can easily include additional secondary sources, but I didn't want to litter the article with newspaper references that I didn't feel added anything. As far as other web-based indicators that you might reconsider the organization, the site does have a Google pagerank of 7, the same as Meetup.com. Normanrobert (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Norman. I agree that one of the references is from a reliable and independent sources (what appear as #2 right now). If you want to help save this article, I suggest finding a few more reliable and independent references that show significant coverage. It will be very helpful if the articles you find are viewable online for verification. As it stands, people will be weary as they won't be able to easily verify your references. As far as its Google search pagerank, Wikipedia doesn't use that information to establish notability at all. Without getting into a lengthy explanation, it's difficult to determine what number of hits is good enough or how high up the list a subject should be to establish notability. In my opinion, if you want to put this discussion to sleep, find 2 or 3 news articles from major news outlets, add those articles as references with links to them online. OlYeller^Talktome 16:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - There are currently 3 references listed on the article. The first is published by an organization that aims at creating more Reading Circles. I can see how it could be argued that the creation of this website shows a need that proves notability but I'm not going to make that argument. References number 2 is a chapter about Reader's Circles in what I consider to be a reliable and independent sources making this reliable, significant, and independent coverage. Reference #3 is an article from the WSJ that I found and will add a link for in the article. It doesn't mention Reader's Circle by name a single time so in my opinion, it does not help establish notability. Regardless, a Google News Archive search shows several hits for such organizations all over the US, alone. The work needs done but I believe that the subject is notable. OlYeller^Talktome 16:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It appears that many of the results refer to the term "reader's circle" in the dictionary definition sense and not the "Reader's Circle" (in capital) website that is the subject of this article. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Kinu, what is the "dictionary definition" of a "reader's circle"? As I show below, the term is an internationally registered trademark of Reader's Circle, Inc., and while I don't know how familiar you are with trademark law, one cannot register mere words out of the dictionary. "Book clubs" or "book group" could not be registered, for example. I would very seriously encourage you to look into this issue; I do not believe you have accurate information at all. In any case, if you do, you can certainly provide the "dictionary definition" of a "reader's circle" and the appropriate references. Normanrobert (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OlYeller, Thanks for helping me understand better how this works. The reason I included the WSJ article was that I felt it showed independence and it showed that the site had drawn attention, however minimal, fully 6 years ago. In any case, I added a dozen new references and I'm sure I can turn up still more if needed. Regards, Normanrobert (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As indicated above, much of the citations are to reader's circles in terms of the "book club" definition of the term and not this particular website; results from Google News are similarly generic and do not refer to the subject of this article. The only references that seems to mention this website by name are (1) the WSJ article, but that again is a glossing mention in an article about the subject of reading circles in general and not in-depth coverage, and ~~(2) the Spirit of Service book, but based on an Amazon "look inside" it is mentioned once, on page 10, and is again not in-depth coverage.~~ If anything, this article is more about the term (which could redirect to book discussion club, possibly) and the mention of the website that is ostensibly the subject of the first paragraph of the article seems unjustified, as it does not seem to meet WP:GNG and there is no sourced evidence that the genericized term "reader's circle" is a direct result of the efforts of this particular website. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, on a deeper look, the Spirit of Service book does not seem to mention this website at all; the direct quote is "Knowledge is power, and a neighborhood World News Reader's Circle is a way to empower a small group by combining the interests of the individuals." It appears that this is about the generic concept of a reading group, but does not convey notability to the website that is the subject of this article. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy discussion between editors regarding the references in the article
Hi Kinu, Actually it appears you missed it. The reference to the site is in the 3rd paragraph. Other websites mentioned on the page include the BBC, CNN, and the UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normanrobert (talk • contribs) 23:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] You're right, but that paragraph says: "Go to www.readerscircle.org, an Internet resource that helps people organize and sustain reader's circles. The site has a wealth of information; you can also post a listing on the site to attract potential members and connect with authors who will speak with your group by phone." That's it... no actual in depth coverage about the site, just a brief directory-style mention of what it is, among scores of similar entries in the book. Being merely mentioned one in a 400-page book without any actual commentary about it doesn't make the coverage significant. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] I think you're applying a false criteria for in-depth. The book grants only a single page to any focus organization, and the whole page is devoted to Reader's Circle because the whole page elaborates a particular kind of Reader's Circle, a World News Reader's Circle. That is in-depth coverage in a book covering some 365 ideas for service. However, if you look at the Spirit of Service Focus Organizations page I added to the external links, it's a who's who of the non-profit world. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an organization listed that does not have a Wikipedia article. So in fact, yes, it is in-depth, and the organization's very inclusion points up an information gap in your encyclopedia. Normanrobert (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Re: your comment, "there is no sourced evidence that the genericized term "reader's circle" is a direct result of the efforts of this particular website," you could test that assumption by doing actual queries on the Reader's Circle site. I am sure you would find that the many of the "book clubs" listed have listings on the site. Separately, it appears you may not have seen my new references. A number of them refer to their group as a "Reader's Circle book club", which I would argue does prove the term is linked to the organization. Normanrobert (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Can you provide a third party reference (i.e., not from the Reader's Circle website) which establishes that the use of the term in reference to other book clubs is a genericized trademark-type result of this "Reader's Circle" organization? Otherwise, this merely shows that these groups are a part of this organization, which doesn't establish notability; after all, the size of a group does not convey notability, but actual information that's been written about the group. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Here, I'll even do the leg work and make it simple for you. This is a "book club" calling itself a "reader's circle" in Hoboken, NJ: The Reader's Circle. And here's is the same "book club" with a listing on the Reader's Circle website: Listing on RC. Now, if you want, I can do that probably for any examples you'd like. If you take the time to cite them, I'll take the time to verify them. Normanrobert (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] You're missing the point. Your example shows that this book club exists and is a member of the Reader's Circle website. It is a primary source (and one on which requests for meetups, etc., can be posted by anyone wishing to do so), it does nothing to help show that either the Reader's Circle website or this particular club is notable, and it does not provide sourced evidence for the assumption that every group that calls itself a "reader's circle" is necessarily related to this website (indeed, many of the groups on the website aren't called that) or that this term is inextricably related to the website outside of having the same name (after all, there is a major publisher that uses the term for its forum). In order to show the Reader's Circle website is notable, we must have significant third party coverage from reliable sources about it. Scores of external links about other clubs that happen to be "child" groups or whathaveyou do not convey this notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] As a matter of fact, your Random House example is on point because Random House used to call its line of books just Reader's Circle - you can verify this with a Google image search - until a trademark dispute arose between the two companies. Random House ceded and changed their mark to "Random House Reader's Circle," which is the name on the site you linked to, not "Reader's Circle." (And you can be certain that if Random House had a valid prior claim, they would not have changed their brand.) Normanrobert (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] If you're asking for a newspaper article declaring that Reader's Circle is to book clubs as Kleenex is to tissue paper, I don't know that such an article has ever been written for any brand outside of a marketing textbook. However, regarding a genericized trademark, I can establish one half the link. Reader's Circle is a registered trademark: serial number 78152108, registration number 2905342. (If you enter either number, be sure to select the right search criteria from the drop down box. It initially searches only words, though you can search reader's circle and bring up the trademark just as easily.) I hope you'll take the time to look it up at USPTO.gov. Now, I agree that the question is not how many groups use the term; but if a majority of "book clubs" calling themselves "reader's circles" are traceable to Reader's Circle itself, I think your genericized trademark is established. Normanrobert (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Apologies. I accidentally copied the wrong serial and registration number at first. They're correct now, and the USPTO (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) certifies that the term "reader's circle" is an IC (International Class) registered trademark of Reader's Circle, Inc., the non-profit in question. It also shows that the mark was filed as far back as August, 2002. Normanrobert (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Being the holder of a trademark is not an indicator of notability. Having significant coverage in third party sources is. I think I've mentioned this enough times to where I feel like I'm beating a dead horse at this point; if you wish to take my advice and find actual sources showing how this subject meets WP:GNG, you are more than welcome to, but the choice is yours. At this time, however, I feel my recommendation to delete is justified. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] For your insistence on more sources, you seem not to have remarked my article from the Los Angeles Times. In fact, a version of it was distributed through the Associated Press and ran in some form in scores of newspapers across the country. I can start assembling a list if you would like. For the rest of your argument, its very logic proves the notability of the organization. You ask if there is a genericized trademark and make the argument that the term "reader's circle" is being used merely to mean "book club", when in fact the term has no meaning - you haven't produced the "dictionary definition" you promised - and you thereby prove in taking it to mean "book club" that it has become a genericized trademark. To review trademark law, terms have 4 levels of status. They can be "generic," like "book clubs", and such terms are not available for trademark. They can be "descriptive," and such terms have a weak level of protection. They can be "inherently distinctive", as with "reader's circle", and have a strong level of protection. And they can be "arbitrary", as with KODAK, and have an absolute claim to protection. You may not recognize that you have proven "reader's circle" has become a genericized trademark, but the whole logic of your argument assumes it to be the case, and the fact that it was granted trademark status at all is a second proof that it is not a mere "generic" term; the USPTO review team has dictionaries too. But again, if you would like to dispute the point, you need merely produce said "dictionary definition" of "reader's circle." To recap, with the A.P. article, the organization has appeared in dozens upon dozens of newspapers across the U.S., and its trademark has in fact become a genericized term for book clubs. Neither of your points stand scrutiny. Normanrobert (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] I also feel it's necessary to point out that it's pretty clear Wikipedia's "standards" are not at all being evenly enforced here. The Great Books Foundation article cites not one source. Reader's Circle, a name that you can find on the cover of 50 books in every single fiction section of every single bookstore in the country - used by Random House and then retracted on account of Reader's Circle, Inc. - merits inclusion if for no other reason than to clear up the ambiguity of the name (though I believe it merits inclusion on other grounds as well, and I believe the articles and book I cited show that). In any case, it's evident you apply one standard to an organization you know and another standard to an organization that you don't know. An encyclopedia isn't supposed to be a club. Normanrobert (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment. With all due respect, none of that establishes notability either. The Great Books Foundation article? The article includes a list of external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations, or footnotes. The external links, while not formatted as footnotes, establish the notability of the Foundation. Other stuff exists. Wikipedia has over 3.5 million articles. We're not focusing on all those other articles right now. We're only addressing Reader's Circle. The bottom line comes down to this: The subject of the article lacks notability as established through significant coverage about the organization, presented in reliable sources that are completely independent of the organization, separate from any ties or member organizations of Reader's Circle. While holding a trademark for the term "Reader's Circle" may be advantageous to the holder, it means little in establishing notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia. From a business perspective, separate from Wikipedia, holding a trademark in and of itself holds little water if the use of the term is not enforced by the holder of the mark. It is not the responsibility of the USPTO to enforce exclusivity. This responsibility rests with the holder and the courts. That said, it has not been shown in this forum that use of the mark has been enforced and held to the exclusive use of the holder, indicating that all use of the term "Reader's Circle" refers to the subject of this article. This leaves us once again, back to where we started. In order to establish notability, the article needs to be supported through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have read the AP article. However, the subject of this article is only briefly mentioned, when it appears that you were quoted about your website, promoting it as "an alternative to the traditional book club". This does not equate to significant coverage about the organization. The trademark does not establish notability. At this point, the burden falls to you to establish notability according to policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we currently have nothing with which to indicate significance, importance, or notability. If you can provide a book written about the subject, or even a newspaper article or magazine article, it would help. But remember, it has to be about the organization, rather than an article about a separate subject, where the organization is only briefly mentioned or where the principals merely offer comment and quotes for publication. Best regards, Cind.amuse 09:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Unfortunately you missed the point of the discussion about trademark. It had nothing to do with enforcing the mark. (That has already been done and is proved by the fact that you can follow the Random House link above and verify that they are no longer using it. A single letter difference in a name is adequate to distinguish a mark - Holiday Inn v. Holiday's Inn - so that they are using the term "Reader's Circle" as part of the larger name "Random House Reader's Circle" is immaterial; they changed the name.) The discussion of trademark was to explain how the mark had become a "genericized trademark" and in many cases is used synonymously for "book clubs." As for your remarks on independent sources, please do establish the connection between HarperCollins, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and Reader's Circle. That would be an interesting argument to hear. The fact is the articles and book I have already included are independent and reliable, though it is true the coverage is not exclusively about Reader's Circle. However, according to your own Wikipedia guidelines, to establish significant coverage, it "need not be the main topic of the source material." Separately, "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." Reader's Circle has effectively changed the lexicon for book clubs in the U.S., which IS a "significant and demonstrable" effect on culture and society. And the external links I provide justify that claim just as effectively as the external links of the Great Books Foundation article. Normanrobert (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment. The trademark has nothing to do with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Establishing a connection between HarperCollins, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and Reader's Circle would not establish notability. Sometimes, when there is a conflict of interest, it becomes difficult to view articles from a neutral point of view. A lot of claims have been made, but they simply aren't supported with reliable, independent sources or documentation. Bottom line, the article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse 10:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Cindamuse, I can only say I feel it is somewhat shameful how inattentively you have read my comments. It is clear you do not understand them, and they're readily intelligible, so I can only assume you have quickly skimmed them. Regarding a connection between the mentioned newspapers and publishers and Reader's Circle, it was not my assertion that there was a connection; it was yours. You said the articles were not independent, so there must be some connection. The fact is Wikipedia's own inclusion criteria explicitly warn against discriminating against smaller organizations because larger organizations "are likely to have more readily available verifiable information," and yet you are discriminating. The sources are independent, reliable, and significant, though not "the main topic of the source material," as your inclusion criteria again note is acceptable. I would also point out that you have said nothing about the effect of the organization on culture and society, to which I provide ample references, and which appears such a fact to Kinu he takes it for granted that a "reader's circle" is synonymous with a "book club." So again, I am sure as an admin you are very busy, but your reasons and just how quick you are to slap this down suggest you haven't really considered it. Specifically it would be informative if you could address the criteria for small organizations mentioned in the Wikipedia guidelines rather than avoid the issue. I provided links to libraries across the U.S., in Canada, the U.K., and I could provide dozens more if you would like. It's how you justified the Great Books Foundation, oh, but that's another matter... you already knew its name. The fact is links to library districts are just as legitimate as links to universities, unless you also discriminate against public library districts and the people they serve. Normanrobert (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Despite all that text, you have not provided any reliable sources that show how this subject meets the general notability guideline. Owning a trademark does not grant the subject notability. The number of members does not grant notability. The links you provide do not show why this website is notable. A directory-style listing about it in a 400-page book is not significant coverage. A passing mention in an article is not significant coverage. Merely being mentioned is not coverage. Existing is not coverage. There needs to be actual detailed information about the subject of this article in sources. All of this is in the two links I've given you, and I'm not sure how many other ways to say this as, to be frank, a few of us have asked you to read the guidelines and provide sources. This would be more useful than WP:TLDR paragraphs about how you find the notability criteria discriminatory and providing lengthy, unnecessary information about trademark law that has no bearing on whether a website is notable. My advice, once again, is simple: please read WP:RS and attempt to find actual sources that discuss this subject in detail. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment Kino, I appreciate your comments, but you seem to be unaware that there are specific criteria for NON-COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS. Here they are: "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." Both of those criteria are clearly met and verified in the article.Normanrobert (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Where are these multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources? There is still no significant coverage in reliable sources, as I and others have repeatedly noted you. Quoting a guideline without any evidence is useless. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I think you guys are going to continually disagree. It may not be constructive to the discussion for this section of comments to continue. For instance, no more !votes have come in since it started. To any patrolling admin, I suggest relisting the discussion when the 7 days are up. I also suggest that we collapse this discussion but I don't want to do it if I'm the only one who thinks we should and I don't know the code used to do it anyway. OlYeller^Talktome 20:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. What would be of value to the discussion is actual sources, and this thread has not included such information. I would support its collapse but defer to another user to do so. Thanks. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Kino, here is your discussion of actual sources, and don't worry, I'm ready to drop out of this. The guidelines are very clear. There are separate ones for non-commercial organizations. You want to treat the non-profit world like the corporate world, but that's not what Wikipedia has done. Anyway, here is how you can see it, if you would like to approach it with an open mind. The question - according to the guidelines above - is: do the sources give information about the organization and its activities? Yes, they do - the WSJ clearly says the site lists book clubs; the LA Times article explains what a reader's circle is; and the book by HarperCollins tells readers both to use the site to create a world news reader's circle and that they can use it to find authors to speak to their book clubs. If somehow you haven't read this information in the sources cited, I don't know what to say, maybe re-read them. It's there, and every one of them is independent and reliable. The criteria for a non-commercial organization - information about the organization and its activities - are met. And if you would like to verify that Reader's Circle is a registered tax-deductible 501(c)(3), here is a link to the IRS database. It doesn't support search with an apostrophe, so you'll have to search for "readers circle," but it's there. It's a shame Wikipedia took the extra effort to create guidelines for non-commercial organizations, and yet you wish to have a one-size-fits-all mentality. Normanrobert (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] It's a shame that you seem to be taking this personally rather than actually responding to the request to providing sources. If there was actual sourcing, I would be willing to retract everything I've already said, but that doesn't seem like it's happening anytime soon... nonetheless, I'm going to try to help you one last time, if nothing else to show in good faith that I have asked you for sources and told you why the current sourcing is insufficient. Regardless of whether it's a for-profit, non-profit, a band, a person, etc., an article needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The GNG applies to everything (hence why it's called "general"). The criteria you cite say "usually notable"... this is no substitute for actual sources that discuss the subject in detail. After all, this is an encyclopedia and there need to be actual sources and actual content we can use in an article. Existence is not notability, which is all your references do. A one sentence listing telling me what the website does is not significant coverage. It files taxes as a non-profit... so? The same guidelines state: "No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization." If all it's gotten is two or three passing mentions that merely verify its existence and simply tell me what it is without anything more, then it's not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. If you feel that the mentions are sufficient, then I feel that there's nothing else I can say. Thanks. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Just so you know I'm not taking it personally, I'll let you have the last word. I respect the project and I've learned a great deal about it through all the exchange. Thanks for your time. Best, NNormanrobert (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy discussion between editors regarding the references in the article

- Hi Kinu, Actually it appears you missed it. The reference to the site is in the 3rd paragraph. Other websites mentioned on the page include the BBC, CNN, and the UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normanrobert (talk • contribs) 23:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, but that paragraph says: "Go to www.readerscircle.org, an Internet resource that helps people organize and sustain reader's circles. The site has a wealth of information; you can also post a listing on the site to attract potential members and connect with authors who will speak with your group by phone." That's it... no actual in depth coverage about the site, just a brief directory-style mention of what it is, among scores of similar entries in the book. Being merely mentioned one in a 400-page book without any actual commentary about it doesn't make the coverage significant. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you're applying a false criteria for in-depth. The book grants only a single page to any focus organization, and the whole page is devoted to Reader's Circle because the whole page elaborates a particular kind of Reader's Circle, a World News Reader's Circle. That is in-depth coverage in a book covering some 365 ideas for service. However, if you look at the Spirit of Service Focus Organizations page I added to the external links, it's a who's who of the non-profit world. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an organization listed that does not have a Wikipedia article. So in fact, yes, it is in-depth, and the organization's very inclusion points up an information gap in your encyclopedia. Normanrobert (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: your comment, "there is no sourced evidence that the genericized term "reader's circle" is a direct result of the efforts of this particular website," you could test that assumption by doing actual queries on the Reader's Circle site. I am sure you would find that the many of the "book clubs" listed have listings on the site. Separately, it appears you may not have seen my new references. A number of them refer to their group as a "Reader's Circle book club", which I would argue does prove the term is linked to the organization. Normanrobert (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you provide a third party reference (i.e., not from the Reader's Circle website) which establishes that the use of the term in reference to other book clubs is a genericized trademark-type result of this "Reader's Circle" organization? Otherwise, this merely shows that these groups are a part of this organization, which doesn't establish notability; after all, the size of a group does not convey notability, but actual information that's been written about the group. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, I'll even do the leg work and make it simple for you. This is a "book club" calling itself a "reader's circle" in Hoboken, NJ: The Reader's Circle. And here's is the same "book club" with a listing on the Reader's Circle website: Listing on RC. Now, if you want, I can do that probably for any examples you'd like. If you take the time to cite them, I'll take the time to verify them. Normanrobert (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're missing the point. Your example shows that this book club exists and is a member of the Reader's Circle website. It is a primary source (and one on which requests for meetups, etc., can be posted by anyone wishing to do so), it does nothing to help show that either the Reader's Circle website or this particular club is notable, and it does not provide sourced evidence for the assumption that every group that calls itself a "reader's circle" is necessarily related to this website (indeed, many of the groups on the website aren't called that) or that this term is inextricably related to the website outside of having the same name (after all, there is a major publisher that uses the term for its forum). In order to show the Reader's Circle website is notable, we must have significant third party coverage from reliable sources about it. Scores of external links about other clubs that happen to be "child" groups or whathaveyou do not convey this notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a matter of fact, your Random House example is on point because Random House used to call its line of books just Reader's Circle - you can verify this with a Google image search - until a trademark dispute arose between the two companies. Random House ceded and changed their mark to "Random House Reader's Circle," which is the name on the site you linked to, not "Reader's Circle." (And you can be certain that if Random House had a valid prior claim, they would not have changed their brand.) Normanrobert (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're asking for a newspaper article declaring that Reader's Circle is to book clubs as Kleenex is to tissue paper, I don't know that such an article has ever been written for any brand outside of a marketing textbook. However, regarding a genericized trademark, I can establish one half the link. Reader's Circle is a registered trademark: serial number 78152108, registration number 2905342. (If you enter either number, be sure to select the right search criteria from the drop down box. It initially searches only words, though you can search reader's circle and bring up the trademark just as easily.) I hope you'll take the time to look it up at USPTO.gov. Now, I agree that the question is not how many groups use the term; but if a majority of "book clubs" calling themselves "reader's circles" are traceable to Reader's Circle itself, I think your genericized trademark is established. Normanrobert (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies. I accidentally copied the wrong serial and registration number at first. They're correct now, and the USPTO (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) certifies that the term "reader's circle" is an IC (International Class) registered trademark of Reader's Circle, Inc., the non-profit in question. It also shows that the mark was filed as far back as August, 2002. Normanrobert (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being the holder of a trademark is not an indicator of notability. Having significant coverage in third party sources is. I think I've mentioned this enough times to where I feel like I'm beating a dead horse at this point; if you wish to take my advice and find actual sources showing how this subject meets WP:GNG, you are more than welcome to, but the choice is yours. At this time, however, I feel my recommendation to delete is justified. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - For your insistence on more sources, you seem not to have remarked my article from the Los Angeles Times. In fact, a version of it was distributed through the Associated Press and ran in some form in scores of newspapers across the country. I can start assembling a list if you would like. For the rest of your argument, its very logic proves the notability of the organization. You ask if there is a genericized trademark and make the argument that the term "reader's circle" is being used merely to mean "book club", when in fact the term has no meaning - you haven't produced the "dictionary definition" you promised - and you thereby prove in taking it to mean "book club" that it has become a genericized trademark. To review trademark law, terms have 4 levels of status. They can be "generic," like "book clubs", and such terms are not available for trademark. They can be "descriptive," and such terms have a weak level of protection. They can be "inherently distinctive", as with "reader's circle", and have a strong level of protection. And they can be "arbitrary", as with KODAK, and have an absolute claim to protection. You may not recognize that you have proven "reader's circle" has become a genericized trademark, but the whole logic of your argument assumes it to be the case, and the fact that it was granted trademark status at all is a second proof that it is not a mere "generic" term; the USPTO review team has dictionaries too. But again, if you would like to dispute the point, you need merely produce said "dictionary definition" of "reader's circle." To recap, with the A.P. article, the organization has appeared in dozens upon dozens of newspapers across the U.S., and its trademark has in fact become a genericized term for book clubs. Neither of your points stand scrutiny. Normanrobert (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also feel it's necessary to point out that it's pretty clear Wikipedia's "standards" are not at all being evenly enforced here. The Great Books Foundation article cites not one source. Reader's Circle, a name that you can find on the cover of 50 books in every single fiction section of every single bookstore in the country - used by Random House and then retracted on account of Reader's Circle, Inc. - merits inclusion if for no other reason than to clear up the ambiguity of the name (though I believe it merits inclusion on other grounds as well, and I believe the articles and book I cited show that). In any case, it's evident you apply one standard to an organization you know and another standard to an organization that you don't know. An encyclopedia isn't supposed to be a club. Normanrobert (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. With all due respect, none of that establishes notability either. The Great Books Foundation article? The article includes a list of external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations, or footnotes. The external links, while not formatted as footnotes, establish the notability of the Foundation. Other stuff exists. Wikipedia has over 3.5 million articles. We're not focusing on all those other articles right now. We're only addressing Reader's Circle. The bottom line comes down to this: The subject of the article lacks notability as established through significant coverage about the organization, presented in reliable sources that are completely independent of the organization, separate from any ties or member organizations of Reader's Circle. While holding a trademark for the term "Reader's Circle" may be advantageous to the holder, it means little in establishing notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia. From a business perspective, separate from Wikipedia, holding a trademark in and of itself holds little water if the use of the term is not enforced by the holder of the mark. It is not the responsibility of the USPTO to enforce exclusivity. This responsibility rests with the holder and the courts. That said, it has not been shown in this forum that use of the mark has been enforced and held to the exclusive use of the holder, indicating that all use of the term "Reader's Circle" refers to the subject of this article. This leaves us once again, back to where we started. In order to establish notability, the article needs to be supported through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have read the AP article. However, the subject of this article is only briefly mentioned, when it appears that you were quoted about your website, promoting it as "an alternative to the traditional book club". This does not equate to significant coverage about the organization. The trademark does not establish notability. At this point, the burden falls to you to establish notability according to policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we currently have nothing with which to indicate significance, importance, or notability. If you can provide a book written about the subject, or even a newspaper article or magazine article, it would help. But remember, it has to be about the organization, rather than an article about a separate subject, where the organization is only briefly mentioned or where the principals merely offer comment and quotes for publication. Best regards, Cind.amuse 09:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. Unfortunately you missed the point of the discussion about trademark. It had nothing to do with enforcing the mark. (That has already been done and is proved by the fact that you can follow the Random House link above and verify that they are no longer using it. A single letter difference in a name is adequate to distinguish a mark - Holiday Inn v. Holiday's Inn - so that they are using the term "Reader's Circle" as part of the larger name "Random House Reader's Circle" is immaterial; they changed the name.) The discussion of trademark was to explain how the mark had become a "genericized trademark" and in many cases is used synonymously for "book clubs." As for your remarks on independent sources, please do establish the connection between HarperCollins, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and Reader's Circle. That would be an interesting argument to hear. The fact is the articles and book I have already included are independent and reliable, though it is true the coverage is not exclusively about Reader's Circle. However, according to your own Wikipedia guidelines, to establish significant coverage, it "need not be the main topic of the source material." Separately, "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." Reader's Circle has effectively changed the lexicon for book clubs in the U.S., which IS a "significant and demonstrable" effect on culture and society. And the external links I provide justify that claim just as effectively as the external links of the Great Books Foundation article. Normanrobert (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. The trademark has nothing to do with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Establishing a connection between HarperCollins, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and Reader's Circle would not establish notability. Sometimes, when there is a conflict of interest, it becomes difficult to view articles from a neutral point of view. A lot of claims have been made, but they simply aren't supported with reliable, independent sources or documentation. Bottom line, the article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse 10:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment. Cindamuse, I can only say I feel it is somewhat shameful how inattentively you have read my comments. It is clear you do not understand them, and they're readily intelligible, so I can only assume you have quickly skimmed them. Regarding a connection between the mentioned newspapers and publishers and Reader's Circle, it was not my assertion that there was a connection; it was yours. You said the articles were not independent, so there must be some connection. The fact is Wikipedia's own inclusion criteria explicitly warn against discriminating against smaller organizations because larger organizations "are likely to have more readily available verifiable information," and yet you are discriminating. The sources are independent, reliable, and significant, though not "the main topic of the source material," as your inclusion criteria again note is acceptable. I would also point out that you have said nothing about the effect of the organization on culture and society, to which I provide ample references, and which appears such a fact to Kinu he takes it for granted that a "reader's circle" is synonymous with a "book club." So again, I am sure as an admin you are very busy, but your reasons and just how quick you are to slap this down suggest you haven't really considered it. Specifically it would be informative if you could address the criteria for small organizations mentioned in the Wikipedia guidelines rather than avoid the issue. I provided links to libraries across the U.S., in Canada, the U.K., and I could provide dozens more if you would like. It's how you justified the Great Books Foundation, oh, but that's another matter... you already knew its name. The fact is links to library districts are just as legitimate as links to universities, unless you also discriminate against public library districts and the people they serve. Normanrobert (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all that text, you have not provided any reliable sources that show how this subject meets the general notability guideline. Owning a trademark does not grant the subject notability. The number of members does not grant notability. The links you provide do not show why this website is notable. A directory-style listing about it in a 400-page book is not significant coverage. A passing mention in an article is not significant coverage. Merely being mentioned is not coverage. Existing is not coverage. There needs to be actual detailed information about the subject of this article in sources. All of this is in the two links I've given you, and I'm not sure how many other ways to say this as, to be frank, a few of us have asked you to read the guidelines and provide sources. This would be more useful than WP:TLDR paragraphs about how you find the notability criteria discriminatory and providing lengthy, unnecessary information about trademark law that has no bearing on whether a website is notable. My advice, once again, is simple: please read WP:RS and attempt to find actual sources that discuss this subject in detail. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Kino, I appreciate your comments, but you seem to be unaware that there are specific criteria for NON-COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS. Here they are: "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." Both of those criteria are clearly met and verified in the article.Normanrobert (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where are these multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources? There is still no significant coverage in reliable sources, as I and others have repeatedly noted you. Quoting a guideline without any evidence is useless. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I think you guys are going to continually disagree. It may not be constructive to the discussion for this section of comments to continue. For instance, no more !votes have come in since it started. To any patrolling admin, I suggest relisting the discussion when the 7 days are up. I also suggest that we collapse this discussion but I don't want to do it if I'm the only one who thinks we should and I don't know the code used to do it anyway. OlYeller^Talktome 20:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agreed. What would be of value to the discussion is actual sources, and this thread has not included such information. I would support its collapse but defer to another user to do so. Thanks. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kino, here is your discussion of actual sources, and don't worry, I'm ready to drop out of this. The guidelines are very clear. There are separate ones for non-commercial organizations. You want to treat the non-profit world like the corporate world, but that's not what Wikipedia has done. Anyway, here is how you can see it, if you would like to approach it with an open mind. The question - according to the guidelines above - is: do the sources give information about the organization and its activities? Yes, they do - the WSJ clearly says the site lists book clubs; the LA Times article explains what a reader's circle is; and the book by HarperCollins tells readers both to use the site to create a world news reader's circle and that they can use it to find authors to speak to their book clubs. If somehow you haven't read this information in the sources cited, I don't know what to say, maybe re-read them. It's there, and every one of them is independent and reliable. The criteria for a non-commercial organization - information about the organization and its activities - are met. And if you would like to verify that Reader's Circle is a registered tax-deductible 501(c)(3), here is a link to the IRS database. It doesn't support search with an apostrophe, so you'll have to search for "readers circle," but it's there. It's a shame Wikipedia took the extra effort to create guidelines for non-commercial organizations, and yet you wish to have a one-size-fits-all mentality. Normanrobert (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a shame that you seem to be taking this personally rather than actually responding to the request to providing sources. If there was actual sourcing, I would be willing to retract everything I've already said, but that doesn't seem like it's happening anytime soon... nonetheless, I'm going to try to help you one last time, if nothing else to show in good faith that I have asked you for sources and told you why the current sourcing is insufficient. Regardless of whether it's a for-profit, non-profit, a band, a person, etc., an article needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The GNG applies to everything (hence why it's called "general"). The criteria you cite say "usually notable"... this is no substitute for actual sources that discuss the subject in detail. After all, this is an encyclopedia and there need to be actual sources and actual content we can use in an article. Existence is not notability, which is all your references do. A one sentence listing telling me what the website does is not significant coverage. It files taxes as a non-profit... so? The same guidelines state: "No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization." If all it's gotten is two or three passing mentions that merely verify its existence and simply tell me what it is without anything more, then it's not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. If you feel that the mentions are sufficient, then I feel that there's nothing else I can say. Thanks. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just so you know I'm not taking it personally, I'll let you have the last word. I respect the project and I've learned a great deal about it through all the exchange. Thanks for your time. Best, NNormanrobert (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The sources do not cover Reader's Circle in sufficient depth to establish notability. Analysis of the sources in the article:
1. At 1,500 local book groups, MeetUp.com has a larger network but is a commercial site. – this is a footnote, not a source.
2. Handcock, Nancy. Spirit of Service: Your Daily Stimulus for Making a Difference, (HarperCollins: New York, 2008), p. 10. – The source states: "Go to www.readerscircle.org, an Internet resource that helps people organize and sustain reader's circles. The site has a wealth of information; you can also post a listing on the site to attract potential members and connect with authors who will speak with your group by phone." As Kinu (talk · contribs) notes above, this is a directory entry. Directory entries do not establish notability because they are not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic.
3. Exclusive book clubs writing a new chapter in social status," Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2005. – Reader's Circle receives a tangential coverage in this source: "In New York, legal assistant Sarah Milks has a boldfaced posting on a Web site called readerscircle.org that starts off: NOT ACCEPTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS TIME. Despite that warning, 200 new applications have poured in over the past year, all but one of which were rejected." While a Wall Street Journal source generally establishes notability for a subject, Reader's Circle receives merely a one sentence mention. The remainder of the paragraph is about the group founded by Sarah Milks. In my opinion, the commentary about both Reader's Circle and Sarah Milk's group is of insufficient depth to establish notability for either of the topics.
4. Carter, Chelsea J. "Book clubs evolve as page-turners," Los Angeles Times, Jan. 6, 2007. – The source states:
Norman Hicks founded Reader's Circle, a website aimed at promoting an alternative to the traditional book club, as a way to meet people after graduating college. Rather than have a group read one book and follow a structured format, Reader's Circle promotes bringing people together in public settings, such as coffeehouses, to discuss a variety of books at once.
"I think a lot of people were drawn to it because they could read what they want, talk about it and get suggestions for other books," said Hicks, 29.
The coverage here, as Cindamuse (talk · contribs) notes above, is trivial. Reader's Circle is mentioned as an example to the proposition by the article's author that book clubs are evolving as page-turners. The paragraph after the trivial discussion about Reader's Circle is:
It's that same idea behind PaperBackSwap.com, an online book club that allows members to trade their books with others. The site also makes a book-of-the-month selection and offers live online chats for its members to discuss books, said founder Richard Pickering of Atlanta.
Because Book's Circle is only mentioned in two sentences (excluding the founder's quote), along with similar website PaperBackSwap.com which is mentioned in a few more, there is not enough here to pass the bar of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires significant coverage.
5. Archibald Library, Rancho Cucamonga, CA – this is a link to a library that hosts Reader's Circle. It contains no coverage about Reader's Circle the website and would be discounted as a source even if it did because only secondary sources, not primary ones, count toward establishing notability.
6. Niles District Library, Niles, MI – this is also a library source; see #5.
7. Stanly County Public Library, Albemarle, NC – this is also a library source; see #5.
8. Rahway Public Library, Rahway, NJ – this is also a library source; see #5.
9. Clarington Public Library, Bomanville, Ontario, Canada – this is also a library source; see #5.
10. Brantford Public Library, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada – this is also a library source; see #5.
11. Richmond Library, North Yorkshire County, United Kingdom – this is also a library source; see #5.
12. Eagle Harbor Book Co. Reader's Circle, Bainbridge Island, WA – this is a source from an independent bookstore; see #5.
13. Socially Speaking, Garden City News April 4, 2008 – The source states:
Joan Kuster and Edith Trestik will be hostesses for the Tuesday, April 8 th Reader's Circle at the Garden City Community Church. The book will be "Broken" by William Coper Moyers , a former resident of this Village. They will meet at 12 noon and it sounds very interesting.
Tangential coverage in the "Notices" section of a community newspaper is not enough to pass the notability guidelines. Second, it is original research to use this source and the next two to verify that "The term has passed into common usage, appearing in press announcements as a taken-for-granted expression."
14. Literary Week, Salisbury Post, April 11, 2010 – The source states:
Book Club discussion of "Twilight." Tuesday, 12:15 p.m., Room 2234, RCCC South Campus. The Reader's Circle Book Club will read "Twilight," by Stephenie Meyer. This book was selected with RCCC students in mind, but everyone's invited. Discussion will emphasize characterization, heroism and the contrast of the film version. Contact Amelia Likin at likina@rowancabarrus.edu.- "Faculty Writes" panel discussion. Wednesday at 3 p.m., Room 106, South Campus.
This is a community listing like the previous source.
15. TheBokenOnline.com, March 16, 2011 – The source states:
The Reader’s Circle, a Hoboken book club has their next event for this Thursday March 17th at 7PM to discuss the book A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce.
The Reader’s Circle book group meets at 7:00PM in All Saints Church at 701 Washington Street in Hoboken, NJ. The Reader’s Circle is a community event. All book lovers are welcome. Free coffee and cake is offered at each monthly event. For more information email: readerscircle123@aol.com.
This source is also a community listing like the previous two sources.
The references are either primary sources or passing mentions, neither of which enable Reader's Circle to pass Wikipedia:Notability. A Google News Archive search returns mostly directory-type mentions or unrelated results. Likewise, a Google Books search also returns trivial mentions.
I appreciate the work Normanrobert (talk · contribs) has spent crafting this article and responding to the arguments for deletion here. However, because the sources lack the depth and reliability mandated by Wikipedia:Notability, this article must be deleted. Should Normanrobert find secondary reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Reader's Circle, the article may be recreated. Cunard (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to argue with that. Good work sir. OlYeller^Talktome 20:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I initially intended to support keeping the article when I saw the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times articles. However, after I looked more deeply, I found that they did not constitute significant coverage. I posted such a long rationale to hopefully bring closure to this overdue deadlock.

Normanrobert, Reader's Circle can be recreated if significant coverage is found. See the three references at Starfall (website) for example. Though Starfall has few sources, it has received enough coverage in third-party reliable sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Three reliable publications devoted entire articles discussing it. Quality is more important than quantity. If you can locate three third-party reliable sources (e.g. newspaper or magazine articles) that devote five or more paragraphs of at least five sentences each (excluding quotes) to explicitly discussing Reader's Circle the international organization (and not the local chapters), then Reader's Circle will pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and the article may be restored. If you find those three references, feel free to leave a note on my talk page, so I can review them. I will even write the article for you so that you will not have to worry about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Cunard (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B.R.K Raju[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced BLP. Only references are primary. Subject does not meet WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN. Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cind.amuse 10:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spam. Abductive (reasoning) 14:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)d[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG and there are COI issues involved. The article creator is the subject's son. He has created an article on his father before and it was earlier either through prod or AfD. (can an admin confirm this - should be available in his deleted contributions)?.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The deleted version was created at B.R.K.Raju (with no space) and later moved to B.R.K. Raju (with a period after the final initial unlike the present article). It lasted for about a year, from May 2009 to May 2010, but then was prodded as being an unsourced BLP and deleted for that reason. Since it was deleted by prod rather than by discussion, we can't use the fact that it was recreated after deletion as a reason for a WP:CSD#G4 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criteria A7. Articles on web-based games need to describe how they might be important in the first instance. Marasmusine (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Trader[edit]

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

Game No Longer exist, or never existed in the first place - possibly a vanity entry by the games author Jaruzel (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No sources discussing it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7, specifically non-notable web content. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Marasmusine (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gran Turismo cars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Pure WP:FANCRUFT, the "articles" are nothing more than a chart of cars and tracks available in various iterations of the game with no actual text or establishment of notability. We are not a game guide for video game players. A select number of notable cars or tracks can be mentioned on the games' main articles, but there is no reason to list every single item available to a player for any racing game. Article was previously deleted for the last version of the game over 5 years ago, same reasons apply now. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, part of what has made the GT games notable is the number of cars available. The first game having 100 cars was it's selling point, and the 5th game having 1000 is just as groundbreaking today. Agreed that wikipedia is not a game guide, and that's why this is a list (ie no performance or price data, making it completely unusable as a game guide). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.220 (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, then mention the number of cars in the game article. Why have a 200k page to tell people what they can read in one sentence? The³5₉ (Talk) 18:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. This not an encyclopedic topic, nor are the specific makes of cars and games they are in notable outside of the game itself. Ravendrop 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. See Buffy the Vampire Slayer filming locations, or Characters of Peter Pan. Or Category:Indiana Jones music. All exactly the same. Furthermore, the specific cars that have (or have not been) included in the GT games is a subject of much debate and controversy both online and in print media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.220 (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existance of equally inappropriate articles does not make this article kosher. Also, categories are not articles. Further, your two example articles consist almost entirely of prose rather than a colorful chart. they at least attempt to establish notability for such an article. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can accept the statement that the number of cars is notable, but that doesn't provide notability to the entire list any more than we would have a list of all of Bobby Bonds's home runs (we do have 20 of the most important) or every veto by Franklin Roosevelt, though again we have a summary. Ma^t_chups 02:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reluctantly so, tho. Every editor has those articles that they hope get overlooked; for me it's the courses article, I always knew I cars article would be a red flag due to file size alone. That being said, unfortunately they fail the criteria for inclusion, plain and simple. I'm semi-inclined to nominate Music of the Gran Turismo series, an article I created, however it can be saved (and probably trimmed) due to the critical reception of the albums and the fact that it centralizes several Gran Turismo albums in one article. I never got around to add sourcing to it, but it's out there. --Teancum (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I spent way too much time putting this article together, and I can't come up with a good reason to keep it. I figured that since there is a list for Forza, a GT list is appropriate, but I can see it's not. heat_fan1 (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There have been several comments posted here from brand new or unregistered users, and these votes are usually given less weight since they tend to indicate canvassing or recruitment among people unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. Even so, I have found that some of the points made on the keep side are valid and relevant, in particular the one about radio air time, but by itself this is not always sufficient. (It depends somewhat on the nature of the program airing it, and the frequency in which it is aired.) The bulk of the argument from established users has clearly been against the article, and since Ms. Mewse's album has not yet been released, the argument that this article is premature for an up-and-coming artist appears to be based on sound reasoning. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Mewse[edit]

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

This article heavily relies on primary sources to try and demonstrate this person's notability, and most of the references and Google hits are merely links to interviews about her performance and/or are lyrics databases again, which doesn't appear to meet WP:BASIC for biographies. The page says that "Her debut album is due to be released in May 2011" but unfortunately it's not May 2011 yet. Also, since this person is a singer, she also needs to meet WP:MUSIC, and the interviews don't cut it. In all, the most I could find was one single reliable source from a news clip, which could be dubious since it only mentions her in passing, and attending a single event would hardly count as a tour. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 08:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 08:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Under the WP:MUSIC requirements it states that a musician is considered 'notable' if he/she meets "at least one of the following criteria". I believe that Gemma Mewse reached these requirements as she 'has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.' Having been in rotation on BBC1's Kissy Sell Out show and RTÉ Pulse's Twilight show. Mdanie2 (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a blatant fan/promotional/cv page, and for that reason alone I think it should go. I can't see why an encyclodedia should think it notable to know that she attended a primary school and that while there she "became interested in musical theatre and dance". I can find only this, [18], relating to BBC1's Kissy Sell Out mentioned above - a Mewse track appears to have been played, but in rotation? I can find only a radio (self-referencing) phone-in interview between RTÉ Pulse's Twilight show and Mewse - played in rotation? The inline cites in the article to personal blogs, myspace, you tube, her apparent record company, and to someone who is supposed to have said that she is going to be big (not supported in the link), are completely unacceptable, as is an actual inserted quote from her blog, for goodness sake. The only thing that appears mildy arresting is the film short, in itself not notable enough. I suspect Mewse will be notable, but she is not at the moment, and this piece of promotional fancruft doesn't prove it, and of course we are not into star-gazing on Wikipedia. As User:TeleComNasSprVen found, in July she is booked to appear near the bottom of the bill on the camp site stage at the Hop Farm Festival: [19], I bet this bit of low-level stuff goes on next :) If this article does stay it needs a radical copyedit by an editor not close to the subject, or indeed the subject herself, and perhaps reduced to a stub. A previous promo article for Gemma Mewse was created by User:Mdanie2/Gemma Mewsetalk. Acabashi (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An article was initially created for Gemma Mewse as a template with no content on the page and was nominated for a speedy deletion, and as a result I requested for the page to be deleted in its entirety. I understand that Wikipedia is a community and you are acting as some kind of volunteer watchdogs to maintain the integrity of the site. What I don't understand is the insulting tone and condescension of the above comment. Pages can be edited. Content can be removed and added. Why not be helpful and informative, and make suggestions as to how the page can be improved or made acceptable according to the wikipedia guidelines, rather than belittling. I am attempting to cite all sources, comments and claims as recommended by wikipedia. The first suggestion to acquire more secondary and tertiary sources was far more helpful than the above supercilious comment. 90.204.69.166 (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Someone who is supposed to have said that she is going to be big", was in fact Andrew Roachford, a 'notable' and well respected singer-songwriter. Which is in fact cited on her page. 92.24.173.107 (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that relate to WP:MUSIC? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 11:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - it relates to the fact she performed with Andrew Roachford on the SXSW Event at a Venue and he posted the remark on his own website i hardly thik you can count 'Andrew Roachford' as a 'Someone'----
    - Which one of the criterion does that fit under though? Number 1 or 2 or...? And you're making a case for Andrew Roachford, not the Gemma article. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 14:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am glad to see that some of the excesses and erroneous links have been removed already. I also see that the link to Roachford has been refined by another just-established one-edit IP address, but we still do not future-gaze, even if Roachford does so in his comment made back in September 2010, while advertising Mewse as one of the under-billed (he headlining) in a gig at a London pub. Even if the Roachford comment was seen by some as a serious independent source, it is not part of “multiple... published works" about the subject - it is singular. And rub-off "notability" by association doesn’t make it for Wikipedia. There might be multiple important and serious disinterested published sources for the article that could support its various claims, and if there are and the article survives, a copyedit and clean-out from an editor not close to Mewse, and not apparently set on promoting Mewse, would be required. However, I can't see notability here yet. User:TeleComNasSprVen makes a very reasonable request - please refer to: WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles to assess under which of the criteria Mewse can be identified.

Further, Adding in separate comments from multiple IP addresses, (as below and above), to give an appearance of a higher "vote" for your point of view does not influence the final decision. A decision on the article will be taken on the validity of arguments presented to an administrator, not on a head count. The points you raise below are covered in the comments and replies above. Acabashi (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many people actively see Gemma Mewse and visit her shows, this constitutes a wikipedia article in its self as you have other artists on here that are not very notable per say. Her article should not be deleted as it is not a "fan" page but a well written article of her up and coming life so far. 94.169.166.176 (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article entry contains accurate, detailed and specific information about her career that is current. She meets the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles for winning best new song at the Emerging Talent Awards; and for her track Grounded being placed in rotation nationally on BBC1's Kissy Sell Out show and RTE Pulse's radio shows, (WP:MUS points 9 and 11 respectively.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.173.107 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Mewse is a fantastic up and coming artist, she is very genuine and plays live shows all over the place therefore she is a real entity and should be recognized by Wikipedia as an artist featuring on radio 1 definitely constitutes a good enough reason for her to be recognized by such a large organization as Wikipedia which is built up by the users and as Gemma as a user I believe the website should honor her contribution to the growing knowledge of this website.92.236.92.4 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mewse has appeared as part of the Red Hill Kids in the Royal Variety Performance 2000. She has also performed on 'This Morning' Gloria Hunniford and 'Parkinson' with Micheal Crawford in 2001 promoting his "Tiger the Movie" Disney album.

Mewse is credited and listed on IMDB 'lead roll' in a short film by Michele Wraight(IMDB).

a credited site that will pnly allow the posing if justified.

Mewse released a 4 track E.P. in 2010 which was.

promoted through Renegade - Music House.

Has won or placed in a major music competition- Mewse also won 'Best Song 2010' with 'Numpty' to play on the 'Camden Crawl'.alongside featured artist such as 'Calvin Harris' 'Plan B' 'Eliza Dolittle' -

Her E.P. having been registered on 'ISRC' and 'PRS', which authenticates the album as an official release, proves that Mewse is considered a professional singer songwriter.

Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians- Mewse band members include Vinzenz Benjamin (Cheryl Cole, Sister Sledge, Paul Young, Mel B, Go West, Rod Stewart), Tim Sandiford (Dizee Rascal), Matt McDonough (Wishbone Ash) [20], Kelli Leigh (Adele), James Nisbett (Kylie Minogue, Lily Allen, Vanessa Amorosi, Belinda Carlisle), Isaac Aryee (Womack and Womack, Will Young, Girls Aloud, Miss Dynamite, McFly, Estelle, Mis-Teeq, AFRIKA! AFRIKA!, Jamelia, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra), Deerail (Leona Lewis, Phil Collins, Mariah Carey).

I believe that Mewse's achievements to date comply with wikipedia's regulations Gary802 (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The strange number of IP editors and single-purpose accounts appearing right on the scene coming from nowhere to try and save this article at just this precise moment makes me think that they may be some sort of meatpuppetry and inappropriate biased canvassing going on around here. Nevertheless, setting those concerns aside for the moment, it appears that we might be making some progress on the article after all. The first have been at least an assertion of notability, one of the central tenets and key policies of Wikipedia, that this article meets certain criteria of WP:MUSIC, points 9 and 11 respectively. However, we need harder data, especially in the form of urls and sources, to accurately verify the existence of this person, and to demonstrate the claims to notability presented above, because Wikipedia:Verifiability is another key policy enforced by Wikipedia and the necessary second stage for keeping this article. Please point out to us the exact page (and not just in the relatively blank hyperlink above, which only contains other links) that would explicitly state in its wording — no, not even explicitly; at the very least imply — that she meets the criterion that you claim she does above, namely that she "Has won or placed in a major music competition" or "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network". :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - BBC Radio 1 link of 'Kissy sell out' http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sd9sy

link from last.fm re camden crawl http://livemusic.fm/band/gemma-mewse Link from gig reveiwer re camden crawl http://www.gigreviewer.com/gig-reviews/camden-crawl.html Link of semi short listed finalist Camden Crawl http://www.addictmusic.co.uk/news/camden-crawl-2010-announce-emerging-talent-awards-short-list/# link to review camden crawl http://www.rapidbeatpromotions.com/forum/showthread.php?s=4778e792bfbf7da2d6133cb354e7ea50&t=7040 link to Hop Farm Festival Eagles and Morrisey Headlining http://www.carling.com/music/festival/information/the_hop_farm/Gary802 (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to TelCo's comment about 'meat puppetry and canvasing' wikipedia suggests for the community to 'share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page' which is what we have invited people to do. Expressing an opinion in support of a page that has been nominated for deletion by a random volunteer wikipedia member, who seems to be 'policing' pages based on personal bias, does not seem to violate wikipedia's policies.92.28.8.250 (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, most of the folks !voting here seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy, but after a search and a review of the materials here, I still see no reliable sources providing significant coverage to meet notability under WP:GNG, and the person who suggests notability under WP:MUSIC's rotation clause seems to not understand the meaning of the word rotation in this context. I care less about the "notability" of this artist in the abstract than I do about verifiability, and as a BLP sourced with unreliable, or if I'm generous passing-but-reliable sources, I really don't have a choice under WP:V and WP:BLP than to argue for deletion. As always, additional reliable, secondary sources are welcomed. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Joe decker & company, well if thats the case you'll spend the rest of your life putting right and deleting pages from wiki. What amazes me there are people dying of starvation illness and poverty. Japan is in a mess, corruption and grief everywhere including our Parliament and you and your small minded group of web police are pathetic enough to go to such lengths,to delete a page .And no doubt you will come back to me about rules etc !!! like you've never driven over 30 or 70 mph and been righteous through your lives,get a life you sad load of cretins do some good in the world life is hard enough without having to put up with crap from no bodies like you lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.46.37 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin - If the decision is delete, the entry at 1992 in the United Kingdom [21] is by one of that article's regular contributors. Dru of Id (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I have gone through all 125 entries my "Gemma Mewse" search pulled up; she was played once on the BBC, the other 3 Mewse entries there are 'Bob'. She has played at various events but only inlist mentions/website refs. Many entries are mirrors of WP, her site, facebook, tumblr, etc. Dru of Id (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Mewse Performs at Hopfarm festival 2011- [[22]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.175.0 (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: http://www.hopfarmfestival.com/media/18265/hopfarmwebsiteposter_versiond.pdf This has to mean something!!92.24.172.131 (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: And this: http://open.spotify.com/album/1jTDXiM6KSCZOjnoxCKwdS 92.24.174.175 ([[User

talk:92.24.174.175|talk]]) 09:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. I see looks of anonymous comments of her a an up and coming artist, when and if she arrives then an article is justified. GcSwRhIc (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I am not as concerned about primary sources as the nominee, I am worried about the subject not meeting WP:MUSICBIO. This also runs afoul of both WP:HAMMER and WP:UPANDCOMING. I'd be happy to allow someone to re-create the article when and if she makes the big time. Wikipedia is not a venue or forum to publicize anybody. That's what Myspace and facebook are for. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry to all those voting to keep this article, but Mewse falls short of all the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO, as well as the general notability guideline (insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources). But honestly, I think Mewse will be notable enough for a Wikipedia entry soon enough; as has been demonstrated in this discussion, her talents have been endorsed by Andrew Roachford, she's played several festivals already, and her debut album will be dropping soon. Until then, patience please. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Big Momma. Calls to expand this article beyond a mash of the film articles have not been met. Jujutacular ^talk 12:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Mommas (film series)[edit]

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

This new article is just a synthesis of the three articles about the individual films. There are other "(film series)" articles that are very good and add information about the subject, but this is not one of those. It is a pointless stub. Spidey104 17:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the same article under a different name (Big Momma's House films) was already speedily deleted. The creator of both articles is the same. Perhaps a warning is in order for him? This editor only seems to create pointless articles that are eventually deleted. Spidey104 18:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I remember, this article is more extensive than Big Momma's House films (and ((Big Momma's House))) but it still contains nothing that isn't already adequately, and encyclopaedically, covered in the film articles. I agree with Spidey, the editor does need a warning, not only for creating articles and templates such as this but for most of his edits. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why would it not be possible to have a film series article here? It seems to me that the article is underdeveloped. Like other film series articles, we can include aggregate box office figures and critics' scores. In addition, I'm sure that it's possible to examine the third film's reviews to see how critics compared it to previous films. We may even be able to identify a critic that has reviewed all three films and put together all of his or her reviews. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable film series can have its own article. More information can be added. No article is created 100% complete straight away. Dream Focus 04:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What other information could be added to this article that doesn't simply duplicate content already covered in the individual film articles? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Information about the individual films in a series that is already covered adequately in the individual articles, with so real coverage given to the series as a whole. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable enough to be retained. The article includes gists of plots from all the three movies. If this article has to go, then so should other articles on film series. I find no reason for it to be deleted. Perhaps it should be renamed as Big Momma's House (film series) and of course requires some expansion. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 06:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The films may be notable, but what makes this unreferenced article that simply duplicates the content from the three movie articles notable? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a pointless duplication of the individual articles. Mtking (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this article is a pointless duplication of the individual articles, then so are the articles on other film series and if this article has to go, so should the others. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 10:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that then nominate them separately as they're not relevant to this AfD. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that, while there are sources for the individual movies, there don't seem to be sources here covering the series as a whole. This article can not exist if it is simply a mish mash of info in other articles; it needs its own sources to prove its notability, and without this all of the keep votes asserting it's notability are invalid. But even if sources were found for this, this article would still simply be a synthesis of the smaller articles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I was about to close this, but then saw Yaksar's comment at the end. Others probably have not yet had time to discuss this issue, so I am relisting it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It's not much, but there is one book in print, Emily Fox-Kales, Body Shots: Hollywood and the Culture of Eating Disorders (2011), p. 154, that references the "Big Momma's House series" as "representations of the big black woman that have appeared in mass marketed comedies" which at the same time devalue the women by casting "male actors wearing Latex fat suits". Also, there is this rather scathing review, Stuart Heritage, Big Momma's House 3: once, twice, three times a fake lady, at guardian.co.uk (Nov 10, 2010). Although it is a puff piece and reads like a blog, it comes from a contributor who was paid to write it (for what that's worth), and says that "Believe it or not, the Big Momma's House series rigidly follows the classic Hollywood trilogy structure". In particular, if there are any discrepancies between the films, or cross-film character arcs, this is the place for them. bd2412 T 21:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment/Temporary Keep: I would be fine with a Keep for right now. However, the editors that said it should and could be expanded need to be the ones who do the expansion. If this article does not get expanded to the point where it is a proper article within a reasonable amount of time I will renominate it for deletion, because if the people who say it can be expanded are unable to expand it then no one else can (or will). Spidey104 13:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs often generate cleanups and expansion of articles during the AfD with little work afterwards. While it wasn't my intention when nominating it, there was a huge change to List of teen films between when I nominated it[23] and when the AfD closed.[24][25] By compariosn, this article has seen only this and not a single reference has been added. The likelihood, if we use "List of teen films" as an example[26] is that we'll be back here again. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a catch 22 involved here. I am not going to put much work into an article that stands to be deleted. If it is kept, I'll work on it. bd2412 T 18:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    - I take that back, I've added the above references to the article, along with a box office table (which demonstrates the decline in popularity as the series ages), and done some general clean-up. If it is kept, I'll do more. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete The topic of the series is justified and notable, but there's no content in this article that's not just a paste from the individual film articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added some. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Even if the article is hash, it should still be kept as a list or disam to link to the films in the seriesPurpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 07:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Redirect to Big Momma...I said we needed a disambiguation page, and it looks like we've already got one Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per purplebackpack89.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack is now a redirect, since his or her rationale did not take into account the already existing disambig page, although he or she has now accounted for it. Do you still agree?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite additional content added since then, Yaksar's comments of March 29 are still valid. The article is still just a mash of content from the three film articles. Only the last part of the article is referenced, the three references added referring to box office figures that should be in the individual film articles and two comments from reviewers, again which should be in the individual articles. The only original content is a table comparing the box office figures and that really doesn't justify a separate article. I'd like to know Purplebackpack89's rationale behind the claim that the article should be kept as a list or a disambiguation page. None was supplied so it's unconvincing. Perhaps BabbaQ can explain, because I can't. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I though my rationale for keeping it was pretty clear...you need an article on the franchise as a parent article to the article on each film. This is the way it is dealt with in most other franchises. How would you solve the problem of linking from one film to the others? I see the problem with this page is not the notability of the subject, but the quality of content, namely that it was copied from elsewhere. I'm not defending the current content there. When I said "make it a list or disambiguation page", I meant completely refactoring what's there (the current page is obviously not a list or dab), similar to List of Conan O'Brien sketches. Something on the lines of, "Big Momma's are a series of three films written by Don Rhymer and starring Martin Laurence. These films are...", and then bullet them off with dates of production and links to each article. Would that not be acceptable? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here though, is much different. Lots of different people could search "List of Conan O'Brien Sketches" looking for one of those specific articles. No one is going to search for "Big Mommas (film series)" looking for one of the specific movies. On a total side note, I don't think the series is referred to anywhere as the Big Mommas series (indeed its weird to label it by the least memorable third film) and some sources refer to the "Big Momma's House series", so a move is probably in order.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, readers are more likely to search for Big Momma, which is already a disambiguation page for the series. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Keon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:POLITICIAN as he has never actually held an office (see point 3 for clarification). OlYeller^Talktome 07:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Federal election coming up in Canada, look for a lot more of these..... Hairhorn (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN because he has never been elected to high office, and no other convincing claim of notability is made. Cullen328 (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of any place to put him. The Nepean—Carleton article has neither subarticles for each general election nor coverage of candidates at it. He doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN (which suggests that candidates for office who haven't held office should be covered in one of those places) and has no notability other than as a candidate. Obviously, if he wins election, he becomes notable, but until/unless that happens, I don't see where he is. —C.Fred (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my recommendation is without prejudice for recreation if he becomes a notable person at some point in the future. I would also have no objection to deleting this article and replacing it with a redirect, if an article about an event related to him becomes warranted. There's an evolving situation regarding vandalism of his campaign posters. That might justify an article about the vandalism or the race for this seat, but per WP:BLP1E, it won't make Keon notable. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd venture to say that people here agree with you. The subject certainly could become notable but doesn't appear to be at this time. OlYeller^Talktome 02:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of campaign posters is par for the course. I highly doubt it would actually make him more notable than all of the other candidates it's happened to in the past. Bearcat (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough and I don't believe that he would even fall into WP:POLITICIAN because he has not been elected into any office. Swimnteach (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If a redirect were desired the correct target would be Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 2011 Canadian federal election, although for what it's worth even the lists only contain extremely barebones information about the candidates (as, for sourcing and notability reasons, they rightly should), so a redirect may not actually be helpful. Of course, he can come back if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G3 blatant hoax Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fredric Croix and Quickslide Rick[edit]

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

I can't find anything on Google about these two that can't be traced back to this article, and that includes Google Books and the Google News Archive. The two links in the article have nothing on these two. I'm really thinking this is a hoax, but considering the article has been around for more than three years, I'm really hoping I am wrong. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. The image accompanying the article, File:Fredric_Croix_and_Quickslide_Rick.jpg, is putatively from the 1920s (as it would have to be it it were genuine), but contains metadata indicating it was taken on June 15, 2005 with a Sony DSC-P52. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great point as well, thanks Andrew. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certainly a hoax, in view of the references which don't mention them; but in any case, per WP:V we can't keep this without some reliable source, and the only Ghits are obvious mirrors. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Gapanenko[edit]

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

About a now retired soccer player who easily fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG as they have not played in a fully pro league (the CSL is not fully pro); nor has he played internationally. Contested PROD, with request that it be taken to AfD. Ravendrop 03:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL (as the CSL is not fully-professional), as well as WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not played in a fully pro league and has no significant coverage in reliable independent sources, failing WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With no fully pro appearances and no significant coverage, this player clearly fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SportstalkNETWORK[edit]

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

Not notable. Little or no coverage online aside from the subject's own website. No reliable sources found online (using Google News, Books, etc.), which may explain why there are none in the article to begin with. Only a disambig page and other non-article pages (mostly unregistered user pages) link to this article. Article is also written like an advertisement. User who created page may have connection to subject. Levdr1 (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as web-based "radio station" that fails to cross the verifiability or notability thresholds. I've done some cleanup, some reformatting, and stripped out the linkfarm but the only sources I can find are passing mentions of a site with the same URL from 2005. Also, the article claims a 2010 launch but the Pro Wrestling Insider website talks about a January 2010 launch. In any case, I can't confirm anything about this site beyond "it exists". - Dravecky (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has multiple cities connections for now, and has been around at least since 2005. I'll see what I can do for further references. Various WWE wrestlers have been on at least three different programs of theirs thru the years. ayt least one of which wasn't wrestling themed at all.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This link seems to help with notabilty, as before it spread to other cities it was just Sportstalkcleveland.com: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-07-10/sports/ct-spt-0711-nba-lebron-james--20100710_1_villains-king-james-lebron-james --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep/Delete argument should be discussed along with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SportstalkCLEVELAND, and not separately.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aside from the SportstalkNetwork.com, I can find nothing online or in print to verify that SportstalkNetwork serves multiple cities; the website itself isn't entirely convincing, either. I also can find nothing to verify that "various WWE wrestlers" have appeared on Sportstalk programs; even if they did, that alone fails to demonstrate notability. As for the Chicago Tribune link, two issues: first, it refers to SportstalkCleveland, not SportstalkNetwork; and second, the subject of that article is Lebron James, not SportstalkNetwork, not SportstalkCleveland. --Levdr1 (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources providing substantial coverage, and yes, I checked. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An assertion of notability doesn't count for scratch if it can't be verified by reliable sources (the organization's own website doesn't count.) Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The keep side has provided a sufficient argument that the content is verifiable enough, the Sacramento Bee article certainly counts as a reliable source (and addresses many of the notability concerns), although I am somewhat disturbed with the article sourcing material to WorldNetDaily (this source should be used with caution). I am not particularly concerned about the rationale given by Unscintillating, since there is no significant contradiction between being called "City Seminary" one place and "City Seminary of Sacramento" another place. I am leaving the decision of whether to rename the article to "City Seminary of Sacramento" up to editorial discretion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

City Seminary[edit]

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

This article is about a theological school, it is small and not notable. Wikipedia is not a directory for every single school that exists on the world. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if secondary sources can not be found. Otherwise the school does have a fairly interesting story and seems to have potential as a notable topic. Borock (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course, Wikipedia is not a directory of every school. By consensus, we do not have articles about the vast majority of primary schools (elementary and middle schools). By consensus, we assume that secondary schools (high schools) are notable. The presumption that schools of higher learning are notable (such as colleges and universities) is high. In this case, we have a postgraduate theological seminary in California's capital city that makes a claim to notability, namely that it offers offers "a debt-free seminary education" to poor and minority students. There is what appears likely to be in depth coverage in the Sacramento Bee, mostly hidden behind a pay wall: New seminary a wish come true: No need to travel for degree. There is other coverage in other Central Valley newspapers. Let's allow this article to develop. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It appears that the author of the article has not been informed of this AfD. Will the nominator please take care of that? Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 09:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even though you provided a source for the article, it does not suffice the concern about the notability of this article, because this site refers limitedly about this school and in a somewhat advertising way. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 09:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - degree awarding institutions have long been considered notable and since this college offers a post-graduate degree I see no reason to except this one. I would add that this page was AfD'd within 2 days of creation, a bad idea since it doesn't allow time for the page to develop. TerriersFan (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An examination of http://www.cityseminary.org shows that in the copyright notice in smaller print at the bottom of the page there is an organization called "City Seminary of Sacramento". But this name does not appear in the large print banner at the top of the page. Thus IMO the home page of the official web site here fails WP:EL (misleads the readers with factually inaccurate information). In terms of notability policy, identifiability is a requirement for notability and we currently cannot with WP:RS identify the name. As others here have said, there is a presumption of notability for such schools, so this is a !vote without prejudice to recreating, probably under another name and leaving this name for a dab page. Another web site mentions that the school operates under the "auspices" of a local congregation, and the school mentions their objection to being accredited, so there may continue to be difficulty even with research in Sacramento in establishing a WP:RS identity. Unscintillating (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to City Seminary of Sacramento. This is a degree-granting institution, offering bachelors and masters degrees, and as such deserves an article. ~~It is recognized as a degree-granting institution by the state of California~~ (although it is not "accredited"; California allows religious colleges to grant degrees without state accreditation). --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search on ["California Postsecondary Education Commission" "city seminary"] produced only two wikis and two sites with malware. Why do you say that this school is recognized by the State of California? Unscintillating (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that the institution does not appear on the 2010 CPEC list of institutions. I am striking out that claim as unverified. However, it remains true that California exempts religious colleges from needing state recognition. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They must APPLY for exemption. Or else diploma mills will just claim to be religious and award bogus degrees. Is this school exempt? Is it verifable with sources? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough. Excerpted31 (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find a reliable source that will allow readers to verify the name of the school? What is the name of the school? Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what your problem is with the name. The page you linked to, in your note above, says "City Seminary of Sacramento" consistently in the text. The banner name at the top of that page says "City Seminary Sacramento", leaving out the word "of" for stylistic reasons apparently. Your claim that "the home page of the official website misleads the readers with factually inaccurate information" is unjustified, and there isn't any ambiguity about the name. The Google listing says City Seminary of Sacramento, the Covenant Reformed Church webpage says City Seminary of Sacramento, all the directories list it that way. The name is clearly City Seminary of Sacramento, and this article should be renamed (if kept) to reflect that fact. --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that this article is called City Seminary, that this is an unacceptable name, has no reliable sources to support it, no one supporting keeping the name, and needs to be deleted. I think that the web pages of the seminary and the host church are partly responsible for this name confounding.

However, even though you and I agree, we are arguing at cross purposes, and your own misquoting/misreading of the banner is evidence that the web page is misleading, just as I previously expressed concern. I propose that this article be moved to City Seminary of Sacramento, that City Seminary be deleted, and that a new AfD be started for City Seminary of Sacramento. My reason for supporting the tentative name is one page at cityseminary.org that requests that checks be made out to "City Seminary of Sacramento" which is evidence that there is a bank account for "City Seminary of Sacramento". However, given the word "auspices", I do not currently expect that "City Seminary of Sacramento" is a legal entity or that it has a tax status as an "association". Unscintillating (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Misquoting/misreading of the banner"? I invite anyone to look at the website [27], and confirm that the banner at the top says "City Seminary Sacramento", and the text on the page says "City Seminary of Sacramento," just as I have been saying. "The web pages of the seminary and the host church" are responsible for your confusion? The host church is completely consistent in calling it City Seminary of Sacramento. That should be the name, there is no ambiguity there.
As for your insistence that the page needs to be deleted because it has the wrong name: per Wikipedia policy, when a page that is otherwise acceptable has a name that is "inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or for a host of different housekeeping reasons," the page should be moved to a new title. Policy is NOT to delete the page and then create a new one under the new name. Among other reasons, the "move" or rename approach allows the article history to be preserved.
Funny, I was also going to cite Stanford as an example of an institution that is known by multiple names. Another example would be Notre Dame, also known as University of Notre Dame, also known as University of Notre Dame du Lac. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The website has been rewritten today. Conveniently the respondent does not mention that the website has changed. It doesn't change the fact that [the banner] was misquoted/misread as previously stated, which I tried to make a small point, but it seems that disputatiousness is of a higher priority than reaching consensus. (2) My proposal was/is to move the page, delete the old page (which is at that point a redirect), and then open a new AfD on City Seminary of Sacramento. In no way does the policy quoted go against my proposal, history is not removed, so the very act of implying that it does is a straw man argument. Again, it seems that the point here is disputatiousness.
(3) Also unexplained is the assertion that The host church web page is consistent and without ambiguity. This page twice references "City Seminary" and ~~twice~~ thrice (the title of the web page is a third case) references "City Seminary of Sacramento". Unscintillating (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion, Unscintillating's argument here is a bit pedantic. After all, we have an article Stanford University and don't insist that it be renamed "Leland Stanford Junior University" even though that's its official name. Quibbling about the absence of the word "of" from a website banner is trivial. We are dealing with two unrelated issues: Is this seminary notable? And if it is, should the article be re-named "City Seminary of Sacramento"? I say yes to both questions. Close the AfD, and rename the article. And then it will be done. Cullen328 (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone said anything about "of". But now that you mention it, someone is paying Google with a sponsored link for
"City Seminary–Sacramento". Unscintillating (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The banner for www.stanford.edu says, "Stanford University". The banner at www.cityseminary.org has changed in the last 24 hours. I think that the one at Stanford University is more reliable. Unscintillating (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is being discussed at this AfD is whether or not City Seminary is notable. Like I said, there are no reliable sources for "City Seminary" and no one is claiming that any exist. The notability theory for keeping City Seminary as a redirect is, "then it will be done". Unscintillating (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole name debate is irrelevant - as you said, the issue for whether to keep or delete the article is notability. But I am really having trouble following you. The banner - reading "CitySeminary" on the first line and "SACRAMENTO" in somewhat smaller type on the second line, with a small heraldic shield next to it - looks exactly the same today as it did when I first described it on April 6 (above). Furthermore, that's also exactly how it looks on your cached version from April 3. And in any case, the banner on the webpage of any school does not necessarily reflect what the school is officially called. See UCLA (actual name University of California, Los Angeles) for example. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing that the entire website has been changed, the copyright notices removed, the word "auspices" removed, style/color changes throughout the website, font changes to the banner, and a change in the banner from "CitySeminary" to "City Seminary". The Google search [site:cityseminary.org auspices] returns five hits, none of which have the word "auspices" when you try to view the current page. The descriptive text on the home page is gone. Note that the removal of the copyright notices is consistent with the hypothesis that "City Seminary of Sacramento" has no status as a legal entity. Unscintillating (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE" "change in the banner from "CitySeminary" to "City Seminary" " - is there some reason why you keep leaving out the word "Sacramento" which is part of the banner, and yet you accuse me of "misquoting/misreading" the banner? --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is anyone looking at the banner supposed to know after seeing it? Is the name of the school "City Seminary SACRAMENTO"? Is the name of the school "City Seminary" with the word "SACRAMENTO" thrown in as artwork? Is the name of the school "City Seminary–SACRAMENTO"? In the old banner we had to consider what it meant to see "CitySeminary" with "SACRAMENTO" on the next line in a different font. In the old banner is it an oblique reference to the URL of the website, again with "SACRAMENTO" thrown in as artwork? That is the point, that we are left with multiple choices when looking at the banners. Your theory that the "of" has been left out for stylistic reasons I don't find that it adds clarity for me. Unscintillating (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There not even a single source that demonstrates notablity. This fails WP:LOCAL: " If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all." HHaeyyn89 (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- 'Sorry, no institutions were found!

Any Institution
With a Name like "City Seminary"
Located in Sacramento County' -- http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CollegeGuide/AdvCollegeSearch.asp --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it was easy to find several articles in the Sacramento Bee. I added one on the schools opening. Someone else can add a few more. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are only THREE articles about this place in the seminary's local paper, which explains why you didn't add "others." Out of the three, only one is relevant! Those articles are: "New seminary a wish come true" from 2000 (which you added), "Lift a glass to arts at Crocker evening" from 2003 (is this article even related to the seminary?), and "Caring folks gather for a luau to help CARES fight HIV/AIDS" from 2004 (is this article relevant?). So what you said is misleading to say the least. More than that in the last 11 years there are only three articles in the local paper than even use the words "city seminary." Further, there hasn't even been ONE ARTICLE IN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS THAT USES the "CITY SEMINARY" phrase. Thus, the local paper doesn't even think this place is notable for a mention in the last seven years. Why should wikipedia keep an article about it then? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the original page and have found the discussion here both fascinating and informative. I can, perhaps, help clarify several issues that have been raised, but will leave it to the community to decide whether City Seminary is "notable." First of all, both "City Seminary" and "City Seminary of Sacramento" are commonly used to identify the school, although the IRS Fed Employer ID# is under "City Seminary of Sacramento." The IRS non-profit status is listed under the Reformed Church in the United States (which was founded in 1725, by the way). The question about the Postsecondary Education Commission listing is apparently moot. Yes, City Seminary was granted permission to award theological degrees in 2005, but as of January of this year, the state has discontinued the listing process (which had been transferred to the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education), so that section should be deleted in its entirety. As for "notability," we are unaware of any other theological institution in the country that has adopted the debt-free model as a matter of policy. No otherwise qualified student is denied an education due to financial inability. Different? Yes. Notable? I have no idea. I do know that this policy effectively removes the finacial barriers that have historically worked to the disadvantage of minority students, in particular. We hope someday every institution training students for the ministry would adopt this model. The school also houses the 4,000-volume personal library of the late Dean of Harvard Divinity School, Dr. John Strugnell. Dr. Strugnell served as editor in chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls translation project from 1987-1990. This collection of linguistic texts also includes one of the eight existing original "concordances" of the scrolls. I suppose were the Wikipedia community to give us a few weeks or months, we could generate several articles in the press to make us more "notable," but you are quite correct that we have not been responsible for the spilling of much ink. As one who is new to this "deletion" process, I don't know the correct way to "sign" this. My username is waynenoogen, if that helps. And thank you all for your comments. —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep and rename to City Seminary of San Francisco. The Sacramento Bee article cited by Cullen328 above definitely counts towards significant coverage under WP:N. I also agree that articles on legitimate degree-granting institutions should generally be kept. I was leaning towards deletion per Sarek, given the fact that the State of California apparently does not have a listing for this seminary. But then I read Waynenoogen's comment, which is immediately above mine; Wayne appears to be affiliated with the seminary, and he claims that "City Seminary was granted permission to award theological degrees in 2005, but as of January of this year, the state has discontinued the listing process (which had been transferred to the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education)." So I went to the BPPE's website, but they don't have a listing for this seminary either. In other words, verifiability of this school's status as a legitimate degree-granting institution is a problem here. And yet, in spite of that problem, there are some sources here, the article in question is neutral and descriptive, and the subject is a school. As a result, being on the fence, I would prefer to err on the side of "keep" in this debate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey, the article failed to mention that Po' boys aren't made out of "boys". Entertaining article, it's a damn shame we can't keep it :( Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of misleadingly-named foods[edit]

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

Listcruft mostly composed of original research. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We really should delete this since we have no way to know if people are really misled by the names of these dishes. I do admire the ernestness of the editors who contributed. Borock (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget pigs in a blanket, which neither includes a blanket nor pigs (not whole ones, at least). Denny's "Moons Over My Hammy" breakfast combo also does not contain moons. Delete as indiscriminate OR. postdlf (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it were named properly I think that an encyclopedic article COULD be salvaged here, but it would have to be moved and heavily edited. German Chocolate Cake is not German (it was invented in Michigan) the Chinese buffet classic General Tso's Chicken has no relation to General Tso and in fact was invented in the US. It's a **COMMON** phenomenon especially in American English where a food is given a national attribution that is entirely false ((french toast is not from France, Belgium waffles are not from Belgium, and so on. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune (an action not really related to prunes) of original research. Book references can be found for the "misleadingness" of some of the entries, such as "Welsh rabbit" (no rabbit in it, and no rare bits either") and "Bombay duck (Fish, not duck) can be found in books such as [28]. No purely O.R. entries should be left in the article. "Foods with misleading names" is a notable concept, with significant coverage in a number of books, and those examples which are attested by reliable sources belong in this list. Deletion is not a substitute for editing. Correcting misinformation is a prime function of references. Edison (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the term used in the book you linked to is "gastronomic red herring". If that is a notable term/concept, then maybe an article could be written about it, but it would have to be more than a dicdef with examples. And even if the concept merited an article, that in and of itself would not guarantee that a standalone list of examples was warranted or workable. And at best, you'd still have to start from scratch because this list is not about that concept in any reasonable manner. The current list does not define or provide a reasonable threshold for what is "misleading", nor does it provide a context in which they are misleading (has anyone ever seen ants climbing a tree on a menu and thought the restaurant was literally offering ants climbing a tree?), nor does it distinguish between names that were adopted intentionally to evoke something else and names that the uninformed may merely assume meant one thing when they were named to mean another (e.g., caesar salad), nor does it distinguish between terms that are not misleading in their language of origin but were adopted into English and coincidentally evoke unrelated things. It lumps together foods named after unrelated geographic locations; foods named after unrelated nationalities or cultures; foods named after different foods or unincluded ingredients; foods named after non-food items; and foods named after something that merely happens to be, or suggests, an unrelated geographic or food term (e.g., hamburgers were named after Hamburg, not ham). So basically, you're suggesting that a rather different article or list could be created, rather than making a good case that this list could be salvaged. postdlf (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. Mishmash of random trivia, herded together for disparate reasons based on one editor's conception of what is "misleading". Bombay duck I can see as an actual "misleading" name, but I have never known, heard of, or can imagine a person who thought hamburger might possibly be made with ham. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the list is basically WP:OR as there is no references at all. I doubt anyone would be misled by the name "hot dog".—Chris!_c/t 18:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ambiguous inclusion criteria. "Misleading" according to whom? Carrite (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We could address the OR, but it would remain an unencyclopedic mishmash with no clear inclusion rules. Do we include (from List of breakfast cereals), Batman Cereal (which has no bats or men), Breakfast with Barbie (which does not include pieces of plastic), Cabbage Patch Kids (which includes no cabbage), Cat in the Hat Cereal (contains neither), Donkey Kong crunch (guess what?), Gremlins, Pebbles (I hope not), all the way to Wild Animal Crunch. Now that I think of it, every food named after a place or person is "misleading" because it is not named after a different place or person. For example, the Bing cherry is not named after Bing Crosby and Oysters Rockefeller is not named after Nelson. Don't get me going on a turkey club sandwich. Okay, gotta go–I'm hungry! Ma^t_chups 18:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the list is original research and the topic of the list is highly subjective. The other contributors have made very good points on why its should not be kept and I agree with them. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Porsche Varrera[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not sure this is a real car (although it doesn't appear to be a blatant hoax). There is a car called the Porsche Carrera, however. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Presuming this is not a hoax (miniVan + cARRERA = VARRERA), this is a description of a non-notable prototype deletable under the principle that the article is an exercise in CRYSTAL BALLing the future. Concept cars in the auto world are akin to demo tapes in the music world or pilots of unmade television shows... Carrite (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable and CRYSTAL. The trade mark registration is real enough, but that may only mean that it was identified by Porsche as too tempting a name for competitors (I don't know whether a Ford Varrera would have the same cachet as a Porsche Carrera, but it is common for companies to protect names in that way). It is very likely though that there was discussion at Porsche of the production of an MPV under that name, and development work may have been done on it. That is not in itself notable - by all accounts some companies have produced hundreds of concept designs for products and very many companies have produced some. If sufficient sources exist these might be mentioned in an appropriate article about the company or the development of a particular product type, but it seems unlikely that one could be considered notable enough for an article in its own right unless at least a working prototype were demonstrated publicly. Mere mention in independent sources ought not be enough because the idea may only have been floated by PR to test reactions or mislead competitors. AJHingston (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax (or at best completely un-verifiable and non-notable). Zero ghits on News, Books or Scholar. Trademark was registered in the US in 1997 and lapsed in 2004 per USPTO, which seems inconsistent with a design date of 1988. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS to support an article. Merely existing as a trademark is not notability and does not even indicate existence (in this case, it might logically be for the purposes of protecting against competitor use of the name, as suggested by AJHingston above). --Kinu ^t/_c 19:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Raymie (t • c) 01:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Ridge Academy[edit]

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

Seems OK at first glance, but unlike some similar programs (Mingus Mountain Academy) is not in the Arizona Interscholastic Association for sports. Article also seems to have some slanted writing to it. This article was isolated for a long time from other AZ school articles due to the development of two independent lists. Raymie (t • c) 01:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a boarding school for high school age girls. Established consensus is that secondary schools such as high schools are presumed to be notable, and such articles are kept. The fact that this school is not a member of the Arizona Interscholastic Association is not a valid argument for deletion. Neither is its "isolation" from Arizona school lists. Just add it to the appropriate lists instead of deleting the article. Cullen328 (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the combination of a high school and a boarding school indicates significant notability. TerriersFan (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem for me was probably that the article was in particularly spammy shape. And I've written about small high schools, too (Yavapai County High School, hello!). I'll close this AfD, withdraw the nomination, and see what tags would work best to indicate this article's issues. I was misguided to list this. Raymie (t • c) 01:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that this does not meet either GNG or POLITICIAN JohnCD (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Broadwater[edit]

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

Non-notable minor political candidate who has never been elected to anything. Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Lincolnite (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 9 news hits mention in passing as part of the pack, nothing unique except that he was the target of a satirical TV show on HBO. If becomes more notable I would have no objection to recreating the article. Seaphoto^Talk 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have significantly overhauled the article, added references to reliable third-party sources, and found a number of articles that cover the person in-depth, including a recent Associated Press story and the sustained national coverage following his 2004 interview with Borat. While his notability as a perennial candidate is tenuous, per point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN it should be just sufficient. - Dravecky (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: It's sources like this ("Broadwater files at GOP to run for Miss. governor". New England Cable News. Associated Press. January 14, 2011.) that convinced me the article was worth the effort to rescue. - Dravecky (talk) 01:42, 29 March 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) 00:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

could you please explain how it meets these guidelines? LibStar (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article begins "James Broadwater is an American author, small business owner, ordained Southern Baptist minister, and statesman from Mississippi.". Author? He has written one self-published book. Statesman??? Gimme a break! He is basically a fringe politician, one of five candidates in a current primary election; he has never even won a primary in his previous campaigns. He gets a couple of references but they are mostly not about him; they are about how he got fooled by Borat. [29] Only [30] this item from New England Cable News is about him - and his competitors - in the upcoming election. He fails WP:POLITICIAN because he has never held a significant office AND he does not have sufficient coverage to qualify under WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as MelanieN says, no way he meets WP:POLITICIAN and not enough to indepth coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RouterTech[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination. The creator of the article was not notified of the previous AfD and asked on my talk page for it to be restored. Since that AfD got only two "delete" !votes other than the nominator, I have restored it per WP:NOQUORUM and am relisting it to allow further debate. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - Topic fails WP:GNG. Full disclosure: I was the nominator responsible for the previous AfD. The creator of the article was not notified of the AfD because WP:Articles for deletion#Notifying interested people does not require it. Rilak (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed - I did not restore it on that basis, but on the basis that the previous AfD had few !votes and was contested. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I know the article was restored per WP:NOQUORUM. I stated my reason for not informing the creator of the article to prevent the possibility that AfD observers and participants will use their imagination to find a reason for me. Rilak (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Non-notable Linux hack for a small number of DSL modems or routers. Google News hits are forum postings, not reliable sources. Note also that there is apparently a woodworking business using the same name. While notifying the original author may not be technically required, it is a (groan) "best practice". You may cut off one of my fingers now for using the phrase. (Also rang in on the original AfD.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. RouterTech firmware is available via user loading on a range of home routers, in addition it is loaded at factory by some manufacturers, most notably Solwise. Seeing as the project is community based, hits from Google and other search engines are likely to be forum postings rather than standard pages as this is the manner in which community work is discussed - Kieran O'Shea 10:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.226.99 (talk)

95.172.226.99 has no edits except to this discussion

Forum postings are not deemed reliable sources for establishing notability per WP:RS. They are not considered to be "published" in the same sense a magazine article is, or a book, or a scholarly paper. Forum postings are deemed unreliable because it has not gone under editorial and/or peer review; and it cannot be known with any certainty that the author is who he or she claims to be. Additionally, WP:SPS applies here too. Rilak (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RouterTech team have a published article in the hackin9 magazine (link about half way down the page) 95.172.226.99 (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article ("Choosing a Router for Home Broadband Connection") is indeed published in a magazine with editorial review. However, as you say, it is written by the RouterTech team, which fails the "independent of the subject" clause in the notability guideline. WP:GNG says: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. (For reference, this clause is the forth one down.) Rilak (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The RouterTech project is not a "Linux hack for a small number of DSL modems or routers". First of all, it is derogatory to refer to it as "a hack". This is totally unnecessary. The RouterTech project is a GPLed linux-based firmware project for consumer ADSL modem/routers based on the Texas Instruments/Infineon/Lantiq AR7 chipset. To describe the AR7 chipset as being for "a small number" of modems is so ludicrous that it does not merit further attention. This firmware project is as notable as the Openwrt, DD-Wrt, Tomato, Hyperwrt, Gargoyle firmware projects, which are similar projects for consumer ADSL modem/routers, a whole load of other projects (e.g., Floppyfw, WiFi-Box, Fdgw), and probably half of the general wikipedia articles. I wonder why no-one is trying to delete these projects? As for "notability" or otherwise, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." A simple search for "RouterTech"+"Firmware" will demonstrate that. The fact that most of the independent write-ups are by technical sites (e.g., http://www.knowursoft.com/?p=277 or pcwintech.com or it.bongolinux.com) is irrelevant, and is to be expected, given the nature of the project. Books are not the only means of publication in the world, and, in the modern age, are increasingly becoming an outdated mode of publication. Someone here might describe web articles as irrelevant, as he has done elsewhere. Suffice it to say that his narrow definition of relevance is not universal. Finally, as for similarly named products, that has never been a valid basis for deleting an article, especially since it can easily be disambiguated. Chewbaca75 (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have a few questions for you. RouterTech is third party firmware is it not? "Third party" implies that RouterTech does not ship with every AR7-based modem/router out there, does it not? So while I have researched the AR7, and have found reliable sources stating that the AR7 is a technological achievement and is numerous, your claim that RouterTech, by the mere virtue of being written for the AR7 and therefore must be as numerous as it is, escapes my efforts to verify. It could be argued that RouterTech is notable if it is numerous. But you have not presented any evidence that it is, only assertions. So, I ask you, where are the reliable sources that can verify this claim?

Secondly, regarding the interpretation of notability. You are only reading part of the guideline. WP:N also states that independent coverage also has to be in reliable sources. None of the sites you listed are reliable sources — the first is a personal blog, the second is a personal website, and the third is in Italian (which I cannot read) but appears to be the website of a Linux distribution (and you have not even shown that two these sites have coverage of RouterTech).

A simple search for "RouterTech AND firmware" does not demonstrate RouterTech's notability. The following are the first ten results I see. The first four results are from RouterTech's website. So this fails the "independent from the originator" criteria. The fifth is from a forum. So this fails the "coverage in reliable sources" criteria. The sixth result is a blog, also fails the above criteria unless that blog is itself deemed reputable by reliable sources or is under editorial scrutiny of by the virtue of being hosted by a reliable source such as The New York Times (which it is not). The seventh and eighth result results are personal websites, which are irrelevant for the same reason as the forum and blog. The ninth result is a file sharing site, which is not coverage. And tenth result is a blog. I think that it is obvious why it is not relevant. So, I ask, where are the sources? Saying that sources are out there, and just have to be found, is a weak argument when I, the nominator, and others, have not found them, and when you cannot or refuse to provide any.

Thirdly, I think you are arguing against non-arguments. Who dismissed coverage of RouterTech in technical publications as irrelevant? If you presented a survey of firmware published in a reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and the survey includes non-trivial coverage of RouterTech, I think no one will dismiss it. That said, you have not even presented any evidence of notability, so who can dismiss something you have not yet provided? Who said that coverage of RouterTech must be in books and that other forms of publication is irrelevant? If it is a form of publication that is a reliable source, then it is relevant. Lastly, I do not think that Smerdis said the article should be deleted because another topic has the same name as RouterTech. I believe that Smerdis was clarifying that several Google News results are not about RouterTech the firmware for the benefit of AfD participants. Rilak (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* The fallacy of your arguments lies in your peremptory dismissal of so-called "personal" web sites. By your definition, if something is published on my personal website, then it is not "reliable". But if I publish it in a book (electronic or paper) then everything changes. Most books are written by just one person, and many are self-published. So what makes a "book" more "reliable" than a "personal web site" or "personal blog"? Nothing. This is a book: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UQZkbwAACAAJ&dq - is it more "reliable" than web sites or forums? "Published" does not mean Google books or any other that you've mentioned. "Published" means that something is widely available for anyone to read. You seem to have convinced yourself that your argument is valid by the simple expedient of dismissing any evidence that I produce as "irrelevant", on the basis of your view of what counts and what does not count. Well, I disagree most profoundly. Your argument is fatally flawed.

* And for the other sites which you claim to not contain anything about RouterTech, I will just give you a couple or so of full links: http://www.pcwintech.com/wireless-setup-routertech-v28-routertech-firmware, http://www.pcwintech.com/wireless-setup-routertech-v28-routertech-firmware, http://it.bongolinux.com/how-to-installare-firmware-routertech-25-su-roper-roadsl2p-wg/14164/. Given your previous history of dismissing online coverage as "irrelevant", you can hardly blame me for not bothering to post here things that could easily be obtained from a very simple Google search. And presumably, coverage in non-English language sites (such as PC Magazine's Greek forum: http://e-pcmag.gr/search/node/routertech and hundreds of Italian, Russian, Ukrainian, German, Chinese, etc., sites) also are "irrelevant"? There are literally thousands of coverage in what you would dismiss, so there is no point even mentionting them.

* In terms of installed base, you seem to want to ignore the obvious fact of the proliferation of the firmware, so much so that it hosted on all sorts of places. Any discussion of AR7 routers and AR7 firmwares anywhere cannot escape discussion of RouterTech. If that is not evidence of notability, then that is your opinion. You also ignore the fact of its being officially adopted by at least one major router manufacturer. That is entirely your prerogative. The sheer number of "blogs" and articles on "personal web sites" and "forums" (and in every tongue and language under the sun) should itself tell you something. Trivial and unimportant projects do not get such coverage. The real waste of time is this discussion. It should never have been triggered. Go and find trivial projects to delete. Chewbaca75 (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to answer a few of the points you raise. Wikipedia does not regard personal web sites as reliable sources. If you wish to get that changed you can try raising the issue, but you will probably have an uphill struggle. In the meanwhile, this discussion will be decided on the basis of existing Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and arguing against them here is unlikely to carry any weight. Contrary to what you seem to think, as far as I can see nobody has suggested that not being in English makes a source "irrelevant". The same applies to "...previous history of dismissing online coverage as irrelevant":I see no evidence that anyone has done so. Unreliable sources have been described as "irrelevant", but nobody has suggested that this applies to all sources which are online. As for "There are literally thousands of coverage in what you would dismiss, so there is no point even mentionting them", such an argument is no use at all. If there are reliable sources then give a few examples. Simply saying that there are some but you are not going to tell us where they are will not be likely to persuade the closing administrator that they exist. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. RouterTech firmware is in active development. There are very few GPL firmwares for ADSL routers, and none which actively support such a wide variety of original manufacturers from around the world. Why pick on RouterTech - Wikipedia is full of articles with dead/broken/obsolete links - surely you have better things to do - there are online tools to provide a list of broken links you know - surely you should start with dead/obsolete projects that supported on a limited number of hardware models - hint HyperWRT, which I contributed to - its last incantation as HyperWRT Thibor was mirrored on Linksysinfo - but even the original owners couldn't be bothered to keep up their web hosting fees! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.174.9 (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

82.24.174.9 has few edits, and none within the last six months except in this discussion.

No one is picking on RouterTech. Articles must prove that their topics are notable in order to remain on Wikipedia. Finding articles that do not meet WP:N is one of the many things an editor does.

Regarding obsolete projects — notability is not temporary, that is, a now defunct project that had plenty of coverage in reliable sources is not a candidate for deletion just because it is defunct. Regarding the size of projects — the standard for inclusion is notability, not quantitative or qualitative aspects of a topic. If a reliable source (or many) has noted that a topic is large, then there might be a case for notability, but size itself does not determine whether an article is kept or deleted.

Finally, your HyperWRT example is not the best comparison. I searched for "HyperWRT" on Google Books, News, and Scholar. Ignoring irrelevant results (coverage in sources that are not reliable) I count six mentions in book results (for example) that could establish the notability of HyperWRT. In news results, I see coverage in a magazine that says HyperWRT is better than the vendor-supplied firmware.

Does RouterTech have any similar coverage? I did not find any after a reasonable search, which I am obliged to do per WP:BEFORE. This means that anyone claiming that RouterTech is notable and its article should be kept needs to prove so by presenting reliable sources here. Rilak (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit HyperWRT was notable is the widest meaning of the term because it was only a patch on the Linksys GPL source-code retaining the original look and feel of the original, and the later HyperWRT Thibor versions were very stable so it was an easy introduction for many into the world of 3rd party firmware - however you wouldn't know that from reading the wikipedia entry (which I recognize as being taken almost verbatim from Carl's old HyperWRT Thibor website). I haven't read any of the so-called scholarly articles, but if relevant they should be linked on the HyperWRT page of course... But HyperWRT it was nothing on the scale of OpenWRT, dd-wrt or even RouterTech, all of which are still in active development with global reach! Unusual for 3rd party firmware its use was adopted and loaded by default by a UK distributor http://www.solwise.co.uk/adsl-sar600er.htm (dd-wrt now has link with Buffalo, Fon use OpenWRT), this has been reported in magazines, in printed media not immediately obvious on-line... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.163.47 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view regarding the relative size and importance of RouterTech to other third-party firmware projects such as HyperWRT, but Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is centered around how much coverage a topic has received in reliable secondary sources, not the merits of a topic or its merits relative to other similar topics. You say there is coverage of RouterTech in magazines. If you could provide bibliographic information of the coverage here, that would be really helpful in determining notability. It does not have to be a formal citation. At the very least, the title of the article or magazine is needed since the coverage can usually be located using any one or both these pointers. Rilak (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what new excuses will arise thereafter? - that someone does not care to read every paper to find the references, or that it is written in another language which is difficult to evaluate (ref the last entry in the Adam2 discussion), or some new excuse, which again moves the goalpost? And, I see that there is no response to my replies to the points made above. Chewbaca75 (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following two comments are copied over from the original deletion discussion, since it seems that a procedural relisting should not prevent the original commentators from having their views considered.

Delete No secondary source coverage. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note also that there is a woodworking tool business also using the same name. Of the handful of GNews hits this gets, several are false positives. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - And this "false positive": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ihcoyc#RouterTech:_2nd_AfD_nomintation that you linked to (which is actually Rilak soliciting for help to get the RouterTech article deleted) is RouterTech's fault? Wow! What great neutrality! Your other "false positive" does not even mention RouterTech at all. This is all getting very interesting. Chewbaca75 (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how the messages I left on Ihcoyc's talk page skews the outcome of this AfD. No explanation? Just an insinuation that it does? Well, that's pretty the substance of it. If RouterTech is indeed notable, then the mere provision of sources evidencing notability is sufficient to prove that all arguments for non-notability are wrong, even if the arguments for non-notability were the result of unsavory behavior. After all, collusion cannot hide sources from showing up on Google or prevent editors from presenting evidence of notability. Or, in other words, non-trivial and independent coverage of a topic (AKA notability) exists independently of whatever organized attempts there are to claim otherwise. Rilak (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Hmmm ... "organized attempts" - and what can we see above? Chewbaca75 (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What can we see above? We can see that some people equate a rephrased version of an argument which attempts to explain why the outcome of this AfD is not altered even if there was collusion with an actual admission of guilt. (In case it's not clear enough, the keyword is IF). That said, who wants to bet that the next round of selective quoting and taking things out of context will revolve around someone admitting guilt? Rilak (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. I have every sympathy with the people who have come here to defend the article with little or no understanding of how Wikipedia operates, only to find that the reasons they put forward in good faith are not given much weight. I am aware from my own early experiences as a newbie Wikipedian how frustrating such experiences can be. However, the fact remains that none of their arguments goes any significant way towards establishing notability by Wikipedia's standards. We have several arguments intended to show notability which just don't relate at all to Wikipedia's guidelines, such as "RouterTech firmware is available via user loading on a range of home routers, in addition it is loaded at factory by some manufacturers", and "RouterTech firmware is in active development". Then we have arguments that Wikipedia's guidelines are wrong, such as comments about "peremptory dismissal of so-called personal web sites". Then we have straw-man arguments, that is to say attempts to answer arguments which nobody has proposed, such as that coverage in non-English language sites will be automatically treated as "irrelevant", and even that "online" coverage will be regarded as irrelevant. (Ironically, I have frequently seen inexperienced editors in AfDs thinking that any source which is not online will be regarded as irrelevant.) Then we have the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, such as "This firmware project is as notable as the Openwrt, DD-Wrt, Tomato, Hyperwrt, Gargoyle firmware projects..." and "Why pick on RouterTech - Wikipedia is full of articles with dead/broken/obsolete links". However, nowhere do we have any convincing argument that there is in fact substantial coverage in anything that by Wikipedia's guidelines can be regarded as a reliable third party source. The links to sources we have been given, such as this one and this one are simply not substantial coverage in independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - And this? http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UQZkbwAACAAJ&dq Chewbaca75 (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a mirror of Wikipedia. Firmware: Microcode, Control Store, Rom Image, Nintendo Ds Homebrew, Routertech, System Reference Manual, Simple Firmware Interface, Gnufi is a "book" published by Books, LLC, whose description says: Chapters: Microcode. Source: Wikipedia. Pages: 67. Not illustrated. Free updates online. Purchase includes a free trial membership in the publisher's book club where you can select from more than a million books without charge. See also: Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Books, LLC and Books LLC. Rilak (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harihar Natu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a banker with a folk art hobby. There is no evidence of notability here. Gigs (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I can't find any evidence of notability either. — anndelion (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real notability or coverage found by me. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Helguera[edit]

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

Non notable person.Author (dubiously?) contested BLPPROD. OSborn^arf_contribs. 17:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC) (Note: This AfD was only listed in the AfD log on 13:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject might be notable, but the article needs serious work. If he really got the National Journalism Award as it claims, he might be notable. However, one of the years in which the article claims he got that award was 1966, when he was one year old! Someone who can read the Spanish sources needs to clean this article up to establish notability; otherwise it should probably be deleted as unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 28 March 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, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to the subject's actual name, for which news and book searches find loads of coverage in independent relaible sources to substantiate notability: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added references to sources that verify everything in the article, addressing Melanie's concern. The first of the subject's awards was identified in the Spanish text as being in 1996, not 1966, so he isn't quite such a prodigy. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Phil Bridger's improvements, and move to Antonio Helguera. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gazzo (magician)[edit]

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

Non-notable magician lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. -- Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find it disturbing that I am constantly having to deal with complaints/notes/amendments to articles without any further substance outside of the tag itself.

In this case I have already stated why the person is important and why there are few articles of note to add citations.

In short, I am a little annoyed that the only measure of a mans' life is now reduced to how many 'hits' he receives.

While avoiding libel etc is important a read of the article can clearly see nothing of the sort exists.

The internet is a collection of information distilled and resourced from real world sources. That something is not prevalent on the internet already seems hardly a justification that it has no merit or validity. kalchulainn

Comment – Sorry for your frustration, but Wikipedia is not about "real-world" notability or for that matter truth. It is about Wikipedia based notability and the ability to provide verifiable reliable sources to support notability. I am not sure why you bring up libel, not one is accusing the article of providing any such text. In addition, no one is indicating the subject of the article is not important, only that it fails to meet the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. ttonyb (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The criteria of notability is so open to subjective interpretation that I don't see the point in even bothering to discuss it. What is 'interesting' to one individual is boring to another. As such if the article is going to be deleted because of someone's whim then so be it. I would simply like to have some sort of actual reason, a well constructed reason, other than being referred to the vague ideas of 'notability'. Please don't think me harsh or angry, I am simply stating that my articles have been subjected to the 'drive-by' tagging. Each time I alone have started the 'talk page' to find out the precise issue or to offer clarification. Each time I am left with large tags and no response.

Tony you are the first person to actually try and discuss the articles.

As for the point about libel it simply states in tags that one of the reasons for citation is to avoid libel,etc. As the reasons behind the lack of notable references has been brought up by myself before I concluded that this might be one of the reasons the article is still tagged and was wondering why. It clearly has no slander/libel elements within it.

In general I can understand 'wiki -notability' but this leads us to an uncomfortable situation where people on the edges of arts and discoveries will be brushed over and any half-assed idiot from a reality tv show will qualify. Again it's all subjective, I simply feel wikipedia is a collective gathering of knowledge, some of which people may not have heard of before they went searching for it and should not start limiting itself to those who can get 15 seconds of limelight in the 'mainstream'.

When being drunk and obnoxious qualifies to be a 'wiki' entry and dedicating over 30 years of your life to an art-form is not I worry about what we are learning. — kalchulainn

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) 00:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One book which he coauthored is already a reference in the article, but therefore is not an "independent" source to support notability, though it can furnish details if notability is otherwise supported: [31]. Another book has substantial coverage, and specifically says he is or was a well known magician: [32] There are other Google News Archive hits for Gazzo magician but no assurance they refer to this particular "Gazzo." There are some false hits where the word "magician" and some other "Gazzo" show up, besides the ones pertaining to this person. Google News archive has no results for Gazzo Osborne magician, but several for Gazzo Macee magician (Macee is his adopted last name). This one in the LA Times is about this Gazzo, telling about him having a stroke while performing.The Boston Herald had coverage of him relocating, and mentioned his wife and child. This BBC article seems to be about him. The Toronto Star had some coverage. Thhe Stage had coverage. Seems enough to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:N. Edison (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This says Phantoms of the Card Table was Magic Week's Book of the Year 2003. Dru of Id (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Based on the subject and timeframe, he may also be the author of 2009 Gazzo on Cups and Balls, here. Dru of Id (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avner Strauss[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This person isn't notable and I see other editors keep adding text without sources. Album covers are also being added as images and I don't see any "ticket" that allows this??? PlusPlusDave (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources found in previous AFD indicate he is notable, so anything else is really an article clean up issue. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you refer to, Whpq, are very week indeed. I did a Google News Archive search and found 13 passing references. That doesn't really indicate notability by any stretch of the imagination. ++DAVE PlusPlusDave (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt they are the same results I found. They are all from the Jerusalem Post behind pay walls, but then he is an Israeli musician. [33] woudl appear to feature him as the primary subject. The abstract lists it at 442 words which is not a passing mention. This review of his work is again appears to feature him as the primary topic and is 365 words. I am not convinced that everything in the search results are mere passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitly keep for now (again!).. per Whpq.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 22 March 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) 00:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been a lot of coverage provided in both afds. Whilst most is local coverage from Jerusalem Post (one source) the article linked above shows that there has been international coverage in in the American Guitar Player magazine. (and having read the full Jerusalem Post article linked above he is the primary subject.) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular ^talk 12:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Snyder[edit]

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

This article had been tagged for speedy deletion per CSD G11; I declined the speedy because the page does not look unambiguously and exclusively promotional. But due to the rationale given for the speedy tag per the respective edit summary in the article's revision history, I felt that I should take this article to AfD for discussion. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 22 March 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) 00:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was created by NMS Bill, a now-inactive editor who discloses that Pete Snyder is his employer. Of the sources cited, the few reputable third-party ones substantiate an article about Snyder's company, not the man himself. Does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 03:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just following up on the note above, I think a valid point is made regarding the sourcing. The article is not quite up-to-date, and as a result it happens to omit multiple reliable sources which have published articles primarily about the individual. These sources should be of help in properly establishing Notability:

The Washington Post (Aug. 2008) (similar version published in print edition)
Washingtonian Magazine (Oct. 2006)
Bloomberg BusinessWeek profile (listed under key executives of Meredith Corp)
Washington Life Magazine (May 2010)
TV News Check (Nov. 2010)
The New York Times (in brief, Nov. 2010)
US News & World Report (July 2010)
Media Bistro (Nov. 2010)

I would update the article with some of these sources (the Washington Post article is most relevant in establishing WP:N); however in seeking to best uphold Wikipedia's COI policies (the subject of the article is the president of my present employer) I felt it ideal to leave such decisions up to others independent of the subject. On the same accord, I leave this as a comment instead of a keep/delete. Hope that this additional information and context is helpful and constructive in evaluating the article at hand. --Jeff Bedford (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- References provided show longterm coverage by broad major WP:RS with little overlap of content, some understandably longer than others; establishes WP:N. Dru of Id (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources provided by Jeff if an appropriate selection are added to the article. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - some of the article have passing mentions, such as this brief mention, but overall I think there's enough for WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fortora Fresh Finance[edit]

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

Article lacks third party reliable sources and does not explain the importance or significance of the subject. Only independent source is a directory listing noq (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the reference is not a directory listing, but an independent review from an About.com writer. I have added another reference, and expanded on the article a bit to explain the significance of the software. 01:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.18.82 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a third independent citation. Again, this is just an independent review. I had never heard of the product, and am not sure whether reviews are sufficient to confer notability, but that is the only sort of material likely to be published about such a product. Being included in a roundup such as the MacWorld listing may confer notability more than the single product reviews. At any rate, the original reasons for nomination have been addressed. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here indicates that this personal finance software broke the kind of new ground that would give it significant effects on history, culture, or technology. It's listed on a list of similar software at Macworld; other reviews are at "ITreviews" ("owned and operated by net communities") and a review at about.com. I don't believe these things establish lasting encyclopedic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The software is significant in that its data can be used interchangeably between Mac and Windows (Note: it is a native application on both platforms, not Java). The software was designed to be an alternative to complicated accounting software, allowing users to still manage their finances if they are computer novices, or cannot understand how to use other accounting software. This product is indeed just as notable as the many other software products listed on Wikipedia. It should not be penalized because it lacks the publicity or history of some other more well-known products. 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.112.240 (talk)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Oliver (banker)[edit]

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

This article was deleted back in 2009 for being non-notable/copyvio and after having a quick look for sources I would say that is still the case. Does not meet current standards of notability. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 03:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 03:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Google News Archive search is difficult because his name is so common, but even assuming everything in the article is true, it does not add up to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm always a bit reluctant with names this common, but after a search for sources providing more significant coverage, I've found more on an Aussie banker of the same name but not this gentleman. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel McClung[edit]

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

Unknown NYC playwright. Notability per WP:CREATIVE is questionable, to say the least. Google search yields no credible sources. bender235 (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 15:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient press (sources provided) indicates the playwright's recent work in the downtown NYC theater scene and legitimate public presence, with workshops at PS 122. Errant deletion would be inappropriate given credible source material. Paganchristmas (talk)
Keep. - Sourced in Playbill--that's pretty legit. Tugboat123 (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2011 (EST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Playbill ref is an article about someone else with a passing single mention of McClung; the other two don't seem to work for me. The article doesn't show much notability, and when one looks at the AliveWire Theatrics page, it states that McClung's play was workshopped - this is not the same as produced. Peridon (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AliveWire "seeks to produce new plays by emerging writers that are connective, charged and current." This would tend to indicate that if you are suitable for them, you are not yet ready for Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage is extremely trivial, with no WP:RS discussing him or his work in depth. Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A press release (mentioining him only in passing) picked up in Playbill and two broken links don't add up to notability. The article does not claim he has ever even had a production. This should be speedied.Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established via reliable sources. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atomgripz[edit]

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

Relatively new company, much of the material is written like an advert. Doesn't seem particularly notable to me. bd2412 T 15:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and the 'sources' are either forums (which fail to meet the self-published sources guideline, or places to purchase the product in question. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company is well known in the hand gripper community and is over two years old. - Gripmaniac 10:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)— Gripmaniac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Perhpas, but none of this supports Wikipedia notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does not fail self-published sources, a source is a source is a source:)--BabbaQ (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A source is a source, but none of the sources listed have established any notability. The sources are all either forums, blogs, or places to purchase the product in question. The article has no notability. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – NN company lacking reliable sources. An Advertisement at best, lacks any assertion of notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

its a well known company ttonyb1.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Just saying something is so, does not make it true. Regardless, being well known is not a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. If you are so sure the company should be included, provide adequate, secondary reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also speedy delete doesnt apply to this Afd.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Again, just saying something is so, does not make it true. Rather than make unsupported statements, I suggest you provide support for your vague comments. ttonyb (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references provided are reliable, and I can't find any that pass muster myself -- not that the article presents any credible claim of notability to suggest any good sources exist. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability not established or demonstrated. postdlf (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Davids Christian Writers' Conference[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability in cited references. No in depth coverage from third party sources offered. Warfieldian (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References at the article are self-referential. Google News finds only passing mentions. (BTW if the article is kept, the title needs to have its punctuation corrected. It should be St. David's Christian Writers Conference. Somehow the apostrophe migrated from "David" to "writers" in this article title.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The organization itself puts the apostrophe after writers' not after David, and they're writers.I.Casaubon (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the items at Google News (written by REAL writers) mostly put it as I suggested. [34] The fact that they style it this way leaves me even more convinced that the article should be deleted. What kind of writers can they be, if they can't punctuate their own name properly? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The apostrophe after Writers is correct, if the conference belongs to the writers that is. The missing one after David is another issue. Borock (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it gets a lot of hits on google books, and appears to be "real" in the sense that it is a sizeable writer's conference that has been meeting annually for half a century, some authors give it a hat tip (I sold my first book via a contact I made at St. Davids), and draws a substantial crowd.I.Casaubon (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is very amateurish. it could use a writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems to be notable enough, even though the article needs to be improved. But even as it is a reader learns something. Borock (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria--יום יפה (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient verifiable third-party references. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rick Astley discography. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Rick Astley album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. No coverage I can find, the one external link provided does not include the subject. Muhandes (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, I'm sorry about this confussion around the article. I'm sure I created this article back in 2008 from a list of all of Rick Astley's albums, coming from another list containing all of his releases: it didn't contain a name. The problem I've now is that I cannot find that list on the Internet, it is a reliable source, and at the very least, if I'm not able to fix the sourcing problem, redirect it to Rick Astley discography, the album exists. The fact that it never had a name, is a problem. --Diego Grez (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 March 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) 00:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Rick Astley discography per Diego Grez above. No external sources means that the article shouldn't exist. LK (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with everyone, Delete & Redirect. ~~This AfD can be speedy closed~~, as almost all of the content in the article was there in the first revision by Grez, ~~who requests deletion, making it eligible for G7.~~ Zakhalesh (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took Diego Grez's comment as "give me the two weeks to find a source, and then delete and redirect it", rather than a G7. --Muhandes (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well took - thank you for correcting me. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and weak delete - this source disagrees with the current article. Unless a source is found... -MrFizyx (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may have been more than one untitled, the article relates to one released by RCA, not to the one you listed. Indeed the problem remains the lack of source. --Muhandes (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the source where I took the information is down... and the one you linked above is that of "Don't Say Goodbye". Diego Grez (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was never able to find the website because it has since been "modernized". Here it is a 2009 snapshot: [35] Perhaps somebody will do the honours to find this record somewhere into the lists? :P Thx. --Diego Grez (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burl Storie[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable minor league baseball player and manager. Sure, he managed and played for a long time, but his career doesn't seem very illustrious. In short, he might not pass the GNG. Alex (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how he meets WP:GNG. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability criteria for baseball player at WP:WPBB/N, article is synthesized for info from a stat site so not not much here. Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenshoo Ltd.[edit]

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

Contested prod - a quick search yields no indication that it is notable. References are self-published or not reliable. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No references that prove notability; few to no reliable sources. MacMed^talk _stalk 00:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete A few passing reliable sources exist, well, at least one, but I don't see sourcing that rises to WP:GNG. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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