< 10 May	12 May >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. article notability assertion improved by addition of secondary citations. Passes WP:ORG (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riyadh Military Hospital[edit]

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

Article's subject relies too heavily on primary sources, and no secondaries are available to back them up per WP:V. Phearson (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Classic example of an article that should have been tagged for more sources rather than dragged to AfD. Whatever sourcing defects are showing should be correctible through the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A major Saudi hospital is very likely to have sources available, just perhaps not easily found in the English language. -- Whpq (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the above !voters, it looks like it's a major hospital. It has been involved in some past controversies, as well. [1] Qrsdogg (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Moore[edit]

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

I contested the prod here myself because I feel AfD would work better in this case. I'm not sure this is a real person; see these searches: [2] [3] If she turns out to be genuine after all, the article should either be deleted per WP:BIO or possibly redirected to Gary Moore#Personal life. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as probable hoax article. IMDB has no one named "Patricia Moore" appearing on EastEnders in two or more eps. Nor does IMDB report any "Patricia Moore" being born in 1972, nor in Weston-Super-Mare. The Orphans are a real band from WSM, but there's no evidence that Moore was ever a member. Ravenswing 10:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP with no sources or sign of them. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any source to determine notability or even verifiability - frankieMR (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm inclined to think it's a hoax, but even if it's real, it fails all the possible tests. Robman94 (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:RS. Monterey Bay (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in the United States[edit]

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

This is truly awful. Un-encyclopedic. Title is perhaps okay, but the "article" needs more text than lists. This is a sheer junkpile right now. Sandbox until someone can come up with an article that can be taken seriously by readers, to say nothing of the Wikipedia editors. Student7 (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a whole series of corruption by country articles. The article needs fixing rather than deleting. In its current form it at least serves as a disambiguation page until an expert writes an actual article. It is interesting to note that there is a systemic bias towards the US on Wikipedia but not for the corruption articles! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but the template that lists the series consists almost entirely of redlinks. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not a fault of this article. The template can be deleted until all the other linked articles in the template are created. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Alan Liefting and per WP:N. All these are prooven corruption cases and deserve a spot on here. This is a great service of the project, articles such as this one. Turqoise127 00:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand corruption in x country articles are valid articles, references can be easily found. --Reference Desker (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Right now, this list is nothing other than a duplication of parts of the lists found at List of federal political scandals in the United States and List of state and local political scandals in the United States--if the article were new, it could be deleted under CSD A10 . Since there is no actual content in the article other than the links, it should be deleted as a duplication. If someone wants to start over again and write a prose article about corruption in the US, they're welcome to do so (either before deletion, in which case I would change my !vote, or after). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have since added one salient point(!!!). The article should be about all corruption in the US and not just that which is politically motivated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete as a spoon — that is, a pointless fork.~~ Carrite (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A fork of which article? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my thinking a lot on the "Corruption Of" thing over the last couple days. This is a list, therefore it's not a fork of anything. Carrite (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing but a linkfarm. As far as "keep per Alan Liefting" goes, Mr. Liefting doesn't advocate a single legitimate ground to keep. That there might be other Corruption in X country articles is but a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument - if the "other stuff" actually existed, which in fact it doesn't - that there is an alleged pro-US systemic bias on Wikipedia forms no part of inclusion criteria, and disambiguation pages commonly, well, I dunno ... disambiguate between choices, as this doesn't remotely attempt to do. As Qwyrxian correctly states, there are list articles which do exactly this, more clearly and adeptly. The article Mr. Liefting proposes to write, come to that, sounds like a heap of original research and synthesis. Ravenswing 10:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a bunch of selective comment nonsense. If the "keep per Alan Liefting" comment was for me, then I believe I also added "and per WP:N". We mustn't only choose to ignore what does not suit us. Also, Mr. lefting does advocate a legitimate ground to keep: "article needs fixing rather than deleting". Is that not a WP:BEFORE? Let us also please not ignore the other "keep" vote, that very correctly states "references can be easily found". It is unfair to ignore a clearly notable article and to suggest unwarranted deletion just because a small patriotic bone's feelings were hurt with the "US bias" comment. Turqoise127 17:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did add "per WP:N," which you then failed to support with any shred of argument whatsoever. What criterion of WP:N are you claiming it satisfies, and with what evidence? Beyond that, "references can be easily found" is an invalid argument at AfD. Deletion policy clearly holds that it is not acceptable to assert that there are references, but the positive duty of a Keep proponent to provide reliable sources when challenged. Finally, I recommend a dose of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; strange though it might appear to you, it is quite possible for an editor to oppose such an article on the grounds stated for such opposition, and quite possible for an editor to wish to uphold Wikipedia guidelines and policy without having sinister ulterior motives for doing so. Ravenswing 17:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. As far as your comment regarding conduct; I was not being uncivil, nor did I personally attack you. As far as content; take a looksee at the two "keep" votes below. Happy editing.Turqoise 127 18:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is just a stub currently and our editing policy is to keep such in mainspace for further work. The topic has great notability. See, for example, Corruption and American Politics. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Oh come on, are you seriously telling me that you've looked for reliable sources discussing the subject of corruption in the USA and not found any? ╟─Treasury Tag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 17:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Right now, just a lame list and has been that way for some time. If someone wants to work it into an article, free free, but this is pretty much WP:COATRACK. The problem with having no text whatever, is anyone can add anything; there are no parameters, no limits. Just a junkpile of entries for multiple editors with WP:POV. This would be fine in a regular article, but how to exclude a link on this lengthy list? No one is really looking to do so. It is not professional IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, just a lame list... I agree. ...and has been that way for some time. Absolutely. If someone wants to work it into an article, free free – you've just hit the nail on the head. There is no deadline for articles to reach a particular standard. So long as the topic is notable (which this one undoubtedly is: there are people who do degree-level courses about corruption in the United States) we do not delete the article merely on the basis of its not quite being up to scratch. Have you actually read the first numbered point at WP:BEFORE? It says, "Some pages should be improved rather than deleted."
Wikipedia's deletion policy provides a helpful list of valid reasons to delete a page. Please could you quote me the line from that list which you think applies here? Thanks in advance. ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 20:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Right now, no one knows what the "article", it is somewhat of a pretense to call this an article, is about. "Political corruption?" "Police corruption?" "Corruption of Youth?" Just a catchall title for anyone to insert anything per WP:COATRACK.

And note, below, editor Alan Liefting has suggested a (vague) category for redirect. But this is okay for categories! You expect a certain amount of vagueness and catchall as you travel up the line. But not at the article level!

BTW, I appreciate your courtesy in notifying me that there is a new response, I really don't care to play verbal ping pong with other editors. Let other editors have their say and you may have the final word, for all I care. You may skip notifying me when you reply. I will catch up in a couple of days, maybe. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're not listening. Right now, no one knows what the "article", it is somewhat of a pretense to call this an article – whatever. What you don't seem to understand is that the topic of corruption in the United States is notable – a tiny, tiny, tiny pico-sample of the available sources would include these: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] – and therefore Wikipedia's article/page/information/cache/box-file about it clearly should not be deleted, as per WP:NOTE, WP:DEADLINE and WP:BEFORE (and incidentally, I'm still not clear why you chose not to follow WP:BEFORE, and since you're declining to engage with this process, I'm unlikely to hear the explanation). ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 20:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Student7 the article would follow the same format as all the other corruption by country articles. Topics would include police corruption, political corruption and corporate corruption. "Corruption of Youth" that you mention sounds like it may be an entirely different topic and may be something to do with morality? I am not sure why you say that Category:Corruption in the United States is "vague". "Corruption" and "United States" are both clearly defined terms and the juncture of the two is similarly well defined. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure about guidelines or policy on cross namespace redirects but since this is a bit of a contentious AfD we could simply redirect the article to Category:Corruption in the United States until an article is written. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Treasury Tag above. This is a list of in-links, not an article, so a renaming is perhaps in order. Carrite (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What name would you suggest? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable topic. Article needs to be written at some point. Anthem of joy (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that the nominator Student7 (talk · contribs · count) have failed to provide any valid argument for deletion. "Awful", "un-encyclopedic" etc. are vague and unprofessional terminology. --Reference Desker (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's how a real article should look: Corruption. An genuine article is possible. Student7 (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not that great, but at least it might be termed an "article." Student7 (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An genuine article is possible. Right. So if an [sic] genuine article is possible, why the Hell have you nominated this topic for deletion? ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 12:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also Talk:Corruption showing that editors there have demonstrated IMO, an understanding of the scope of the topic/article. Not just pursuing the retention of a bad collection of vague articles that might be related to a topic. Student7 (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It must be significantly extended, but corruption per country is definitely a notable subject. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Treasury Tag. If the amount of volunteer effort spent on this AfD were devoted to fixing the article, it would be at GA by now. Racepacket (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but possibly rename article to reflect the corruption index referenced in the lead? Definitely needs to be expanded. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eyesupply[edit]

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

Article reads like promo/advertisement with references which don't mention them (possibly because the sites mentioned changed since they were linked to) and social network profiles as external links. If not deleted then clean it up to make it more neutral. Supply "provisions of information" at Dutch events, what the heck does that mean? DJMAG doesn't know them (anymore?), checked both internal search and Google. S_peakF_ree (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is advertising, and it nothing about it (other than their website, and profiles) can be found on Google. Endofskull (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only info I can find about it are the official website and the usual suspects. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Douglass[edit]

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

Apart from apparently being a pretty good whaler, there isn't anything that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", the plain English version of notability. Also, everything since 2007 seems to have been maintenance updates. Nobody seems to care enough even to write a decent first sentence. ospalh (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article states that his company had the best record for whaling in a ten year period, and that he was a central figure in an international dispute between the U.S. and Canada. There is a lengthy list of references, some of which, such as the David Starr Jordan book, appear very solid. We don't delete an article on a notable topic because the article has weaknesses, or because the original author lost interest. Instead, we improve such an article. Cullen328 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject of the article appears to be mentioned multiple times, with at least one mention being significant, even if the source is over a century old at the time of this AfD. Therefore it can be argued that the subject passes WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 6 May 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, Baseball Watcher 22:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and hopefully clean up. Google Book search turns up a number of books that discuss him, I think there is a pretty good argument that he passes WP:BIO. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben 10: Alien Dimensions[edit]

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

This appears to be an elaborate hoax to me. I don't feel that the references are at all reliable. Even it is real, it's still not notable. JDDJS (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 21:57, 10 May 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, Baseball Watcher 22:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: IMDB hasn't heard of this. The Cartoon Network website hasn't heard of this. Done deal. Ravenswing 11:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rath (plane)[edit]

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

Fictional world in a trading card game. The article is entirely unsourced since its creation in 2005(!), and a Google search does not show reliable secondary sources discussing this fictional world, as would be required for a separate article by WP:V#Notability. If and when reliable sources for the subject are found, it may be mentioned at Plane (Magic: The Gathering) and a redirect may be created there. But currently the article should not be redirected because it is not described at the target article. Per WP:V, the current content should not be merged because it is unsourced, but I do not object to a selective merger to the extent somebody does find and, more importantly, add reliable sources. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyrexia, where another article about a fictional world from this game was deleted for the same reasons. Sandstein 16:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the nominator, and cannot add anything to what he's already said. The article is entirely unsourced, and I can find no substantial, independent coverage. Reyk _YO! 08:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as there is a clear merge target. Closer should be aware there are 4 nearly identical AfDs on what are very very similar topics. Hobit (talk) 01:26, 30 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, Baseball Watcher 21:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination, the fictional location does not meet the general notability guideline. Also, the content of the article is an unreferenced plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world context. Lacking reliable third-party sources, the article falls into the criteria of reasons for deletion. With no reliable sources, I also agree that the content should not be merged since all of it is completely unreferenced and it is not needed to understand the card game Magic: The Gathering. Jfgslo (talk) 21:51, 9 May 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, Baseball Watcher 22:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Baseball Watcher, this isn't sourced, and there are no reliable sources. Endofskull (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyon Gardiner Tyler Jr.[edit]

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

Living grandson of the 10th U.S. President John Tyler. Tyler Sr. was 75 when Jr. was born. John Tyler was 63 when Sr. was born... Interesting trivia. He started out as an attorney. He was a Commonwealth's Attorney in Charles City County, Virginia, population 7,000. At age 42, he received a PhD in History from Duke University. Taught at Virginia Military Institute and the The Citadel. Best info of him I found is here. Unfortunately, I can't find something that make him notable. Bgwhite (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Despite WP:N guidelines (and my own view on 'hereditorials'), presumably covered in The Descendants of the Presidents of the United States of America (original published by author 1955) by Walter L. Zorn; Burke's Presidential Families of the United States of America by Marcus Cunliffe, Lesley Hume Cunliffe and David Williamson - London: Burke's Peerage 1975 (ISBN 9780668037006) & 1981 (ISBN 9780850110333) (online 2010 according to our Burke's article); American Presidential Families by Hugh Brogan, Charles Mosley & David Prebenna - MacMillan 1993/1994 (ISBN 9780750905824); and A Genealogy of the Wives of the American Presidents and Their First Two Generations of Descent by Craig Hart North Carolina: McFarland & Co. 2004 (ISBN 9780786419562) print spanning 49 years. Dru of Id (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just expanded and referenced the article. Some of the references are not of the most Reliable variety but he is an interesting person and gets mentioned a lot, partly just by the astonishing fact of being a living grandson of a president who was born 220 years ago! --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 24 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, Sandstein 19:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequate career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, there is not "adequate career achievement" per WP:PROF. The article just shows random coverage of the life of a person who, without the famous grandfather, would clearly be found not to satisfy WP:BIO: he got an education and had a couple of jobs. In addition, there are directory listings in what amounts to "The Big Book Of Everyone Who Had A Notable Ancestor." That sounds like directory listings, and just reiterates that he had a famous grandfather.Notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any clear evidence of passing any of the criteria of WP:PROF, and without that there is only WP:NOTINHERITED to fall back on. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 27 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, Baseball Watcher 21:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification- Would not be included without INHERITED, but inclusion in London: Burke's The Big Book Of Everyone Who Had A Notable Ancestor, on another continent demonstrates WP:GNG. Dru of Id (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Casual coverage in secondary sources devoted wholly or mostly to genealogy doesn't suffice for notability. Ray^Talk 20:00, 9 May 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, Baseball Watcher 22:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, fails WP:BIO. To be honest, some of the shakier Keep rationales I've heard for some time. First, even if we could presume someone is mentioned in printed genealogies - which we expressly cannot - it is of course fundamental to WP:V and the GNG that a source that does not discuss a subject in "significant detail" cannot be used to sustain an article on that subject. Second, "he's interesting" doesn't form any part of inclusion criteria. Here's hoping the closing admin goes for the substance of the arguments over nose count. Ravenswing 11:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numb to Life[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Sources refer entirely to the drugs, and say nothing about the film. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like TPH, I cannot see how WP:NFILM is met here. Various Google searches reveal that the general notability guideline is not met, either, although use of the phrase "numb to life" is apparently not uncommon. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Jason Cook (actor)#Career per WP:TOOSOON where now has a sourced mention. What we have is an unreleased film by a notable person yes, but that itself has no coverage. If this changes and it can meet WP:NF, then we might consider a return... but until then... nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: After asking the nominator for his opinion on a redirect,[14] he stated "Yeah, go ahead and redirect." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:49, 17 May 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, Baseball Watcher 22:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I can't find enough coverage of the film to justify an article yet. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - let's call it a test page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good book list[edit]

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

Speedy delete. Misuse of WP as blog. TransporterMan (TALK) 21:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Throne of a Thousand Years[edit]

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

This is just a self-published book, it fails Wikipedia:Notability (books); the only reviews of this English-language book are in Swedish, published in small newspapers in the author-publisher's home region. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user above is not neutral regarding any of my work on Wikimedia projects. That has long beeen a well documented fact. I hope this discussion and its outcome, if taken seriously by others, will clearly be influenced by editors whose lack of bias is beyond reproach. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There has been a lot of discussion about the notability of this article already at Talk:Throne of a Thousand Years. I will try to summarise it here. The central claim to notability of this book are the three Swedish newspaper articles cited in the article. I have already tried to find sources using the find sources template, but I didn't have any luck. Because of this, the reliability of the Swedish sources seems paramount. However, we haven't yet had any comments by a disinterested third party who speaks good enough Swedish to judge them. What we do know without having such comments is that the newspapers are all local, not national. Until we get a good appraisal of the sources I will withhold from !voting. There was some talk of going to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard instead of here, but Pieter Kuiper chose to take it here instead. Also, just as SergeWoodzing said, he and Pieter do seem to have a past history of dispute, although I haven't investigated the details. This has resulted in a confrontary tone on the talk page; hopefully we can avoid that here. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour^♫ 05:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Leaving it to others to evaluate, it seems to me that the book's inclusion as a reference work at all those libraries (which can be verified by checking their collections which usually are openly available on the Internet) might also factor into this. I have had to assume that the 9-page bibliography has something to do with that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I dont understand what all this buzz is all about on this articles discussion page. I see that it is sourced somewhat anyway. I say Keep an awaits more consensus on the issue.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that the references section has been expanded since the article has been brought to AfD, particularly with regard to translations of the source material. There were no quotes in this section when the discussion on the talk page first began. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that is not correct. The last edit to the page is my bringing this to AfD. As to the Swedish small-town newspapers, there is nothing particularly unreliable about them, but some of it is more "human interest" in the author, who is called a local oddball with many books. Any garage band or farmer's league sports team can also show such coverage in the local press. It does not establish notability. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, sorry, I see that you're right. The references section was expanded after most of the talk page discussion, but before the AfD nomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anything I have written here is specifically questioned, I have already decided to abstain from further involvement, as I can be perceived as biased. I respectfully suggest that Pieter Kuiper (who defninitely is biased) also abstain, since nothing he is going to add - such as sarcasms like "garage band or farmer's league sports team" - is likely to create clarity or balance here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is a typically misleading Kuiperism: his non-factual addition of "local" to "oddball" - whereas the article actually stresses the author's extensive international background. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdly, and lastly (I hope), I might point out how that user's only interest in English Wikipedia is his biased input about this book. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serge, you have said here and above that Pieter has a "well-documented" history of bias against you. Would you mind pointing us towards the evidence you are talking about? Are we just talking diffs as evidence, or have you actually brought this up with some kind of central dispute noticeboard on a Wikimedia project somewhere? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a search and found this at ANI (note also the links to past discussions at the top). Is there anything other than this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not get into it more than that here and now. I think we've got enough to establish bias. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The regional newspaper coverage demonstrates local notability - quotations and translations have been provided, so it is clear the articles do discuss the book. In addition I found this article, which is on a scholarly topic by someone with a doctorate (a friend who unlike me can read Ukrainian, tells me it argues the Ynglingar were Scythians) and cites it (it's the last item in the bibliography, number 22). It looks as if the book may have been superseded in its stated purpose by number 19 and/or number 20, and it is unfortunate in some ways that the author donated copies of his book to libraries rather than letting them establish a paper/electronic trail discussing buying it. But notability doesn't expire and is not affected by something having only foreign-language sources, and a Ukrainian citation is evidence of importance beyond what's shown in the newspapers. There may also be other newspaper articles further afield; 1996 is uncomfortably far back to search in online archives; but in my estimation we have enough to consider it notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does a reference by a doctor (in what?) with a nutty nationalistic theory establish notibility? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political science, see the first page. It's an academic citation, which is an indication of notability, and also indicates interest in the book outside the region of Sweden, which has been the objection to the newspaper articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I already considered the book borderline notable because of the Swedish newspaper articles. The Ukrainian citation pointed out by Yngvadottir is enough to persuade me that the article should definitely be kept. I am also of the opinion that if this book is really the first English-language account of the kings and queens of Sweden - and I haven't found any evidence that it is not - then that should also be taken into account in judging notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nexialist (profession)[edit]

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

Not even a neologism, a term used in a fictional book. No notability. TransporterMan (TALK) 20:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (by article creator): It is true that the term was first used in fiction in the 1950's, but now we actually have such a profession, and I for one would like to honor the original name for it. (p.s. the term Faximile macine (i.e. FAX) was first coined by Joul verne in a fiction) Idzuhare (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick check of Google and Google Books shows that this word is being used. I like it. However WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is little information about real-life nexialists in the article, just dictionary info on the word itself -- plus some vague statements about what a nexialist should be like. Wiktionary is the place for this, if they don't have the information already.Borock (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough widespread use of the term. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That the article creator wishes to memorialize the term is all very well and good, but Wikipedia is not a webhost. Perhaps he could create a website where he can promote use of the term. Ravenswing 11:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vodrota[edit]

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

This article doesn't fit under a CSD category, but should be deleted per WP:NOT (not a dictionary). This article also appears to be in some foreign language and therefore shouldn't be on the English wikipedia. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Playing with Google translator suggests that the language could be Esperanto (and doesn't provide a translation), and searches for the term result in foreign pages as well (which I didn't review). CSD suggests to tag the article for translation if the content doesn't exist in another WP project, but given that the reference provided in the article is "Several books and good thinking of my mind. Abu Reza(RU) Nelson Halder Joni", I will lean towards deletion with the usual caveats if light is shed upon the content and reliable sources are provided - frankieMR (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not Esperanto, looks like a mixture of Bangla and English. I suspect the title means "respect." -- Yablochko (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please! This is meaningless in the English Wikipedia. I came across it because it showed up in the CheckWiki error lists. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offdee Scale[edit]

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

No indication that this "rating scale" is independently notable. Appears to have been recently made up by some folks on a discussion forum. PROD was contested. VQuakr (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, and wikipedia is WP:NOT for stuff made up on a web forum one day. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research/stuff made up one day. I see that it was prodded but the prod was reversed by an WP:SPA. Close to being a hoax; certainly a joke. "Off the scale," get it? "Offdee himself is not a public figure and thus is little is known about him, other than he has :style: and is a connoisseur of the fairer sex." --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Funny, but unfortunately not notable. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GingerBread Lane[edit]

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

unremarkable holiday display, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Google brings up only brief mentions in local news. References provided are largely to primary sources promoting the event. Prod was contested without comment or improvement. RadioFan (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not a wikipedian. I am merely the owner of GBL. I paid someone to write the piece, and am presently paying someone who is WELL VERSED in wiki to redo the wiki page to not only make it look like a wiki entry but to further add in the relevant references. GBL was seen in 2010 by over 100,000 people. I think it is as relavant as say, the piece on Kevin Sousa a chef of a local restaurant, who has merely 2 actual links that dont go to his own restaurant. In short, I have 8 active links that do indeed go to news stories. In the past, there were more news stories, I am now learning those things dont stay active forever. In short, the web designer who specializes in wiki will have it looking wiki - appropriate in the next 48 hours and all the news references working. But I can assure you - an exhibit that over 100,000 visit annually is remarkable. 71.236.97.1 (talk · contribs) 23:57, May 16, 2011 (unsigned post)

Delete - the sources are pretty weak, and if the article has been written by people who were paid by the owner of the exhibit, that suggests a strong conflict of interest that will make the article more difficult to sort out. But I will try to edit it into a salvageable form. —Tim Pierce (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, there is definitely a conflict of interest there. SteelIron^Talk 04:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For starters, Mr. Lovitch, you should fire that "well versed" editor who "specializes in wiki"; they clearly know nothing about Wikipedia. The article is in dreadful shape; he/she doesn't even know how to cite references. In the second place, Wikipedia strongly frowns upon paid articles (although it doesn't forbid them); the mere fact that somebody paid someone else to place an article here suggests that the subject is not notable enough to have earned its way here through notability. I am holding off on an up/down recommendation right now, but it does look as if some of the news articles are more than passing mentions (e.g. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette). I will wait to see the promised improvements. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment One possibility is to merge and redirect to Hyatt Regency Crown Center (once the current content is cleaned up of course). Pichpich (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling (unclear, like most of the article) that this is a "traveling" exhibit, which goes to different locations or is set up in different places in different years - not just a Hyatt Regency affair. I could be wrong. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having the same difficulty. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article mentioned earlier at http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05327/611639.stm has some more context: it sounds like the creator invented this project in Kansas City, took it with him to Washington D.C. when he moved there, and is now living in Pittsburgh and running it there. Lack of clarity on this point is one of the things that is making it difficult for me to understand how to improve the article. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Melanie N, still learning how to do this commenting thing. The web designer doing it for me isnt done. it is as is right now because someone put the entry in, without being asked to do so and clearly not understanding wiki. I emailed wiki and got a response from wiki saying it needed to be done by someone with no stake in GBL. So that is why I paid and contracted someone to do it for me, based on thier reccomendation of having someone with no stake in GBL fix it. They should be done today. To clarify, it is indeed a traveling exhibit. Been at Smithsonian, Rockefeller Center, Hyatt, Marriott, One Oxford Centre, has no home. But tons of fans and a lot of people who come see it, which is why it was reccomended to me to have a wiki piece done on it. Major improvements should be made tonite. If you look at the references shown, the Trib piece, the Gazette piece, the Martha Stewart Living piece, and the wash post pieces, you will see it has several notable news sources. Sorry for not knowing how to do this commenting thing. I shall make an attempt to learn. And I get you guys passion, it is clear that is why wiki isnt such a cluster anymore. Kudos. Kcdcchef (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Jon[reply]
Comment Still waiting for any improvement to the article. Today marks seven days since the article was listed, which is normally the amount of time allowed for discussion. Maybe the closing administrator could userfy the page to Kcdcchef instead of deleting it outright? (That means take it out of Wikipedia but put it in a private place where you can continue to work on it.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertisement for minor traveling show. Strongly oppose userfication to the COI account of Kcdcchef, who seems to think that a hired spammer somehow constitutes "someone with no stake in" promoting the subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While I tend to sympathize with those who think this would best be addressed in an X-Men wiki, there is not a consensus to delete here. I do not think it's fair to accord less weight to the keep !votes, because there is respectable coverage in Comic Book Resources, and my evaluation of that site and a quick look at RS/N suggests that it is a reliable source for its area of emphasis. The article still suffers from too much original research, and I suspect that it will need to have improved sourcing to avoid eventual renomination. Editors may wish to consider carefully if an appropriate merge target can be developed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third Summers brother[edit]

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

Delete - not a notable concept. There are no reliable third-party sources that include significant coverage of this (currently) non-existent, theoretical, character. The only sources currently cited are an unreliable fansite and a former forum that no longer exists, so that the little possibly factual information about this character theory is unverifiable. No Google results other than additional fansites. Great swaths of the article are original research. I realize that fans of the genre like to have every facet covered in complete detail but this material is suited for an X-Men wiki, not Wikipedia. It doesn't begin to approach meeting inclusion standards. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, some sources can be found such as previews, reviews and interviews. The term "third Summers brother" is used in them. Other sources could certainly be found with only "Summers brother" and be added to complete the sources. The creation concept is interesting, the idea of an other brother is suggested by an author and various artists use it. In an universe like Marvel, the processus of writing a new story and take into account all that has been written before is quite difficult. In this article, we can see the insertion of new characters to answer an enigma launched by a previous author and in the same time the perilous exercice to insert them in the continuity currently in existence.--Crazy runner (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the in-universe interest in or difficulty around the topic is not relevant to whether there are independent reliable sources that significantly cover the topic (as opposed to simply using the term). If you could offer some examples of such sources that would be appreciated since all I've seen are blogs and fansites which do not meet the standard for sources. Harley Hudson (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added some sources which use the term "third Summers brother". If the term is used in interviews and reviews (ex Comic Book Resources), it gives notability to the concept of an additional brother. Any source about a new character that could be a Summers brother can be added to the article. If you want a source which makes a review of the possible third summers brother, read this one [15].--Crazy runner (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that perhaps you are not understanding the notability guideline. There need to be multiple independent reliable sources that are significantly about the subject of the article. If the sources only "use" the term then they are not offering significant coverage of the subject. If the sources are not reliable, in that they are fansites and blogs, then they don't meet the standard. I would not argue the point that there are sites on the Internet that make mention of this character concept. But those mentions do not rise to the level of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that Wikipedia expects for its articles. The citations that you're offering are fansites and blogs for the most part and even if they weren't their coverage of the concept "third Summers brother" is limited to a sentence or two, and in some cases just a single sentence. Take for example this review of a collection from GeeksofDoom (an unreliable blog to begin with) which addresses the concept of "third Summers brother" in a sentence and a half. Or this chat transcript (which has verifiability issues) which contains a single question about the concept out of some 50 questions asked. And the rest of the various cites currently in the article and elsewhere are all more of the same. If there were truly reliable sources that did actually cover this concept in a significant fashion then these cites might serve possibly to fill in some blanks but to serve as indicators of notability they are simply not sufficient. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A book is used as a source for the meeting between Sinister and Scott Summers. Comic Book Resources presents the concept of the third brother and it is well developped. In an interview with IGN, editor Nick Lowe explains that the mention of the third summers brother allows to boost the sales of Deadly Genesis. They are sources and good ones. They are the main sources and the others are only filling the blanks and you can read in a lot of them the importance of the "third summers brother". And I do not like "The citations that you're offering are fansites and blogs for the most part". Most part come from CBR, IGN and ComicsAlliance.--Crazy runner (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book cites a single page out of a 186 page book and it is used to source dialogue from the comic book. This CBR reference includes two sentences about the concept. This CBR reference is an article about comics "urban legends" and offers limited coverage of the concept. This CBR source contains the single sentence "Who is the third Summers brother and what happened to him?" This blog source's coverage of the concept is a whopping eight words: "Originally intended to be the Third Summers Brother". These sources, unreliable as they are, establish that the character concept exists. No one is disputing that the concept exists. However, the concept is not supported by significant sources. Significant sources is not "it's mentioned on one page in a book" or "a blogger wrote a couple of sentences about it" or "I'm a fan and this is really important." Harley Hudson (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At your sentence "offers limited coverage of the concept", I answer it is your opinion not mine. Is Adam-X notable ? Is Vulcan notable ? Have they been named the third summers brother during an interview or a review ? Have they been link to the story of Fabian Nicieza ? The answers are yes to all. Before saying "I'm a fan and this is really important.", you should read the interview, it is written something like "us editors use this concept to boost our sales". Some sources provide by only few sentences in an interview or in the beginning of a review the importance of the concept. Some sources provide by long paragraphs enought coverage to justify nearly all the sentences of the Wikipedia article. To "These sources, unreliable as they are", I answer that CBR receives many Awards, Comic Book Legends Revealed is a section of CBR that is published in books, IGN is widely used as a source on wikipedia and ComicsAlliance was nominated to the Eisner Awards.--Crazy runner (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, funny. If it is something not notable why is there someone who has decided to make a book about the subject ? [16]. Too bad that they used some pages of wikipedia.--Crazy runner (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are Adam X and Vulcan notable? I have no idea. The question is irrelevant to whether this article meets Wikipedia's guidelines or not. The book you cite is not a reliable source exactly because it uses Wikipedia content. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know about the book that is exactly what I have said. For information, on wikipedia, there are pages about codenames, nicknames shared by notables comic characters. Some of them are used only as a disambiguation page, others develop more if there is a link between them. The sources prove that "third summers brother" as been used by artists, editors to qualify these characters that are notables. It gives a notability to it. As the sources prove that the denomination has been linked to the story written by Fabian Nicieza, it is normal that the article presents the story and different characters that fall under this denomination. Anyway, we are going nowhere, two opposite points of view. You think that is not notable and you qualify CBR, IGN and ComicsAlliance as unreliable. In some sources, you see a couple of sentences when I see paragraphs to justify the wikipedia article. You see a big Fan or Blogger saying "this is important" when I see an Editor (he is certainly a big fan but it is irrelevant). We certainly need other opinions on the subject. To finish on a good point, we are only agree that some minor sources are only here to fill the blanks.--Crazy runner (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources are minor, because that's what one or two sentence sources are, minor. The sources establish that this character concept exists but existence is not notability. That other pages exist on Wikipedia is irrelevant, since each article needs to have independent reliable sources that significantly cover the subject. "Some comics writers use 'third Summers brother'" does not take the concept into notability and any notability that characters that may have been bootstrapped under the concept have doesn't confer any notability on the concept. Harley Hudson (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can read paragraphs with illustrations in this source [17] not one or two sentences. In my opinion, the denomination has a notability because it is used to qualify notable characters and it is used by artists and editors. This denomination is coming from the concept. Do you want a disambiguation page without explaining the links between the denomination and the characters ? When the concept is used to boost sales, I find it quite notable. The discussion is not progressing. At the beginning, the sources were coming from fansites and blogs, I give sources used on wikipedia that are reliables, sites with awards, you find them unreliables. At the beginning, it was a codename used by fans, I give sources that show artists and editors using this denomination, you reject it. At the beginning, it was just fans which find it important, I give a source which shows that it has been used to promote a series, you reject it. We certainly need other opinions on the subject.--Crazy runner (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Marvel uses it to sell books" doesn't make the concept notable. "In this issue, an X-Man dies!" has been used to boost sales for any number of individual issues and storylines. Does that make "Dead X-Man" a notable concept for an article? No. Harley Hudson (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the article Comic book death or List of dead comic book characters should not exist ?--Crazy runner (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm suggesting that being used as the basis for a marketing push for a story arc does not serve as an underpinning for a legitimate Wikipedia article. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A comic book death of a particular character can be described in the character article that has died and can be put in relation with the article that explains the concept of a comic book death. I have got the impression in your last comment that you are concentring the attention on a single argument. If it was the only one, no problem I will be agree with you but it is not the case. If there were only two characters, the information could be included in Vulcan, the character most known as the third brother but it is not the case. If the characters were not notable, there would not have been an article about this concept but it is not the case. If I am reading well the sources, multiple notable characters were used to answer a question that is considered as an important question created in the main Marvel continuity. If I am reading well the sources, the term "third summers brother" is used to qualify this concept by artists and editors and used in relation with the notable characters presented in this article. If I am reading well the sources, it has been used to improve the sales of a notable series. Are there reliable sources which covered the essential information of the article ? (some with paragraphs about the subject, others with a few lines to fill the blanks) Yes, so it works for me. --Crazy runner (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The notability of characters who were at one time identified as or speculated as possibly being the fulfillment of this theoretical character concept has no bearing on whether the concept itself is supported by independent reliable sources that significantly cover the concept. "Here's a sentence that uses the term" and "here's a paragraph with a picture of the panel where Sinister says 'third brother'" and "here's two sentences in an interview" are trivial passing mentions of the sort specifically excluded by WP:GNG as contributing to a subject's notability. And most of the proffered sources are not about the concept "third Summers brother" but are instead about characters who were at some point or another speculated to be the "third Summers brother" or who were put forward as being a Summers brother but not the third brother to which the concept refers. The article itself ironically says it best. It was a throwaway line in a comic book that caught fan attention so a few Marvel writers played with the concept for a couple of characters. And that's all it is. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the article and the sources. The concept "third Summers brother" refers to another member of the Summers family, it has never been proved that there are only three brothers. So this article is not about the third Summers brother. The concept is commonly called "third Summers brother". Some sources present the concept and the different characters created to answer this problematic. Some sources are only passing mentions, used to fill the blanks. The sources show that the term is used by reliable sources, artists, editors to demonstrate the links between these notable characters and the work done by artists to answer the concept of another member of the Summers family. One of the character has been chosen to be the third Summers brother in the main continuity, others have been speculated due to the plot in main continuity and linked in alternate continuities, others have been speculated and the writer could not finish his job. Are these characters are notables ? Are the readers have read the notable comic books, series in which the writers try to answer the concept of the third brother ? When the Summers link was not proven by the plot, has it been verify during interviews by quote from the writers themselves ? Is the denomination has been used to boost some sales ? Yes to all. About the sources, at the maximum, you see only one paragraph when some sources contain more than that. The sources are used to verify most of the material in the article, the majority of them are reliables. I didn't realise that the wikipedia article was made of only one paragraph, two sentences and a picture. When a writer says that he tried to answer the concept of another Summers in his story, it is not anymore a speculation, it is a fact.--Crazy runner (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um...I have read the article and the so-called sources. I really don't understand where the disconnect is for you between "used in a source" and "significant coverage". All kinds of things are used in sources; that mere mention doesn't contribute to notability. I also don't understand where the disconnect is for you between the notability of an individual character that may or may not have been suggested as a possible brother and the concept "third Summers brother" itself. The notability of the character Vulcan means nothing toward the notability of the concept "third Summers brother". The notability of the character Adam X means nothing toward the notability of the concept. Fan speculation means nothing toward the notability of the concept. In-universe speculation means nothing toward the notability of the concept. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the notability of the series and the characters which tried to answer the concept is important otherwise what it is the interest to write an article if nearly no one has read one of the plot presented in the article. During an interview when a writer says that he tried to answer the concept of another Summers in his story, it is not anymore a speculation, it is a fact. Can you find reviews to justify the plots ? Can you find sources to justify that some characters have been intended to be another Summers brother ? Have you got sources that discuss most of the wikipedia article to justify that you are not creating an original work ? For me, it is a yes. The concept is linked to notable plots, artists and characters. The sources described it as an important question for the readers. The notability is proven by the sources. Most of the article is referenced by reliable sources. For me, it is always a Keep.--Crazy runner (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already told you, we certainly need other opinions on the subject because you have your opinion, you see something, I have my opinion and I see something else.--Crazy runner (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CBR and UXN, listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Marvel Comics work group#Resources, are used as the two main sources of the article. They proved that it is not an original work grouping plots, reviews and interviews.--Crazy runner (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information, before this deletion talk, there were talks about a merging of this article with Vulcan Talk:Vulcan (Marvel Comics)#i propose a merge and Talk:Vulcan (Marvel Comics)#Second Merge Proposal with the conclusion of non merging.--Crazy runner (talk) 11:55, 3 May 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) 00:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break following relist notice[edit]

Delete There is no evidence that the topic itself, third Summers brother, is covered in reliable third-party sources or that it is a notable plot point. There are only trivial mentions at best and, per the general notability guideline, significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. The references used within the article barely mention the third Summers brother and none explain its relevance as a plot point. The one source that covers in detail the topic is an unofficial fansite, same as the external links. With no real-world context about why the plot point is relevant outside of the X-Men continuity, the article is mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work that does not meet general notability guideline and should not be kept in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a fansite. Jfgslo (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CBR covers in detail the topic and it is not a fansite.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the the references used within the article, only one touches the topic, while the others, a preview and interviews with Yost and Nicieza, are trivial mentions that barely talk about it and do not show how is the topic notable from a real-world perspective. And the one reference that talks about, only recounts the history behind the concept but does not give analysis or commentary about the importance of the plot point itself, not even from the X-Men continuity point of view. The CBR references do not offer real-world context or sourced analysis for the fictional plot point and they do not represent significant coverage because it is only one source. CBR may be reliable but the references used do not show how the third summer brother is a notable plot point. Jfgslo (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage in secondary sources justifies retaining. Also worthwhile to give interested parties opportunity to improve upon the sourcing and expand relevant material, perhaps to revisit quality later. -- Cirt (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically which secondary sources? The fansites? The self-published blogs? The ones that mention the concept in single sentences and which contain no substantive information? Harley Hudson (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I agree with Crazy runner in his arguments to keep the article. The key point is that the article is about a concept and not a specific person. It is called "Third Summers brother" because a third brother was not introduced until recently, and once he was introduced it made no sense to change it to "Additional Summers brothers" because the original term had been around for so long. Furthermore, Crazy runner has done an amazing job since the article was nominated for deletion to add appropriate references to the article. Before he added those references the argument was weak to delete the article, but there is no basis for deletion with those references now included. Spidey104 13:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The basis for deletion remains the same, that there are no independent reliable sources that significantly cover this subject. A one-sentence mention on a blog is not significant reliable coverage. A couple of paragraphs in a longer general article are not significant coverage. Whether the article is about a specific character or the general concept makes no difference. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with you regarding a one-sentence mention on a blog, I do not agree that a couple of paragraphs in a longer general article are necessarily not significant coverage. WP:GNG provides that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." A couple of paragraphs specifically about the subject is probably more than trivial. Rlendog (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I also agree with Crazy runner.
In direct response to Harley's most recent comment: You ask for reliable references. Crazy runner provided reliable references. You now claim they are not reliable enough. The next step would be to delete at least half of the articles on Wikipedia based on your hyper-specific definition of reliable.
If the arguments for deletion win out over the arguments against deletion then the information in the article should be merged rather than lost. Yes, I realize there have been merge discussions before that ended in consensus to not merge, but those were conducted under the natural assumption that both articles would continue to exist. I think all editors that were against the merge before would not be for the merge instead of losing the article's information completely. Vulcan would be the best location for this merge, but obviously I think keeping it as a separate article would be better. Kurt Parker (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not distort my position. What I have said all along is two-fold: that many of the sources offered are not reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines; and that regardless of the reliability of the offered sources their coverage of this concept does not constitute significant coverage. My "hyper-specific definition of reliable" is exactly the same as Wikipedia's. My definition of significant coverage is exactly the same as Wikipedia's. Single-sentence mentions on blogs are neither reliable nor significant. Not every single line of dialogue in a comic book needs its own article, regardless of how many comics fans think that they should. Harley Hudson (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your reply makes me believe that he represented your position perfectly. If you think Wikipedia's guidelines have to be followed to the letter then there are plenty of articles that should be deleted. I'm not kidding. (And I don't think Kurt was either.) I can't seem to find the Wikipedia page, but I know there is a statement that all of the rules can and should be broken when necessary and following the rules exactly can be worse than breaking them. CBR is not a blog and is a reliable news source for comic books. Just because it doesn't have a print copy doesn't mean it is less reliable than a newspaper. (Sidenote: considering how the newspaper industry is declining because of the internet you could easily argue that it is more reliable than a newspaper because it probably has more readers that will be able to point out if they are incorrect.) Also your last line "Not every single line of dialogue in a comic book needs its own article, regardless of how many comics fans think that they should." makes me believe that you are biased against comic book related articles and the WikiProject that supports them. Editors are supposed to be non-biased, therefore some administrators should consider whether or not your arguments are valid. And don't try to claim that I am biased for comic book related articles because I edit many of them: (1) I have argued for the deletion of some comic book articles because of non-notability (2) I stay away from articles that I am unqualified to determine notability on so as to keep that conversation balanced and fair. The significance of the concept and furor around this concept is surprising since it came from only a single line of dialogue, but point out another comic book article that is based on a single line of dialogue as you claim. Spidey104 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he completely misrepresented my position. So did you, and you threw in accusations of bad faith on my part on top of it, so thanks for that. Regardless of whether CBR is a reliable source, its coverage of this subject, like coverage in every suggested source for this subject, is minimal. If this concept is so significant and the furor around it so great you would think that it would generate coverage in reliable sources that is more than a paragraph or two in a larger article about comic book urban myths. All of the fan chatter in the world doesn't make this a notable concept.
I neither know nor care whether you are biased in one direction or another about comic book articles. Nor do I care what standards you apply to yourself in deciding whether or not to join a discussion. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome for the accusation of bad faith; I meant it. Bias against certain types of articles being included in Wikipedia is one of the biggest internal threats to possibly destroy the quality of Wikipedia.

If both of us misrepresented your position so badly why don't you explain your position better so we can get past this misunderstanding?

The furor around this subject was great back in the '90s, which is why there are so few internet sources for it. The furor has died down more recently, especially with the introduction of an additional brother. Would you accept a citation from Wizard from back in the day as a reliable resource? I haven't added it before because of (1) the effort it would take to dig the correct magazine from my collection to find the article and properly cite it and (2) I thought it was unnecessary to the article as it stood. Spidey104 15:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can maybe help to find the correct magazine see the following link [18]. If it is not this one, maybe a mention of a magazine number or a date can be found in a forum to narrow down the research.--Crazy runner (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, this reads as either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to present a fan based theory to explain an in story plot hole/conflict. The references provided are problematic and don't really show notability.
- Ultimate X-Men is only used to establish the Cyclops and Havok are related.
- "X-POSITION Week 22" (CBR) is something that in the grey area of reliability regarding secondary sources for comics, but it mentions this topic in passing, at best.
- "The Most Bizarre Superpowers In Comics" (ComicsAlliance) is also in that area, but it doesn't fully support what it is attached to as a reference. It is another "in passing" reference to the "theory"
- "THIRD SUMMERS BROTHER" (UncannyXmen.Net) is not a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines.
- "Comic Book Legends Revealed #217" (CBR) is about the best source listed, but it deals with a single character, not the entire theory.
- "CBR Chat Transcript: Fabian Nicieza" is a non-reference.
- "Marvel Previews for 5/10: "X-Men: Deadly Genesis" #6, "Annihilation: Super-Skrull" #2 & More" is a Marvel solicit, not a reliable source for this.
- "Comic Review: Uncanny X-Men: Rise and Fall of the Shi’ar Empire" (Geeks of Doom) is questionable under Wikipedia guidelines and provides only a passing mention of the theory.
- "X-Men: Second Coming Damage Report - Act 2" (IGN) Would be a good source but provides nothing.

So we are left with a non-notable topic and an article made up of unsourced theorizing and a spattering od plot and at least one unattributed quote. There is nothing here worth keeping. - J Greb (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Comic Book Legends Revealed #217" A single character really ?:

"The third Summers Brother was originally going to be Adam X The X-Treme!"

"A few years back, Ed Brubaker revealed in the pages of X-Men: Deadly Genesis that the third Summers brother was this fellow named Vulcan, who was the son of Christopher and Kate Summers (he was torn from the womb and incubated by the Shi’ar)."

"Chris Claremont gave HIS take on who the third Summers brother should be when he revealed in his alternate future series, X-Men: The End, that Gambit was the third brother. Of course, though, that was an alternate reality."

"Robert Weinberg was going to reveal that Apocalypse was actually the third Summers Brother!"

85.171.171.184 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate X-Men establish that the conversation with Mister Sinister and Cyclops exits.
"X-POSITION Week 22" (CBR) mentions "Is there a third Summers brother?" as an important question in the main Marvel continuity.
"The Most Bizarre Superpowers In Comics" (ComicsAlliance) is "in passing" reference to the "theory".
"THIRD SUMMERS BROTHER" (UncannyXmen.Net) UXN is listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References.
"Comic Book Legends Revealed #217" (CBR) deals with the entire theory.
"CBR Chat Transcript: Fabian Nicieza" provides the opinion of Fabian Nicieza about the revelation of Gambit being the character in question over in X-Men: The End?
"Marvel Previews for 5/10: "X-Men: Deadly Genesis" #6, "Annihilation: Super-Skrull" #2 & More" and "Comic Review: Uncanny X-Men: Rise and Fall of the Shi’ar Empire" (Geeks of Doom) provides only a passing mention of the theory "third Summers brother did indeed exist and was the previously unknown character Vulcan". A review of X-Men: Deadly Genesis would be better.
"X-Men: Second Coming Damage Report - Act 2" (IGN) provides "the presence of the third Summers brother in the story was revealed to increase the sales"

85.171.171.184 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be agreeing that the majority of the cited sources are passing mentions of the theory, is that a fair interpretation of your above comments?

Of those which you don't refer to specifically as passing mentions, you appear to be hanging a lot on the UXN because the Comics project lists it as a resource. However, reading the UXN site pretty clearly establishes that it does not meet the Wikipedia standard for reliable sources. The site solicits content from anyone who cares to submit it and there is no indication of a regimen of editorial oversight.

Whatever Marvel may or may not have done about the concept to increase sales does not contribute to the notability of the concept because anything Marvel does is by definition a primary source. Harley Hudson (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Wizard Magazine, the CBR source and the UXN are not passing mentions. The passing mentions in the reviews provide each plot is linked to Franck Nicieza's plot. About UXN "We are a meritorious group, meaning that one must earn high-profile duties. New summarizers start with “back-issues”, or secondary titles proving that they have both talent and staying power in terms of being a Contributor." [19] If you want to know more about Peter Luzifer's work [20]. The interviews are secondary sources. If you tell someone else what I told you, you are the secondary source.--85.171.171.184 (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When editing an article or proposing a deletion, a contributor follows the rules and recommendations of Wikipedia and the rules and recommendations of the article projects.--85.171.171.184 (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the "rules and recommendations" of an individual project do not and cannot override the policies and guidelines of the project as a whole. And grandiose statements from a fansite don't make the fansite reliable. Harley Hudson (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry too but you seem to have a reading problem. I have never write this statement about policies and guidelines. I am just telling you that you can not ignore the policies and guidelines of Wikiprojects because they do not suit you. My statement is the following: "UXN is written on the Comics Wikiproject on the page about the references and some contributors like Harley Hudson think that it should not be there". 85.171.169.124 (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And my statement is that the comics project is free to adopt any statement it wishes and it doesn't mean dickie bird if it conflicts with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Articles that are under the purview of the comics project still have to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no "but not if the comics project disagrees" exemption. Harley Hudson (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you about the comics project and their contributors but I was not talking about exemption but consideration. It is better than just ignoring it. It is written but some contributors like you think it is against the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.85.171.169.124 (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try to remember that finding good sources is problematic as the title of the article. It could be "Additional Summers Brother", "Summers Brother". Crazy runner seems to have concentrate on the use of "Third Summers Brother" in interviews to give importance to the concept and show that is more than a fan theory. I have a question for all of you. Have you watched the pages of Template:X-Men ? Except for the main characters, have you got reliable sources about the article subject and only the article subject ? Most of the time, there are only some sentences in reviews and interviews. It seems to be the same configuration for "Third Summers Brother". What proves the notablility of these characters ??? Notability of the series, the authors, the number of appearances ??? I defy you to prove only one reliable source about the character for each one of the characters in Template:X-Men. Here, reviews and interviews can be found and you have one ref that covers all the essential information of this article. If it is not enought, then you will have a lot of problem to stop future deletion processes about comics.85.171.171.184 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources don't exist for other articles related to the X-Men then they should be deleted as well. The non-notability of other subjects doesn't mean that this one should be kept. Sources don't have to be only about the subject of the article but they do need to include significant coverage of it. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is the comics project seems to act differently. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia but it is also made of popular culture. There is coverage: the comic books, the interviews, the reviews, the blogs even in another langage [21]. Coverage does not mean coverage of reliable sources which present all the subject. Each part of the subject, character linked to the plot with Sinister, can be find in a source. And more than one source have presented all the subject with all characters but only one reliable has been found for the moment. Definetely not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Except for a marvel encyclopedia which is a primary source, where will you find secondary reliable source about only one character which is not a main one ? You will only find trivial mentions. 85.170.153.15 (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break following 2nd relist notice[edit]

Delete. Lacks independent encyclopedic significance. We could, no doubt, cobble together articles from reliable sources on "Donald Trump's Hair," "Angelina Jolie's Tattoos," or "Jennifer Lopez's Butt in Popular Culture". But like these, a long-dangling comic book plot point simply doesn't merit an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a paragraph on Angelina Jolie's Tattoos with pictures in Angelina Jolie. So why are you giving this example and not voting for a merge ??? It could be in Vulcan until an additional Summers Brother appears or sources bring new information.--85.171.171.184 (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.85.171.171.184 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is some informations in Wizard Magazine about the subject. If someone has it, it is time to bring it in the game.--85.171.171.184 (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and per Hullaballoo's cogent point; this is plain unencyclopedic. For pity's sake, this is a hypothetical plot concept in a fictional serial; however much Wikipedia includes pop culture, it's at least incumbent on said culture to exist. Ravenswing 11:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists. That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Have you read this source ?130.120.37.11 (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Have you read this source ?130.120.37.11 (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key operative phrase is "reliable published source." I'm am wholly unsold on the premise that this blogger's speculative op ed piece represents a "reliable published source." Ravenswing 12:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Book Resources is a "reliable published source." Read the wikipedia article about CBR, the Wikiproject Comics [22], look the awards of this website, make some researchs, try to see how many articles use it as a source [23]. If CBR is not anymore a reliable source, a lot of work should be done on pages about comics. 130.120.37.11 (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have read the CBR source before voting, you would have read some stuff like "Thanks to Robert Weinberg for the information", Brian Cronin do a work of investigation and interview people before publishing.130.120.37.11 (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Crazy runner points above--RossF18 (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There is some informations in Wizard Magazine about the subject. If someone has it, it is time to bring it in the game."

Would this source alone be enough to give notability with a secondary source to the article? I think so, but I have already stated my opinion to keep this article and I am unsure about the opinions of those for the deletion of the article, particularly Harley Hudson. How soon does it have to be added to the article? Spidey104 said he has the article, but he also went on Wiki Break and won't be back soon to add it. Kurt Parker (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no legitimate precedent for amalgamating fan speculation on a particular plot point, such as this. This should be open and shut. I am not convinced that any of the sources presented above are unambiguously reliable secondary sources. This information could be conserved on a fan wiki somewhere, but it doesn't need to remain in article space. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 16:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle Productions[edit]

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

Promotional tone, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Cited references are largely to blogs or other sources of questionable reliability. The one reliable source referenced (The Guardian) does not mention the subject of the article. Challenged prod. RadioFan (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Guardian refernce is an abstract of the report, that Oracle is Mentioned in.

New City - Is a publication in Chicago. It is linked form this page to its page. Newcity Promotional tone - I would like to see what is cited as an example of this. I do not see promotional language anywhere in this article. This statement: "Cited references are largely to blogs or other sources of questionable reliability." - Is unsupported. Cited references are largely to printed publications.(User talk:brad.little)

Comment The mission statement sounding 2nd paragraph gave the article a very promotional tone but that has been edited out since the article was nominated so that concern has been addressed.

—Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 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, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New sources are added after a good faith search for them. Nimuaq (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The new city reference appears to be a reasonable one (though you'll forgive my confusion as new city's website doesn't give the impression of a professional publication) as does centerstagechicago.com as it's written by the Sun-Times. TimeOut is a free entertainment publication that is seen in many large cities and Backstage looks to be a trade publication so they seem reasonable as well. However www.chicagostagereview.com, http://newcitystage.com (is it related to NewCity?, and www.gapersblock.com look to be self published websites or blogs, not printed publications. Its not clear what chicagocritic.com is, could be a small local free paper, could be a self published blog of sorts. It is the responsibility of the editor using it as a reference to clarify these source's reliability however. The reliability of the Jeff Awards is also unclear, the awards lack a Wikipedia article so its hard to tell if the awards themselves are notable. Of the references provided, each, with the exception of the Guardian one, are about individual productions, rather than production company which is the subject of this article. While that is probably okay in determining the notability of a theater company I bring it up here for further discussion. In summary, this article can probably meet notability guidelines but questions remain about some of the references.--RadioFan (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Joseph Jefferson Awards (Jeff Awards) has an article in Wikipedia and the cited reference is the list of nominees article on the official website. (For more sources on the awards: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). newcitystage.com is indeed a Newcity website: [24] and for gapersblock.com, see Gapers Block (webzine). chicagostagereview.com is a self published websites, but per WP:SELFPUBLISHED which states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", it might still be reliable for this review, however I cant find the sources for that one on the web. chicagocritic.com is a self published website which I cant find any sources to suggest the author has written on reliable third-party sources. In any case, these two sources are currently replaced from the article.

I acknowledge that it is the responsibility of the editor using it as a reference to clarify these source's reliability. However, it is also the nominator's responsibility to check for WP:BEFORE which states "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist" and "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD". Nimuaq (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches on the article title produce news articles largely about this theater company's unused space being used for a haunted house once a year. Or the common words "Oracle" and "Productions" being next to one other but in an unrelated context. That didn't produce much confidence in sources existing. The ones produced by this AFD are fine but are not ones that are going to be produced by a good faith attempt.--RadioFan (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at a few of the citations, there is little independent about the company, mostly it seems like about the actual plays - I didn't find the link to the award but if they have won one I am very weak keep, or a no consensus - default to keep. Off2riorob (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MEDINA[edit]

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

This is an advertisement, obviously, but it's not, I think, for a notable product. The references are internal, or are not actually to the product itself (such as referencing various trademark holders). Guy (Help!) 14:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (by page creator): In my opinion, MEDINA is a notable product for sure. Since about 20 years MEDINA is one of the leading pre-/postprocessors for FE-analysis -used in manufacturing industries.

Especially, in automotive industries MEDINA is or has been widely used by various OEMs (e.g. Daimler, Volkswagen, BMW, MAN, Ford,...) and its suppliers and engineering partners.

The references 1,2,14 in the article are about the software product MEDINA itself.

Reference 1 is the official product description for MEDINA.

Reference 2 was published in the journal about simulations "FEM-, CFD-, und MKS Simulation".

Reference 14 was published by SAE International - a notable organization for mobility engineering

Reference 15 is a reference showing that MEDINA can be used to solve typical problems in simulation tasks.

Please, also notice that in Wikipedia a lot of similar articles can be found about other products for FE-simulation, e.g. NASTRAN, MSC Software, ANSYS, ADINA, Hypermesh, ANSA.

I hope this contributions will help to close the issue.

Best regards

--Hobramski (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Hobramski (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Provisional: Just want to note that article does have refs to three serious articles (refs 2, 14, & 15) which could be reliable sources, but two of them are at a pay site and the third is both in German and unlinked. Hopefully, someone who has the access and skills to do so can check them before a decision is made here. It may be possible that they're only about related subject matter and do not deal in a substantial way with MEDINA, but it's also possible that the opposite is true and we must AGF until we know one way or the other. The rest of the refs are either to self-published material (which can be used as sources for certain facts, but which cannot establish notability; see SELFPUB #5), inconsequential, or unreliable. If it turns out by the end of this discussion that two or all three of those refs do not mention MEDINA in a substantial way, this comment can be !counted as a delete; if by the end of this discussion that issue is unresolved or two or more of those three refs do prove to substantially discuss MEDINA this comment is a keep. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (by page creator):

I would like to add some more references which help to prove that MEDINA is a notable product:

MEDINA is mentioned in a lot of books dealing with FE topics, e.g.:

FEM für Praktiker, Dr. Günther Müller / Clemens Groth, ISBN 978-3-8169-2685-6, page 52| url=http://books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=&id=5IFBp7rJMioC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=MEDINA+fem&ots=RAJ6vauuVu&sig=Uvr2G8i611xOD1V34w9GdgBfVj0#v=onepage&q=MEDINA%20fem&f=false

FEM-Formelsammlung Statik und Dynamik, Prof. Dr. Lutz Nasdala, ISBN 978-3-8348-0980-3, page 8| url=http://books.google.de/books?id=UkNvAD0MdVcC&pg=PA8&dq=fem+medina+-autor-Medina+Nasdala&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false

FEM mit Nastran, Rüdiger Heim, ISBN 3-446-22958-2, page 107| url=http://books.google.de/books?id=CXsPVRz9NT0C&pg=PA107&dq=MEDINA+fem&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false

CAE-Methoden in der Fahrzeugtechnik, Prof. Martin Meywerk, ISBN 978-3-540-49866-7| url=http://books.google.de/books?id=qYB8KJb-BDAC&pg=PP6&dq=MEDINA+cae&hl=de#v=onepage&q=MEDINA%20cae&f=false

Furthermore there are technical papers about CAE-topics which mention MEDINA, e.g.:

A. Makinouchi, C. Teodosiu and T. Nakagawa. “Advance in FEM Simulation and its Related Technologies in Sheet Metal Forming”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8CXH-4P5CHXD-8&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1998&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1733931189&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e0bde0ba1ccf4e51fab205639687742c&searchtype=a

O. Flores Santiago, R. Bausinger. “Automatische Schweißpunkt-Optimierung an Karosserien“, http://fe04.fe-design.de/fileadmin/akweb/docs_meetings_public/FE-K-98-Flores.pdf

Ignacio Esteban. „Die Rolle der Finite-Elemente-Berechnung in der Produktentwicklung“, https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-642-13101-1_8

R. Meske and M. Friedrich. “Optimization of simple linear and advanced nonlinear problems using TOSCA and ABAQUS”. http://fe04.fe-design.de/fileadmin/publikationen/publikationen2003/2003-06_Optimization_using_ABAQUS_and_TOSCA.pdf

Dr.-Ing. Ralf Meske, Fritz Mulfinger. ” Topology and Shape Optimization of Components and Systems with Contact Boundary Conditions”., http://fe04.fe-design.de/fileadmin/publikationen/publikationen2002/2002-04-24_Nafems_Wiesbaden_FED_paper.pdf

VDI-Z, Band 140, p.34, http://books.google.de/books?id=3K4qAQAAIAAJ&q=MEDINA+fem&dq=MEDINA+fem&hl=de

B. Mlekusch, C. Dornberg, F.Streicher. „CAE-Prozessintegration und Optimierung“. http://www.dynamore.de/documents/papers/conference-08/A-I-05.pdf

C.E. Brenner, B. Unger, C. Gaier, et al. ”Fatigue Assessment of welding seams and spot joints based on FEA” http://www.femfat.com/ftp/papers/2000/08_2000sae.pdf

There are several master thesis dealing with MEDINA:

Jürgen Butscher: Considering Replacement of MEDINA Geometric Kernel by a NURBS-based Kernel / Untersuchungen zur Ablösung des MEDINA-Geometrie-Kerns durch einen NURBS-basierten Kern. 20070131. Current MEDINA geometric kernel is based on polynomials and lacks powerful algorithms for surface intersections and offsets. Commercial, NURBS-based geometric kernels offer more advanced algorithms. They are investigated in this diploma thesis.

Joachim Blasy & Marijan Rumenovic: Surface Reconstruction from Results of Topological Optimizations Using Active B-Splines / CAD-Flächengenerierung aus Ergebnissen einer Topologieoptimierung mittels aktiver B-Splines. 20060226. This diploma thesis aims to a similar target like its two predecessors. However, the task of finding a suitable parametrization of the constructed surfaces is treated with algorithms like those described in H. Pottmann, S. Leopoldseder: A concept for parametric surface fitting which avoids the parametrization problem. Computer Aided Geometric Design 20 (2003), 343-362. http://www.geometrie.tuwien.ac.at/pottmann

Sefa Ülger: Surface Reconstruction from Finite Element Meshes and from Results of Topological Optimizations / Flächenrekonstruktion aus Finite-Elemente-Netzen und aus Ergebnissen von Topologieoptimierern. 20041130. This diploma thesis continues the one of Philipp Wagner. Several new and enhanced algorithms take the concept close to practical usability.

Philipp Wagner: Surface Reconstruction from Finite Element Meshes / Flächenrekonstruktion aus Finite-Elemente-Netzen. 20030414. Several applications in finite element preprocessing require the reconstruction of CAD / CAGD data from finite element meshes. This thesis figures out which currently known surface recovering algorithms fit best to finite element surface meshes used in automotive industries and which obstacles are to get over.

Regina Schikora: PH curves / PH-Kurven. 20020301 Pythagorean Hodograph curves have proved to be an interesting tool in two dimensional design and CNC manufacturing (cf. papers of Ravi T. Farouki et al.). This thesis shows that transfering results from 2D to 3D curves leads to several severe problems, for instance: quite expensive numerical computations, the need to use higher order polynomials or non-planar PH curves interpolating planar data.

Helena Pfannenstiehl: „Vergleich mehrerer Festigkeitshypothesen auf deren FEM-Berechnungen…“ http://books.google.de/books?id=LBOib1x5xIEC&pg=PA55&dq=MEDINA+fem&hl=de#v=onepage&q=MEDINA%20fem&f=false

There is market analysis carried out by Technical University Munich in 2006 showing that 43% of the engineers in CAE-departments use MEDINA as pre-processor.: http://www.pe.mw.tum.de/forschung/publikationen/Cidad-WPS_2006-01.pdf

Finally, about the product MEDINA is a yearly conference (Medina User Meeting) with more than 100 participants: http://www.dynamore.de/konferenzen/bevorstehende/dynamore-auf-veranstaltungen/t-systems-medina

https://servicenet.t-systems.com/tsi/en/641326/Home/T-Systems-PLM-en/News-and-Events/Latest_News_and_Events/090519-MEDINA-UF

I hope this contribution will help to close the issue.

--Hobramski (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - Hobramski, thanks for presenting all the material about the subject. I haven't reviewed the sources since I'm at work but I will do so tonight. Just wanted to point out now that you should only place the keep !vote once. Any additional information or opinions you have you may simply include without any !vote, or you may mark it for clarity with "Comment" or some other descriptive bold text - frankieMR (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Couldn't review much of the sources because of the language, while others were down. For what I was able to gather from the texts the subject is treated informally, I mean, assuming a certain familiarity with the name at least. How much of that familiarity belongs to specialized users or to a broader audience is unclear without some expertise in the area. About the article itself it requires a lot of cleanup of spam and self published sources, but that issue wouldn't weigh for deletion if it is properly addressed - frankieMR (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what is the core of the matter of the discussion? Are we discussing about the question if MEDINA is a notable product or not? Or Are we discussing about the style of the article? Or are we discussing about both? With regard to the question if MEDINA is a notable or not I listed above a lot of sources proving the natability of MEDINA. For sure, most of the sources are written in German since MEDINA is a German product. Nevertheless, I think also with no knowledge of the German language it is possible to review most sources. With regard to the style I have difficulties to follow the line of argument. In Wikipedia there are a lot of articles about commercial software product (e.g. Microsoft Windows as an example for an operating system, Dassault CATIA as an example for a CAD tool, NASTRAN, ADINA, PATRAN as examples for CAE tools. I took such articles as template for writing the article about MEDINA. And I do not see any differenes concerning the structuring, the style and the attached references. To be more concrete, one example: I added an internal reference (see reference 1) since - for sure- MEDINA is a commercial product and consequently the most detailed product description can be found on the website of T-Systems. However, this kind of quotation is not unusual, on the contrary it can be found in almost every article about commercial products (MS Windows, CATIA, NASTRAN, ADINA, PATRAN). Anyway, I am open for every proposal (and I will appreciate it) to improve the article.

Regards

--Hobramski (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The core matter is notability. Issues of style such as advertisement or biased content are definitely a concern if present, but they are addressed through cleanup and they are usually not a reason for deletion. I didn't find the sources to establish notability so evidently that I didn't need to actually understand the language, and while I assume that your analysis of them as solid sources was done in form and order, we do require a deeper analysis by other editors to confirm it so that a proper consensus is attained - frankieMR (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claret School[edit]

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

This article, in its current form, is a disambiguation page. However, given the case that the Claret schools listed in the article are not notable, this page should not exist (not even as a disambiguation). Moray An Par (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Moray An Par (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved its content to the "Legacy" section of Anthony Mary Claret. --Jordiferrer (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anthony Mary Claret#Educational legacy. Good work by Jordiferrer. This can be re-established as a disambiguation page if articles are written for the schools concerned. TerriersFan (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transform into a dab page or redirect to Anthony Mary Claret#Educational legacy. Some schools, such as Claret School of Quezon City, are notable. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TerriersFan. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G7 criteria, as the author requested deletion (and also blanked the article) and nobody else has provided substantial content. -- Atama頭 18:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equato Encryption[edit]

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

This article describes a concept created by a pair of college freshmen within the past week or so. The article was written by one of those students, violating WP:NFT completely. Of course, nothing in this article is verifiable. The list of references at the end have little or nothing to do with the article's text. Atama頭 16:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For reasons stated exactly by nominator. Nageh (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 16:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete. This is the sort of thing that sometimes makes me wish WP:NFT were a speedy deletion criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I agree, in fact I suggested to Nageh that it might be a good proposal for WT:CSD. I wish I could have deleted it under that criteria or any other and saved the trouble to bring it here. -- Atama頭 18:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a submitted research paper at NSS 2011, an international conference on network and system security. Link to a copy of the paper = [25]. There are nothing verifiable on this article yet and can be deleted in that terms. And how does being a college freshmen matter? Wikipedia asks one to be tolerant to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.102.18 (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may delete the article immediately as it is unable to provide anything verifiable yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayan092 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, your paper is just as vague as the Wikipedia article. Concerning your freshmenship, this has nothing to do with the discussion indeed. In fact, I expressed appreciation for your efforts into research, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. ~~Concerning immediate deletion, as you contested the earlier deletion proposal this has to go through a discussion phase now before being deleted.~~ Oh well, it's deleted. All the best, Nageh (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of miscellaneous General Hospital characters[edit]

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

This list duplicates List of General Hospital characters, but with more plot details. This is plot only coverage, and I don't see why we need to have two lists for the characters, especially as most of the major characters have articles. Anthem of joy (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plot only. No references. Minor characters. Seems alright for deletion. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor characters that are WP:JUSTPLOT details, with no reception or significance to WP:verify notability or avoid becoming what wikipedia is WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G11. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver J Sidorczuk[edit]

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

It appears the subject is a student at a university that appears to notable only within chapter circles of those societies mentioned. I don't believe he meets the WP:GNG for inclusion in Wikipedia. Phearson (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are only from the university with no coverage from outside media. Doesn't meet any notability criteria I know of that may be revelevant (WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ACADEMIC etc) - Basement12 (T.C) 15:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under a7. "A noted freedom fighter, Oliver has led trips across the world on his full rigged ship HMS Noemie" he is extremely unlikely to own a full rigged ship, and if he did, it would not be the 'HMS Noemie' as HMS stands for 'Her Majesty's Ship'. If he were a "noted freedom fighter", there would be more info about this to be found. "I've led trips across the world, launched a journal, raised funds for political prisoners of conscience and met dozens of similarly passionate and dedicated students" is what his profile actually says. A reasonable statement which I can believe from what I see on Google. Part of what this article says is OK (but fails notability). Part is cobblers. Peridon (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden[edit]

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

This article is about, in essence, a conspiracy theory about a cabal of Pakistani individuals conspiring to support bin Laden either directly or through a conspiracy of silence over a 5 year period. It has no substance and can be included easily in the main article. It is also,by definition, classic Conspiracy theory rubbish; "which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article and its title do not suggest anything other than well-referenced allegations. It does not appear to be developing a conspiracy theory. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. If this is a conspiracy theory, it's an extremely notable one. In the last week, it's been discussed in The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, and the New York Times. President Obama discussed this with Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes this week: "We think that there had to be some sort of support network for bin Laden inside of Pakistan. But we don't know who or what that support network was. We don't know whether there might have been some people inside of government, people outside of government, and that's something that we have to investigate, and more importantly, the Pakistani government has to investigate." [26] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - a classically well-sourced article about a fringe theory that has gotten significant coverage. If it blows over in a few weeks, we'll be left holding a deflated balloon, so I'm not 100 % sure we want to keep this one. The title itself needs work, but that can be solved through the normal proposed move process. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. Events are still in motion regarding the death of bin Laden, and this is a big piece of the puzzle. President Obama's remarks essentially validating this theory are worth mention, as well. If we have a deflated balloon when the dust settles, we can merge or delete as appropriate - but, for now, we have the sources and the depth of coverage to justify the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep: The persons in favor of pakistan, want to blank the topic by deleting the article, this is very widely covered topic in media. http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=support+system+in+Pakistan+for+Osama+bin+Laden&oq=support+system+in+Pakistan+for+Osama+bin+Laden&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=13112l13112l0l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0l It must be kept. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fringe whining that does not need to be forked away from Death of Osama bin Laden#Role of Pakistan. What needs to be said about this particular angle is covered sufficiently in the Death article. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article stinks, but the question of a support system has been raised by many national leaders. The Death article isn't the proper place to describe how bin Laden allegedly lived near Abbotabad for five or six years. Death of Osama bin Laden#Role of Pakistan should be pretty much one sentence: "The Pakistani authorities were not told of the U.S. mission, for fear of leaks." Could perhaps be converted to a "List of allegations" article, since—if you filter out all the OR and SYNTH—all we have at this stage is opinions with no connected narrative. - Pointillist (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep article needs to be improved. clearly not a Fringe theory and has substantial coverage in mainstream sources and easily verified. putting all these allegations in the parent article would give undue weight to these allegations which are unproven as of yet.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
definite keep supported in its importance by prominent people, conspiracy theories widely reported in the media can have articles here. A potential merger target is Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories, so there is a target to put this content in. However there is enough for a stand alone article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-referenced article. --Reference Desker (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Speculation by individual editors has no place in wp. In contrast, speculation reported robustly in RSs throughout the world is "verifiable", and is certainly appropriate fodder for a wp article. This is even more the case where those who are speculating include notable people and "experts". Speculation stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. These allegations are now being reported in large quantities and at the highest levels and is now the subject of several government inquires. If you want to argue that it is a conspiracy theory, then presently it is a notable one. 8digits (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if it should turn out that no one in any Pakistan institution aided bin Laden, many institutional leaders in other countries will likely not believe it. That will affect international relations for quite some time. We can't ignore this important fact, eliminate it, or suppress it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' All the important information is included in the "Death" and "Reactions" articles. This article is just an arena for Pakistan's supporters and detractors to snipe at each other. Brmull (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not a conspiracy theory at all, given the coverage and references from reliable sources. - Max ^{- Talk} 14:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is one of the most important issues in world affairs right now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I agree with users Max and Dr. Blofeld. This issue is of worldwide interest and the coverage and references from reliable sources puts this well out of the "conspiracy theory" category. I would also say that this "allegations of bin-Laden support in Pakistan" topic is important enough to have a separate page for (rather than merging it with the "Deatrh" and "Reactions" articles, as Brmull suggests). This topic is large enough, different enough and interesting enough to be kept separate.Obsidian123 (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Santa Claus. An article's subject is not grounds for deletion, only its contents. It is well sourced, no matter how silly it is. If you have issues with the article, such as a lack of sources, POV issues, etc. bring those up on the page, or at least mention them in the AFD. There is no legitimate reason given to delete this article. — MK (^t/_c) 10:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep There is nothing in your guidelines that suggest this article is worthy for deletion. It meets EVERY SINGLE requirement necessary to be relevant to Wikipedia (see guidelines.) Far from being "silly," this is a well-documented and serious article that is in the world's media day in/day out. Any attempt to delete this article would be a serious breach of Wikipedia's self-proposed guidelines in order to satisfy a minority opinion regarding political/cultural sensitivities that have no relevance whatsoever to whether or not said article is educational, relevant and/or useful to the world's interested internet users. Thanks.60.38.115.29 (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been in the news repeatedly for weeks, making it clearly notable and has very reliable sources backing it up. TheWilliamson (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, both as a hoax and as a copyright infringement of the Justin Bieber article. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmaine Culevski[edit]

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

Clearly no notability... one mention on Google for a child's youtube clip? Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok just spotted more mentions but nothing that confers notability that I can see.Teapotgeorge^Talk

Delete. Much of this article has been copied directly from the introduction to the Justin Bieber article with a few names and titles changed, which suggests that this article is a hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal F.C. and Barcelona F.C. Rivalry[edit]

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

Non-notable rivalry. Unreferenced and I couldn't find any references that could be considered in-depth, which is what's required to pass the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two teams from different countries and different leagues play five matches over the course of seven years, and that's a "rivalry?" Unsourced, unreferenced, unconvincing. Ravenswing 11:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what rivalry?! Unreferenced + a load of nonsense basically. Giant Snowman 14:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to agree with everyone above that there isn't much of a rivalry here... but apparently it has actually been noted in reliable sources. Examples: [27] [28][29][30]. Maybe not enough for an article yet, but there's more here than you might first think. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My club has met Luton Town more times in the last decade than these two have and there has been plenty of coverage about the meetings in reliable sources. Does that mean I can create an article for that too? Come off it. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Plymouth Argyle F.C.#Rivalries actually mentions it in the form of one unsourced sentence, so if that's the best we can do then probably not. (There's no corresponding section in either the Arsenal or Barcelona articles.) The difference is that in this case international reliable sources actually refer to a rivalry by name and mention multiple meetings in single articles. If anything like that exists for Plymouth and Luton, Google can't find it. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not surprised because we're not Arse' and Barce', and unfortunately the article about Argyle is rather messy (something I aim to address fully in the future). As a supporter, I remember the battle we had during the 2001–02 season, but online coverage is sparse because of how long ago it was. A rivalry based on a few balanced matches (score wise) and a few one-sided contests, with all the hype from the average journalist thrown in, doesn't merit a stand-alone article. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no actual rivalry here. There is no connection between the clubs other than the fact that they have played against each other in a few matches in the last few years. – Pee Jay 22:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you were to ask an Arsenal fan who they considered their club's rivals to be, I very much doubt Barca would be on their list! This sort of fancruft may be appropriate for an dedicated Arsenal wiki, but not here. —BETTIA— ^talk 09:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsclere CE Primary School[edit]

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

Procedural completion of nomination on behalf of Raymie (talk · contribs) as it appears Twinkle broke. I assume the rationale is along the lines of "non-notable primary school". For my part I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (nominator) Poor thing couldn't clear the GNG if it wanted to. I've had this article on my watchlist for a while now. Not sure why I never AfD'd it. Raymie (t • c) 00:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Kingsclere per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Charles Sisk[edit]

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

Delete. Fails all criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Self-published author, no reliable independent references, notability not demonstrated. WWGB (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated, no notability shown at all. Quite frankly, I'm wondering why this was even brought to discussion, and not just tagged for Speedy Deletion.Rorshacma (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Nothing but vanity-press books here, failing WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sonic the Hedgehog voice actors[edit]

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

No sign of notability. Fails WP:GAMECRUFT #10 - There is nothing significant about any of these cast lists. Not a single reference. Grouped together in strange, borderline WP:OR categories. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Forgot to mention, but the article had the "PROD" removed because of an invalid, vague "it's useful type argument. Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant violation of WP:GAMECRUFT no. 10. Might be worth adding a mention of who voiced the main characters to the games' articles, if it's not already noted.--Anthem of joy (talk) 15:29, 11 May 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) 19:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as incompatible with WP:VG/GL. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Mitra[edit]

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

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

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

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

Self promotion.The article has been created by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shubhoshreemitra .The user is none but the subject himself as suspected from the large number of edits to Amitabha Mitra.Fails WP:AUTOBIO Non notable poet. Fails general Notability Guideline.Taking a look into the references none speaks broadly about the notability of the subject. No major awards.No major works done by the subject. No independent coverages- most coverages are from waterforestpress, hudson view, boloji, desicrtitics with whom the subjet is himself involved as a writer or editor. The article is a self promotion bio. Also some of the links do not work.The article is promotional and very vaguely referenced.No independent references talking about his notability is found.--Diameter (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. just another case of self promotion.see how the subject himself protests in the discussion page [31] as if he is going to call wars for keeping his article in wikipedia.The author has self promoted himself throughout wikipedia -see the links -edit history as if being associated with Amitabh Mitra is a thing of great prestige [32], [33], [34]. I see none of the books of this author is published from a reputed commercial publisher. None of the references speak of his notability.Wikipedia is not for promoting non notable authors.--117.211.84.226 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is nothing more than WP:SPAM. Fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE, etc. Qworty (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that there has been an effort to question the validity of this article. I strongly protest at this decision. (Amitabhmitra (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Amitabh Mitra is a remarkable man, a professional medical doctor, an artist and a poet of distinction. The article which has been suggested for deletion is wholly accurate, and indeed Dr Mitra has a big International following. His poetry has been published widely in South Africa and India and through the internet he has a much wider following. I would strongly suggest to Wikipedia that the entry is retained as it offers a strong link to an established poet from South Africa Philip G Bell Fellow of the Society of Environmental Engineers (FSEE), Poet, Writer and Founder of the Young Poet Society in the United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindings (talk • contribs) 12:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've known Dr Amitabh Mitra for the last few years and have appreciated his poetry and articles and paintings. He's a man of remarkable aesthetics and creative talent. The wikipaedia entry serves as a valid link to the life and works of Dr Amitabh Mitra and should not be deleted - C K Kerala Varma, Chennai, India. There is no doubt in my mind that Dr Amitabh Mitra is important both as a poet, as a painter and as a medical doctor. I know him in the first instance as a poet, and there is no doubt in my mind that his contribution to Indian and South African poetry deserves an entry in wikipedia. The entry in wikipedia should under no circumstance be deleted. Professor Peter Horn, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg South Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.114.37 (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vihang Naik[edit]

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

Non notable poet. Fails notability guideline.Page created by Sachin Ketkar from the same university.Wikipedia is not for promoting colleagues. No media coverage.No major awards. Few book reviews act as references but the references say nothing about the notability of the subject.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Translations from Gujarati to English is indeed a small genre which might not have a wider coverage, but is worth keeping on an encyclopedia. Hence common sense would drive one to not be so uptight about the wikipedia notability policy, which was a move to prevent personal advertisements. And this page is not something written in praise of some goody goody street store. It is quite informative, for a regular wikipedia reader like me, and for many other wikipedia readers who are voracious information gatherers.Manorathan (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above vote strong keep seems quite strange and un-encyclopedic in its opinion. An author may be a good translator but if notability cannot be found, sufficient coverages are not available then the article doesn't worth to be in an encyclopedia. There are many things in google search which might be informative but may not be notable enough to keep in wiki. Wiki is based on wiki policies.The subject has nothing in particular that can make it notable. An article may be informative like a newspaper article but it may not be notable for being kept in wiki or in encyclopedias. For the time being it's absolute delete. Fails general notability guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.84.226 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked at the google results for Vihang Naik and at the links in the article. The link to the Other Voices Poetry Project is probably the strongest plus. I'm not sure how notable the Other Voices Poetry Project is, but it seems to be noted with decent respect in other articles about poetry and claims to be UNESCO recognized (I tried going to the UNESCO website to check that out, but it's incredibly confusing navigating around that site).

On the other hand, the Google results seem inconclusive. There seems to be some random businessman of the same name, and most of the references to Vihang Naik poetry are blogs/product entries. However, that's not surprising in my mind, because international poetry tends to not to be covered in the mass media, and thus reviewers of international poetry would probably be lower down on the Google weighting process than stores and blogs (I admit I'm speculating here), but for certain topics this seems to be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jztinfinity (talk • contribs) 20:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up, I changed my vote to keep, based on the fact that while the UNESCO poetry journal list ( http://www.unesco.org/poetry/ ) is no longer online (I don't know why, they still have links to it within the UNESCO site), an archived copy shows that Other Voices Project is a UNESCO recognized poetry journal (I would put up a link to the exact archived copy, but the wayback machine seems to be down), I'm not sure how much that means, but it implies a degree of recognition.

Jztinfinity (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth here's the archived copy of the page [35] - now you can say it wasn't important if it got broken, but personally I think UNESCO's just a sprawling organization that doesn't take care of it's website. In any case I just wanted to put this on the record so that it's, well, on the record. Jztinfinity (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the link is broken and do not exist.If the link would have been of importance then UNESCO would have never broken the link and being published in one UNESCO recognized journal or site doesn't qualify the notability at all.There should be INDEPENDENT reliable resources talking about the notability of this subject. If you this the link alone is sufficient to keep this article then wiki has to start articles upon everybody who has been published there. Other Voices in Poetry is not a reputed project. --Diameter (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other Voices project claim to be UNESCO recognized but nothing in the net proves it. Secondly it may be a good online site or magazine but not a strong and reliable reference which can alone signify the notability of this person. Thirdly this is an Indian poet and no Indian media covers about this poet.leave out his notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. So delete.--Diameter (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable writer. Fails all of the requirements of WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Bohol[edit]

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

Extensive list of non-notable schools. Schools which do have Wikipedia articles (and therefore notable) are only a couple (<5). Other articles linked are not even schools but colleges and universities. Article also contains external links (probably spam). Wikipedia is not a directory may apply here. Moray An Par (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Moray An Par (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)d[reply]
Delete per nom. Most schools listed there are not notable. Keb25 (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of high schools and universities in Bohol, add links, and eliminate all the elementary schools. That would produce a list of notable institutions. TerriersFan (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asklepian Circle[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Promotional. Useless content. Moray An Par (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Moray An Par (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The article made mentions of supposedly "notable" alumni whose notabilities I'm unable to ascertain. Even if there was one such really notable alumni, that person's notability isn't automatically inherited by the association. --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity & unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like it's only active at one university, can't turn up any significant coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Aquarius[edit]

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

Non notable book Shadowjams (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under what grounds? It is supported by a publisher, which is not a vanity press. The book contains countless quotes, and a full bibliography. Is that not following the guidelines? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not meet any of the criteria for deletion according to Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. I would like to add: "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately I can't find any reliable sources that indicate that the book meets Wikipedia:Notability (books). The existing references are threads in forums, and online forums are usually not considered to be reliable, since they are user generated (and to be honest, the references given don't exactly support the claim that it "sparked activity on many Internet forums"). I have tried to find other sources that do meet WP:RS, but have failed. --bonadea contributions talk 11:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This content has no sources that meet our minimum standards, in that all the sources cited are either related to the publisher, or else consist of user-submitted content. Wikipedia requires fully independent sources that have editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. I have looked for such sources and I have not been able to find any, so policy requires me to say, delete.—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understand. I am the creator of this article. Concerning the claim that it "sparked activity on many Internet forums", this I understand - it is better that the statement is removed as it is not verifiable under Wikipedia's guidelines. Regarding the notability of the book, it is actually not for sale by the publisher, only appears to be hosted and announced by the publisher, and so the publisher should be considered a secondary instead of primary source. Forgotten Books does not sell this book, but they do appear to be referring others to it. My reason for starting this article is in regards to the book's content. The value of the book (in my opinion) is not so much in the writing of the author, but in the research conducted by the author on the subject of alchemy. No other book exists which contains such a high degree of research on this subject. It answers many questions with reference to alchemical texts, not just the opinion of the author (which is what alchemy has turned into now everyone can give their opinion on the Internet.) This is why I believe it is notable. I hope others will agree with me on this point. Considering that forgottenbooks.org is secondary source, I would therefore like to suggest it's notability under Criteria: 3 The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. I am still a new contributor to Wikipedia, so please give me a little slack when it comes to getting hang of all the rules here. I have read about 10 pages of them today. Anyway, I intend to fight for saving this article, so I will look to see if I can find any more sources. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps this book would be better served as a reference on the subject of alchemy and used to expand that article, and may even in time be identified as itself a reliable source. -- œ ^™ 04:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for taking the time to explain the situation to me as a new contributor, and not yet fully understanding how things work around here. I do see perfectly well now that this book is not notable according to the rules of Wikipedia, and those rules also have a good purpose. Actually, I am used to having to provide citation and reference from primary or secondary sources, although in my field newspaper articles do not count as credible. Certainly the articles alchemy and philosopher's stone need a lot of work and better references, they currently lack citations to credible sources. As for The Book of Aquarius, it was just my attempt at a first article, but I see it is not supported by enough credible sources to be included on Wikipedia. In which case I accept if the decision in made to delete. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. We learn that the Internet is a bad place to look for the secrets of alchemy. If you look there, you're likely to come away with a recipe for cooking the philosopher's stone out of your own piss. The universe is laughing behind your back. At any rate, neither Google News nor Scholar have given this text any notice. There is a Books citation to Theosophist Magazine from 1961; but if this is a 2011 alchemical discovery that may not be the same thing. This is a non-notable book, original research, and etcetera. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Will. Sorry to be meeting you, and for you to be meeting Wikipedia, in such a situation. Articles for Deletion is a pretty rough neighborhood. It's essentially part of the quality control mechanism at Wikipedia, unknown to most casual users. Hopefully you'll appreciate the need for such things, even if your article is currently in the defendant's chair in this little inclusion-worthiness trial and won't let a potential negative outcome stop you from becoming a prolific content creator at Wikipedia.

The problem this subject is facing is one of notability, which is fairly cut-and-dried for books. Merely being published by a reputable publisher, or being the subject of a lite book review here and there, is not enough. To defend this article successfully two or three serious articles are going to need to be mustered ABOUT the book. Finding them is a lot like hunting for needles in a haystack, but that's what it's going to take, since the other easy ways to demonstrate inclusion-worthiness, such as winning a major literary award, being written by a particularly important author, being the source of a movie, or being a best-seller, are all pretty much precluded from the outset.

My sense, looking at things at a glance, is that this is going to be a difficult defense. I do hope that if this debate ends in a Delete result that the piece is "userfied" to you by the closing administrator so that you can keep working on it searching for additional sourcing which may emerge in the future. If you've got any questions about the ins-and-outs at Wikipedia, don't hesitate to drop me a line because we can always use more good content-creators around here and I think you're probably one and am happy to help. Again, though: this is going to be a tough row to hoe and I wish you the best in locating sourcing. —Tim Carrite (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC) —feel free to email if you prefer: MutantPop@aol.com Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the comedy value of imagining internet nerds boiling their own pee for years on end, this pretty clearly fails WP:BK. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a couple lines to alchemy in the appropriate place and redirect. Carrite (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My first impression is this is all an elaborate hoax, but who knows. It's interesting, but unfortunately without the coverage in independent reliable sources, it fails WP:BK criteria. -- œ ^™ 04:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's certainly not a "hoax," per se, because, well, there it is, right up there on the webpage. I wouldn't say that WP:BK applies, simply because this isn't a book: it's web content which falls under WP:WEB. The work, of course, fails all the criteria of WP:WEB. Ravenswing 11:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result was Procedural close, as there are now no articles in the named category. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic.org[edit]

Somebody can close this as fixed by editor and problem removed..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note to admins/closers - per WP:IAR, although the nominated article has not been created, IMHO, this discussion should be allowed to run for a week, to get as full an input on the issues raised as possible. This discussion could affect up to 2,537 articles. Mjroots (talk)

Over the last few months, 2537 articles on villages (from Afghanistan, Kazachstan, Saudi Arabia, Oman and a few from Iran) are created nearly-identical, in rapid-fire batches of five or more articles per minute, based on (or at least referenced to) an outdated or incorrect source, geographic.org (but sadly not referenced to the specific page about the village, but to the main page of the site). Geographic.org is a copy of an older version (or a poor copy) of the geonames database of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, in itself a reliable source, which I used to check these articles.

These articles are now listed in Category:Articles only referenced to geographic.org, and I propose to Delete all articles in this category.

A lot of articles are correct (my estimate would be around 1,000 of the 2,500), but the other 1,500 have major problems (which each time one or two of many possible examples):

Subject doesn't seem to exist: Ab Kalak
Subject is normally known with another name: Khvoshi, Ahsham-e `ali ahmad khiari
Subject is situated in the wrong province: Pitigal, Al ahramiyah
Article title has the wrong capitalization: majority of the Saudi Arabia and Iran articles, and many Oman articles: As suwayriqiyah, Al ahramiyah
An article for the location already existed at a better name: Al `utaybiyah exists as Al Utaibiyyah, Bandar jissah exists as Bandar Jissah
Multiple articles for one location are created: Kabanbay and Qabanbay, Komsomol'skoe, Kazakhstan and Komsomol'skoye, Kazakhstan
Multiple actual locations correspond to the single article created: Komsomol'skoye, Kazakhstan
The subject is not a village, but a neighborhood, a district or even a farm: Al `utaybiyah, or Tokhmari (described in the article as a "large village", actually a farm)

Many articles have more than one of these problems, e.g. Kariz Dashak should be at Karez-e Dashak and is not in Farah province but in Herat province. User talk:DGG#More Afghanistan has an analysis of twenty articles (the first and last ten of the category at that moment), and only 7 of the twenty had at first glance no major problems. 13 of the other ones needed moving, correct content, or simply deleting, even though these articles only have one line of text. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Geographic.org has some more discussion on this.

I started with an individual AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dara-I-Pech, for a single problematic article I found, but looking more into this has shown that this is such a huge group of problematic articles, that the loss of a number of correct short stubs doesn't outweigh the damage of having so many clearly and seriously incorrect articles. I do not dispute that many of these places deserve an article, but we have no deadline, and it is better that for the time being we don't have an article on them, than that we have more than a thousand unreliable, dubious ones.

The articles that tipped me over towards deletion instead of some other rescue mechanism (which would take much, much more time) were Bona see Buna (the ultimate evidence that no meaningful human check is being done when these articles are created), and Al madinah al munawwarah, which is not only badly capitalized, but is actually another name for the "village" of Medina, population 1,300,000. Fram (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: That Geographic.org was not the source used to create these articles, it was a confusion with Geonames from which the settlement database was downloaded from which is considered to be reliable for verifiying populated settlements. The nominator himself acknowledges that geonames is a reliable source and it was that site which was actually used to create most of the "problematic articles" so this nomination is completely redundant given that the vast majority were not even created using geographic.org but were obtained from a 2008 version of geonames. NO WAY are there 1500 "problematic articles". I've assessed 300 ish so far and I've found just one error. And those which do have "problems" the condition is extremely trivial and certainly not a cause for deletion. There is no major urgency to constitute this mass AFD. The articles are mostly correct other than being sourced to geographic.org rather than geonames or in regards to certain Afghan villages now being in a different province. Virtually all 2500 entries are valid populated settlements and can be viewed on google maps. Oh and all articles with non capitals have been moved to capitals and Tokhmari IS a sizeable village not a farm and duplicates can easily be spotted. Komsomolskye can be viewed on google earth here. A major town actually and obviously notable. As for lower casing or different transliterations, there is always dispute over Arabic and other Asian transliterations, and genames database does not always get it right, it referred to one place as Jabal something; well it is widely accepted that Jebel is the ideal transliteration, meaning mountain. So they are not errors they may be slightly different. By the nominator's own admission 1000 articles have no problems whatsoever, does this not strike anybody then as an extreme solution to blindly mass delete verifiable real world places in this way? Please think about this people approaching this AFD and actually look further into this than taking Fram's word for it. There is absolutely no cause for this. The articles yes need expansion and improvement but deleting the entire lot is wrong. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is not clear that AfD is the appropriate way to address the problems cited by the nominator. In particular, it is obvious that WP:BEFORE has not been conducted on each article nominated for deletion. This is not to suggest that the bulk deletion of these articles (without prejudice to creation on a one-by-one basis) is inappropriate. And if the community decides that this is the appropriate venue for consideration of this proposal, then I will support it. ^Bongo_matic 08:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How about this. Since this is Dr. Blofeld's horrid mess, Dr. Blowfeld should be the one to sort through all several thousand of these and pick out the ones that should be kept. If he's going to generate 2,537 one line articles, he should be the one to find the three or four out of that that warrant keeping. Looking at these, I doubt he can find more than that, if that at all. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete All I'm sorry, but what the hell was Dr. Blofeld thinking? One line is not an article, one line isn't even a stub. Every one of the 30 random articles from that category that I checked had less than twenty words. It's not useful, especially if it's not guaranteed accurate. Sure, we should shoot for encyclopedic coverage of every city and province in the world, but just like every other article, multiple reliable sources are a requirement. Wikipedia is not an atlas, every single insignificant town does not warrant coverage. If sources can be found that indicate some semblance of notability at the WP:GNG threshold, then yes, like anything else it warrants an article, but if someone were to tell me that this is an acceptable article, I'd assume that they were a brand new user and direct them towards WP:GNG or the more blunt WP:42. TLDR This is unacceptable, these articles are all worthless. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding "Wikipedia is not an atlas, every single insignificant town does not warrant coverage", it has been the general consensus for years that if a town of any population can be verified to exist, it doesn't need to pass GNG (see WP:NPLACE). Jenks24 (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep articles and reference them properly and fix problems. I have just done two. Mass deletion, without even placing a template on the artciles is definitely not the way to go about this. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but you didn't. You edited one, not two articles, but you didn't fix the problems. Al hijar is after your edit still sourced to an unreliable source, and still incorrectly capitalized. Fram (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In principle, though, it's a fine plan - though "keep" may not be the best summary. If you reference one of these articles properly then it should no longer be in the category, and it escapes this AfD. bobrayner (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: all pages under discussion now have the AfD template (transcluded through the geographic refimprove template). Fram (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unencyclopedic entries, without prejudice to re-creation subject to WP:RS etc. Mjroots (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a reckless approach to deletion and in my view sets a dangerous precedent. We don’t delete articles because a particular source is deemed un-reliable, we delete articles because there are no reliable sources to support notability of the article topic. In this case, even the nom admits that many of these geo-locations are valid and warrant articles. Nom didn’t get the results wanted in this discussion [36], but still choses to uni-laterally declare that geographic.org is unreliable. On an article by article basis, there may be instances where geographic.org is not a reliable source and/or contains significant content errors and no other sources exist to support notability of the article topic. However, if more recent or reliable data sources are available to support notability and content (must be available if errors in geographic.org can be validated), they should be used in the article. Unless WP:BEFORE is applied to each of these articles, we run the risk of creating a new and dangerous deletion tactic--find a way to discredit a source and then nominate all the articles that use that source for deletion. Categorical deletion as is being proposed here is a really poor approach to improving the encyclopedia. All that said, I do believe there should be more engagement with the creator of these articles to get the sourcing correct on an article by article basis.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been extensive discussion of these articles, the sourcing, and whether the mass creation is appropriate in other fora. See, for example, the RS/N discussion, including the rough poll where everyone opining agreed that articles should not be created with single sourcing to geographic.org. As I mentioned above, I agree that AfD is not an ideal way to address these articles that were created in violation of what turns out to be (wasn't known at the time) community standards. ^Bongo_matic 09:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- (ec)The WP:RSN discussion you quote did produce the result I wanted, thank you. In the end, there was clear (but not unanimous) support that geographic.org is not a reliable source. Apart from that, this is hardly reckless (or dangerous), but well thought out. Article deletion should be as easy as article creation, easy come and easy gone. If WP:BEFORE doesn't apply to article creation (even for experienced editors), and it can be coupled with mass article creation (basically a violation of WP:BOTPOL, then the only way to check such flood of poor articles is deletion with recreation allowed on a case-by-case basis. Way should the only way of improving be "keep rubbish until someone cleans it"? Knowingly keeping around many, many clearly and fundamentally incorrect articles is a much more dangerous and reckless approach than mine, and a typical example of the way WP:BEFORE gets misused. Fram (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't appear to be "basically a violation of WP:BOTPOL", but an actual, specific violation of it (see Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass article creation. However, as mentioned above, that suggests that this may be the optimal forum to address the issue. ^Bongo_matic 11:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "we delete articles because there are no reliable sources to support notability of the article topic" - I would be happy to keep any one of these articles which gets updated with a reliable source in the next week, or however long this AfD runs. A week is plenty of time to find a source for a notable subject. Deletion is the best way to deal with the remainder - those which were produced en masse from an unreliable list and for which nobody has yet been able to find any alternative source (let alone a source which gives the in-depth discussion required by WP:V). If a bot operator finds it harder to automate the task of writing articles which meet wikipedia standards, rather than simply creating one-line articles from a list, they have my sympathy; but that's no reason to keep the bot's earlier indiscriminate output. bobrayner (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, my objection is the Categorial Deletion of 2500+ articles without subjecting each to the normal debate in AFD. If indeed as Bongo said above that the creation was a violation of WP:BOTPOL and such a violation is sanctioned with mass deletion, I have no issues with that. If a violation of BOTPOL is a valid reason for mass deletion, so be it. But mass categorial deletion, claiming no RS is wrong. And you are wrong when you say nobody has yet been able to find any alternative source because even nom has said that National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, in itself a reliable source, which I used to check these articles. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Nominator's argument is compelling. WP:RS fail and no other sources => delete. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can understand the argument that incorrect information in a stub can be fixed, but improperly titled pages can't even be found, so are very unlikely to get fixed. For example, say I am looking for Al Qal'i. Blofeld created an article at Al qal'i, but this does not show up in the search results. Trying to fix the issue will simply take way more time than massdeleting them and recreating from a proper source. Yoenit (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even worse, it seems the article is at Al qal`i, using a non standard accent. What a mess. Yoenit (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An unusual nomination, and I'm reminded of WP:KITTENS. I'm rather tempted by Mike Cline's view, but on balance I don't want to apply a simplistic one-size-fits-all measure to 2,500+ articles—irrespective of whether that measure is "keep" or "delete". In the circumstances, can we please incubate the whole lot of them so that each can be considered in the way that Mike Cline recommends?—S Marshall T/C 11:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, or incubate - and I dearly hope that future recurrences can be avoided. This project is not a race to create as many zero-quality placeholder articles as possible from an unreliable list, in the hope that somebody else will come along and clean up the mess later. Commendable research by Fram (talk · contribs) and others. The Bona see Buna example is really telling. If anybody is able to properly source a subset of these articles, I would be happy to keep that subset. bobrayner (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC) (later amended to add "or incubate").[reply]
Delete all per nom, with mass incubation an acceptable alternative (with some special measure to identify the articles within the incubator, to avoid swamping everything else in it). This sort of unreliable content does not enhance the encyclopedia at all. These articles also appear the result of a mass creation effort of exactly the sort which Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass article creation is supposed to require prior authorisation for, to prevent the need for exactly this sort of deletion discussion. Rd232 ^talk 11:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and expand

First of all, lets please assume good faith people. Quite frankly the tone here is disgusting and good faith attempts to work towards a fuller coverage of what are generally all legitimate populated settlements should not be responded with "what the hell was Blofeld thinking" and"what a horrid mess". So please drop the personal attacks and anguish. This a wiki and content can be expanded, stubs are only useless until they are expanded. I agree that content is not best started in this way and should be started with sources beyond genames but given the sheer amount missing I felt the need to create them. As for "what the hell was Blofeld thinking" I did a google book search for some of the articles listed in geonames and I also looked them up on google maps. The VAST majority were legitimate settlements which can be expanded, even if these countries typically have very poor web coverage. It was intended in good faith as a basic start to build up coverage like Alishang which can be expanded at a later date. The idea is so eventually we have 2500 articles like Alishang. Not what people want? How sad. I expanded many of the Afghan villages I started and they are clearly notable. Nuke the whole lot because a few might not be perfect and may use different transliterations is a lousy solution to a problem blown into massive proportions by Fram who didn't get any support an ANI so has resorted to this. It is a fact that the vast majority of these articles are legitimate places and could be expanded. To delete them all would be contrary to the nature of wikipedia and a waste of time. People have friends who died in many of the villages I started in Afghanistan and could quite reasonably expand them. I'm very disappointed in you all that you a completely blind to the potential of these articles. What the nominator and others are missing here is that the vast majority are genuine populated settlements even if a few might now be in different districts or occasional duplicates (which could easily be spotted and eradicated. As for Ab Kulak not existing, bull shit, [http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.059722,66.043333&spn=0.1,0.1&t=h&q=37.059722,66.043333 zoom in here'. The apparent mass problems have been greatly exagerrated by the nominator , besides in regards to Afghanistan I have a UN directory downloaded to sort them into districts so the vast majority of problems would be fixed in the process of that. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you (or anybody else) find good sources for any of those articles, they would no longer be in the category, and could be kept. I'm unsure why you're angry with somebody wanting to delete minimally-sourced articles if you say they can get properly sourced; why aren't they better sourced, then? The best way to avoid deletion here is to add a source - any source, even a passing mention in Google Books - and move the article out of the category. The bar has already been set much lower than is usual for articles at AfD; the proposal here is merely to delete those which lack any proper source, whereas other AfDs generally require that notability is established, which would be considerably harder, even if we're really sure that Village X is visible if you zoom in on Google Maps.

I'm unsure about the relevance of the "people have died" comment. People have died in practically all settlements, but that doesn't guarantee notability, and I doubt Dr. Blofeld intended to imply that soldiers from the western world are the only people who really count. Media coverage of a combat death might be a good way to establish notability, though; feel free to add such coverage to articles. bobrayner (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? Ab Kalak does indeed exist, but is called "Ab Kuluk" or "Ab Kolok". I just spent 5 minutes looking that up, which I could have used to recreate 20 of these stubs from a proper source. Also, what on earth possesed you to use grave accents for the titles? That is 500-1000 unnecessary page moves (and useless redirects) which could have been avoided if you had thought about it for a second. Yoenit (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A post on another page sums this up well:

"Fram, absolutely acceptable (although doing so would be pointy if the sole purpose was to expose errors in the source). Given the existence of multiple reliable sources related to geographic names, geo-locations, elevations, et. al., any error that geographic.org data might contain would be easily rectified by data from another source. Especially considering the online mapping we have today, geo-locations are extraordinarily easy to validate. Geographic.org may not be a perfect (error-free) source for geographic data, but neither is GNIS or PCGN (UK). That said, a great many NY Times articles contain factual and other errors when viewed in the light of history and new evidence, but does that make it an unreliable source? No. "

I agree its not a good idea to create "sub stubs" using geonames and no other source but they have been created now and it would be far more constructive to try to expand/correct as many as possible or at least move them into Incubator until reliable sources can be added. @Yoenit Virtually every geographic place created exists There are almost entirely genuine places, this is what Fram has failed to identify even if a few have awkward transliterations or are now in a different province. At the time of creation the articles did exist in that given province... Additional sources can be found to update and filter into correct districts and where possible find google book sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, if you want people to assume good faith, don't talk bullshit: "At the time of creation the articles did exist in that given province..." is pure and utter nonsense. All the articles nominated were created this year, in 2011, and those with an icorrect province were equally incorrect at the time of creation. "There are almost entirely genuine places, this is what Fram has failed to identify even if a few have awkward transliterations or are now in a different province." Have you read my nomination? Where do I claim that most are not "entirley genuine places"? However, the problem is not "a few awkward transliterations", the problem is many, many errors of all kinds, as explained in the nomination. Fram (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of creation I am referring to at the time that geographic database entry was created.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Pitigal, which you locate in Kunar Province, is according to the Geographic.org entry, last edited in 2006, located in Nuristan[37], which is the same province suggested by Geonames. So even when geographic.org is correct, the article gets it wrong. Where did you the the info that it is a village in Kunar? Fram (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Anomie has the UN index downloaded so any mistransliterations can easily be sorted. Google search [PDF] Afghanistan Settlements Index and you'll find it. The plan is to sort into districts and built a comprehensive coverage on what we have. Also note that one of those Kazakh villages was AFD d before and it ended up being fully expanded. The best way forward would be to add a UN source to verify place name and district and a source from google books, just like Ab Kolok. Gradually more and more info would become available on the web about it but that would be far more productive. Sorry I do NOT think the existing minor errors are serious enough to validate this mass deletion. Any minor errors can be easily corrected and the articles improved a little.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"any mistransliterations can easily be sorted."? You used this to "correct" Ab Kalak, but how are people to know that this is the same as the "Ab Kuluk" from the UN index? Ab Kalak is not listed in the actual geonames database, only Ab Kuluk and Ab Kolok, so you still have an imaginary or at least very obscure form of the name inlcuded in the article, together with the unreliable source. Had you just created an article on Ab Kuluk, your time would have been better spent. The original article didn't have coordinates, so there was no way to match the two apart from a similarity in the names, which is a dubious method. Anyway, the argument is not that the articles can't be cleaned (apart from those that are really beyond help), merged, moved, improved, properly sourced, ..., but that the effort to do so would be better spent in starting from scratch, and that so little actual value is lost by deleting these articles, and so much incorrect info is removed at the same time, that deletion is the best option here. Fram (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you seem to intentionally be making life difficult. You are being excruciatingly tough picking holes in content. Can we be certain about any village in Afghanistan? Its a nightmare especially when double names exist. Its a difficult topic to get right but that does not mean pussying out of it is the correct answer. I agree, I'd rather create them properly first time with some additional sources but because of the sheer amount missing I'd like give up. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Create Geographic.org from [38] promptly. Then all of us can know about the source of these articles. Just a brief glance at this website tells me that it is a very valuable resource.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This source has been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Geographic.org: basically, it is a commercial, outdated and poor copy of a reliable source, containing things like A Sherton, which is actually the place Asherton, Texas. It is a site that should not be used on any articles, since it is a bad mirror of a better, more reliable source (I have no idea if the errors were in the older version of the Geonames database, or if geographic.org took those from somewhere else or fabricated them out of thin air). Fram (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is rather tangential (it shouldn't have any effect on how we treat articles which cite only a geographic.org entry), but we do have articles on sources which are themselves notable even if we don't put much trust on content from that source. Consider Youtube or Twitter, for example. However, those two are a lot more notable than geographic.org (regardless of their relative reliability). bobrayner (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your two responses have already told me more than I knew about geographic.org before today, reinforcing my proposal to have someone who knows the subject create an article, which of course should have the appropriate warnings about its unreliability in various ways. I do not have time to devote to this effort until later in the month, if then, and besides I do not know enough to create a reasonable article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, even beyond geograph names compiling information is incredibly difficult. FOr instance you identified Khvoshi, which is actually now Bala Deh, we've established that. However, the UN directory listed five or six villages named Baladeh and none of them appear to be in Logar Province. The information about the village of Bala Deh with 1000 inhabitants and suffering from drought in 2005 is likely Baladeh, Kabul. Its incredibly tough to know which source refers to which village and then it also becomes increasingly complicated when villages names Deh Bala pick up. Are they the same or different or not. Very demanding, and I really don't think eliminating all stubs on them is the answer as problems with accuracy and confusion of place names will continue even after they are expanded.. The UN directory at least is the best up to date guideline we have. Deleting all stubs certainly won't do anything to improve wikipedia and i believe wikipedia would be better of as a resource if they could be expanded and sorted out properly. Some day they will be recreated by somebody else and the tough taks of compiling accurate sources still stands regardless of geographic.org.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the "we" that established that Khvoshi is Bala Deh? Khvoshi is an error from geographic.org, Khoshi is (part of) Bala Deh. And that it may be hard to find good sources is no excuse to create poor articles from a poor source in a bot-like manner, but should be an indication that we should have proceeded extra careful instead. Fram (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that getting accurate information on these things is difficult. This is an encyclopædia; if there's a high probability that a page is wrong, due to confusion over names &c, then why create the entry? If all we have is the name and coordinates &c, and we're not even sure of those, I cannot fathom how keeping it is a step forward for encyclopædic quality bobrayner (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit Fram has a strong argument about the stubs being in the wrong provinces and districts. Checking the up to date UN source [Khvoshi]] does not exist but the exact coordinates are that of Bala Deh which is not in Logar Province but in Gardez District in Paktia Province and if you view on a google map and UN you'll see this is accurate. I'm changing my vote to Delete all of Afghanistan entries which haven't been further expanded and sourced as many of them do appear to be in the wrong provinces and under different names and I certainly haven;'t the time to correct 2500 entries and research them myself. I think the best thing would be to recreate using the UN list as guidance and which detailed what district it is in. I have the district villages downloaded, they can be put into districts and templates and started again using more up to date source and a google book source if possible. As far as I can see Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen and Kazakhstan villages are in the correct provinces and haven't changed, even if transliterations may be awkward so I don't see a problem in keeping them, they just need expansion. I really haven't the time or energy to bother faffing around with a bunch of villages. I really don't care enough about them to argue against this. They are not important to my life to worth bothering with and wasting my time arguing here. Yes I think wikipedia would be better off expanding them all and fixing them all but nobody is likely going to do so given the scale of the task so it would be better in regards to Afghanistan to delete those unattended for and recreate at a later date using the UN source. If you do the rearch you'll find geographic names is most certainly a rleiable source for coordinates and for places which do actually exist, howeve,r in regards to some places like Afghanistan the provincial listing ar enow out of date. Its not that its an unreliable source. Its a dated source. Given that we now have the UN list for direction it would be better to recreate under the up to date sources and nicely organized by district templates. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this post. However, let me point out that not only Afghanistan articles are in the wrong province, I also gave the example of Al ahramiyah, which is given as being in Ad Dhahirah, but which is actually in Al Buraimi Governorate, which used to be a part of Ad Dhahirah. So there as well, the province or region information is outdated (and the article has to be moved to the correct capitalization as well). Fram (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please assess the other countries and those which are in the wrong province delete. What's ironic about this nomination is that I myself have tried very hard to get fallingrain blacklisted for containing false population and altitude data.. I believed geonames database and geogrpahic.org were at least valid for coordinates and provinces, although it seems that they have not updated it for some countries and have made some errors with actual provinces. Perhaps there ought to be a ban on using any geographic database solely to create articles. If Fram you can keen to get a ban on this I will hope you would extend it to Fallingrain and any other database created years ago. They are fine for coordinates but little else.. The problem with banning is that we are missing a massive amount of content which are real places and their cooridnates are accurately given in these databases even if they botch other things up from time to time. Maybe something should be written into the guidelines that people creating ge articles must provide a solid reliable source other than a database entry? I would have no problems with that but Fram I do wish you had addressed this subject with less belligerence and attitude towards me when I mostly happen to share your views on creating geo articles. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection against blacklisting geographic.org, fallingrain.com, tageo.com, maplandia.com, and so on, as the incorrect use of these sources as seemingly reliable but in fact unreliable sources far outweighs their benefits. But I would like to stick to the articles at hand here, I believe that this is quite sufficient for one AfD... Fram (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These websites are all generally accurate for coordinates, but little else. Its fine to extract coordinates from them and check on a google map but I agree it is not really a good idea to rely on them as a single source. Of course given the lack of editors working on desolate areas of Asia are mimimal anyway so the "sub stubs" would take a long time to all be expanded. OK fine, extend this to the Tibetan villages which have not been expanded to the delete pile, they are a much worse mess than these because they contain falling rain data and should have been nuked long ago. Its best to work with what we have in google books and try to build the best coverage we can piece by piece. What resorted me to generate sub stubs was frustration at the sheer amount of missing articles and a task which seems mammoth.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that fallingrain-based articles suffer from broadly the same kind of problem - I had to do a lot of cleanup in the past after somebody used fallingrain inappropriately (but in good faith; such a big database is very tempting to people editing articles on settlements).

Mapping is difficult in a lot of developing countries; it's an inescapable problem. Last time I planned a long drive in Africa, the only thing you could truly trust were your eyeballs, looking at a satellite image - the overlay of settlements & roads from geographic databases would often be wildly inaccurate (even the hallowed Michelin maps have flaws). Even if a settlement is visible on a satellite image, you can't always be sure that the overlaid name, pulled from some database, is accurate. I would love to fill these gaps - wikipedia is systematically biased against these parts of the world - but we can't really fill the gap until we can get better sources. It would also help to have editors with more local knowledge / language skills, who would recognise dubious demonyms. bobrayner (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and this is the dilemna I am always faced with and the reason why I have ever created stubs on such places enmasse. The ignorance of many countries on here where content missing is in the vast majority like Iran and it sickens me that the amount missing is so vast. And then theres the problem in finding good sources even for major Iranian towns let alone villages and you'll find it ends up being a desperate sub stub attempt to at least get a mention of them. Google books is gradually improving, I've proved villages in rural Afghanistan and Burma can be expanded using snippets in google books but it is very uneven at present, very many settlements are not picked up in google books and contain nothing on the web but a computer generated database from 1995. But probably best to go where the information flows, mention in historical gazeteers and history books is a start.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, heres the plan. See User:The Anome/Villages in Afghanistan index. This was drawn up using the most up to date Afghanistan settlement directory by the UN and which are featured on their official maps. We use this list to create nav boxes by district and list the settlements in the articles and in the templates. We apply them and only start those articles which one can find at least one good source for and not in sub stub fashion. We put the existing unattended articles into incubation until they can be corrected and sources found. Other than this we find a bot which can read off of this UN index and correct any article given in the wrong province/district and build upon what we have started gradually...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. The proliferation of unsourced and ridiculously "sourced" mass-created substubs is a blight on Wikipedia that must be halted. The creation of an article should be a thoughtful exercise by a human being who is guided and informed by reliable sources, exercising human judgment and intelligence, not a database dump or a mindless robotic task (even if no bot is actually involved). WP:BEFORE is often used as a stick with which to beat folk nominating articles for deletion—where's the stick that's needed for people who create basically useless articles without sufficient forethought? Deor (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about a stick to beat moaning minnies who do nothing for wikipedia but turn up at AFDs and whine about sub stubs and the lousiness of their fellow editors instrad of doing something constructive to expand content they deem unworthy? Maybe there is no stick because of WP:AGF, which clearly you are not. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool out, relax. Things like this work out. Trust me. AfD often provokes strong feelings on both sides, so some harsh words are inevitable sooner or later; but I'd invite both of you to stick to the subject at hand. Generalisations about editors, rather than articles, are likely to cause more problems than they solve. If you want to have a fruitless argument with somebody on the internet, take it to my talkpage instead, and let folk here try to agree on the best way to deal with these articles.

bobrayner (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith still applies, and large-scale efforts to at least mention parts of the world which are poorly covered and try to work towards uneven bias should be commended not attacked, even if the method use is far from ideal/problematic. All "useless sub stubs" can be expanded or corrected very easily. If everybody assumed good faith and that we all have the same goal here conversations would not get side tract or heated. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation[edit]

Would incubation be an acceptable compromise, if we can find some way to avoid overwhelming any existing incubated articles? (Which is surely technically possible; just a subcategory of Category:Articles in the Article Incubator could work).

For those who have so far argued delete, incubation means that the contentious articles are removed from article-space (and noindexed).
For those who have so far argued keep, incubation means that the contentious articles still exist, and any editor can improve / expand them, add other sources, tweak names &c and they can freely return to article-space after improvement.

Comments / complaints / criticism? bobrayner (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, as long as they are independently checked before returning to mainspace. Fram (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that even after they are independently checked it is a minefield in regards to settlements of the same name and google books/web having a bit of info about the village but not knowing which village it is. I think the problem with Afghan settlements would continue beyond checking them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor B, that's something most here would agree with but doesn't read (to me, anyway) as an argument for keeping them. ^Bongo_matic 13:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation would be an acceptable outcome for me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation is also acceptable to me, subject to a time limit of a maximum 6 months. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per WP:RS. To verify that these settlements exist, and thus that the articles are appropriate, each needs to be sourced to a reliable source. I'm not entirely opposed to incubation, but I think it would be better if we wrote articles on each village when sources appear. Anthem of joy (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is stubs like Bashanabad even if "useless" are clearly verifiable and visible and marked on google maps with a clearly visible settlement which looks notable and can at least be verified as existing but lack web coverage at present... Lack of book coverage or web sources for such villages most certainly is not a guideline for notability. Uneven development and bias is to blame. I stand by my belief that virtually all populated human settlements are encyclopedic. We have a real problem though with developing world countries and our encyclopedia is inherently biased towards anglo countries which have more sources♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it original research to verify the existence of a village by looking it up on google maps ? Even if it isn't, how can you tell that google maps has correct information ? Search for Badom-Dara, and Google Maps bring up a settlement near to Bashanabad which doesn't seem to exist from the photographs. It seems pretty tenuous at best. Anthem of joy (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satellites don't lie (except in major political areas) and the coordinates given are generally accurate even if they cock up the provinces from time to time. Google earth does not lie about settlements existing down river from another settlement and it being framed by steep cliffs. Reliable sources back up my claim anyway that that basin contains steep cliffs, so not really OR. Observations from google earth backed up by general facts confirming them are fine. I use it all the time when creating articles like Pedreña, an invaluable tool. Besides up to date maps like this confirm what I have said. How can you tell than any source is accurate and has the correct information? Jeez, this is the problem with building an encyclopedia, sources often contradict each other.. A satellite map if anything is more useful that any source for verifying a place exists and you can see it with your plain eyes. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly I was perusing an old map of the area and spotted Kotgaz Glacier. A google search picks up reliable sources and also this entry in geographic I think the website is good for coordinates and finding missing articles , but as Fram says they need to be verified and more info added from reliable sources..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to Dr Blofeld...) I'd agree that satellites don't lie; we know that a village exists at those coordinates. However, we can't even be 100% certain that "Bashanabad" is the correct name for it (unless a better source says so), let alone that it passes the WP:GNG because, as far as I can tell, no source has been provided that covers it in any depth at all, only an entry from an indiscriminate listing. bobrayner (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get back to incubation for a moment, I realise I was the person who proposed mass incubation of this material, but I do want to explain in more detail why I think it's the best outcome. As encyclopaedia editors, it's a sin for us to publish known error, and Fram presents convincing evidence that this material must be considered unreliable. Normally this would be dealt with by editing the material in question during the course of the AfD, but here, we're looking at 2,500 articles:- a Herculean task to edit and fix. We can't accomplish that in the time available. The last time we had a really huge mass nomination, we insisted on WP:BEFORE and tried to deal with each one individually—remember the X-Y relations articles? That experience was bruising and we need to learn from it. This time, let's be smarter.
However, policy says mass deletion of material that we haven't individually considered is to be avoided.
Thus we have material that ethically, we can't keep in the mainspace, and procedurally, we can't delete. We need a compromise that takes them out of the mainspace but leaves the content available to repair and reinsert, merge, or delete as appropriate, all in our own time. I think that incubation is the option that best fits the bill.—S Marshall T/C 16:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If our existing procedures cannot cope well with a new situation, leading us to a result which conflicts with encyclopædic ideals, that's what IAR is for. However, nobody's going to get consensus for "Ignore all rules" as an outcome at a much-commented AfD. Pragmatically, I'd agree that incubation may be the best compromise. bobrayner (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the fact is though that the settlements listed in geographic.org and indeed other landmarks like Kotgaz Glacier do exist and the coordinates are 99.9% correct or at least very close, so in that respect it is not an unreliable source. Fram has agreed that most of these settlements do exist and the coordinates do reveal settlements but rather has identified serious flaws in the background for them such as provincial location, place names and transliterations and confusing duplicates which make it a poor and often flawed source to create articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per the nominator's introduction: there are too many problems with these articles. In general, Wikipedia is not cleanup; however, there are too many potential problems with these articles to justify keeping. Like spammy articles about notable topics, these articles (which I'm not saying are spammy) would need complete rewrites to be valid. We need to get rid of errors, even though they were added in good faith: we can start over again on these from scratch, since that's the work we'd need to do to fix them even if we kept them. Nyttend (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This means we would lose articles like Alishang, Sunaynah, Al Qabil and Jebel Ghawil because nobody can bother to attend to them . Very sad. Deleting them is probbably the worst thing we can do to ensure they woun't be recreated with errors again. Incubating them and chiecking them and moving into mainsapce once corrected and expanded would. I am happy for these to be incubated, deleted absolutrly not, that is more destructive than the actual minor errors of province in many of them. It would also eradicate many articles which are indeed notable and can easily be expanded but if you treat them all as problematic then you are hiding this fact. Each place is different and to nuke them all under a pretence that they are all non notable or problematic is just wrong. None of them have serious enough flaws to constitue nuking entirely. Each should be assessed individually over time in the work space, please.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't wikipedia be more valuable if people take the time to work on these and try to add a bit like Sunaynah, Al Qabil, Mazim and As Subaykhi. Not every article has errors and those that do can be swiftly corrected. Look at Mazim on google earth its a great looking village and the sort of content I would like to read about on wikipedia.. Incubate them and they can be expanded and corrected if necessary and more sources added. Delete them all without any effort without even assessing them is a crazy idea.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not mean that we'd lose those articles. Please read the nominator's statement: only pages in Category:Articles only referenced to geographic.org are up for deletion, and articles such as Alishang are not in that category because they've been completely rewritten. The only articles that should be deleted are ones that haven't been reworked, since they have no useful information from reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate (or Delete) WP:NPLACE has possibly the lowest requirement for a subset of Wikipedia:Notability, "Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source." To allow articles that fall below that standard is potentially damaging to the project, and should not be allowed to be able to be viewed. If Geographic.org is deemed unreliable and is the only source for a subject, then it does not satisfy the criteria. I recognise that there are issues of Wikipedia:Systemic bias relating to the inbalance between the visibility of Western places of inhabitation and those of the rest of the world, so rather than delete I would prefer that articles based on that unreliable source should be placed in incubation and only moved to the mainspace when a better or confirming source is found. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; stubs that have an error rate this high are considerably more harmful than not having a one-liner "article" on the fraction that has no immediately obvious error. — Coren ^(talk) 21:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I'd have to say that the error rate has been exaggerated considerably. The vast majority of Oman articles I've looked at so far are correct and most certainly have the correct coordinates obtained. One region though had split in 2006 so some just needed fixing. I'm currently ploughing through Dhofar Governoate and so far it seems there is absolutely nothing wrong with the named, province and coordinates. I think we should assess those which actually are in the wrong region first before incubating them, the unproblematic ones should not be removed and should be expanded. It is just wrong to label every single one of them as incorrect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate so these can be handled on a case-by-case basis. Some of the articles simply need a reference to the more reliable GEOnet Names Server (the source Geographic.org supposedly draws from), quite a few of them need to be moved from variant names or names with the wrong capitalization/diacritics but are otherwise correct, some have the right name but the wrong province/coordinates, and some need to be deleted outright, but there's no good way to tell these apart without checking all of them. A reliable source exists for verifying the existence or lack thereof of all of these, so we should use it instead of deleting reparable articles. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum We should not be assessing several thousand articles at AfD. Instead, each article should be individually reviewed. If a group of articles is verified to not exist or something like that, then batch-AfD those. But not all 2,500 at once, please. I suggest a speedy close of this AfD and a project page be set up so users can review each of the 2,500+ articles individually, and separate the good from the bad. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct that this is the wrong forum, but you are completely wrong that there is no reason to batch delete or incubate these articles, when their creation was a violation of policy. What forum do you suggest? ^Bongo_matic 03:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I opposed batch incubation—which is essentially what I suggested—but I don't think deletion is really anything except a "quick-and-dirty" solution. We have plenty of time, there's no deadline, we can sort through all these articles. I'm not sure which forum is best for this because it's not a common issue that arises, but I think that just setting up a project page dedicated to sorting out this mess or just a subpage Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator would work better as a centralized place where we can work through these articles and discuss what sort of sourcing is necessary or which articles are about nonexistent subjects, etc. But AfD is too narrow a place for this, and after the discussion ends in a week, we'll have to discuss this elsewhere—so why not close the discussion before it gets even longer and have one single centralized discussion instead of ideas proposed at this AfD page and then re-proposed elsewhere or forgotten altogether? /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion can be copied across to wherever it is continued once it has been closed. To those saying "wrong venue", this seems to be as good a venue as any, as we are talking about removing articles from mainspace, whether temporarily or permanently. The existence of this discussion has been well publicised by Fram. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe mass AfDs are often more disruptive or more of a problem than individually assessing articles, because we're grouping together all 2,500+ of these pages without verifying the integrity of each one. Just because a bad page is sourced to geographic.org does not mean a good page should be deleted along with it. /ƒETCH COMMS / 14:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate all, with release into article space not permitted without second source and manual attention. ^Bongo_matic 03:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wrong venue, this should go to ANI. Issue is much too big for case-by-case consideration at AfD, there needs to be some broader policy decision. Carrite (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ANI is not the place where policy is discussed or decided though. After this AfD has ended, we can see whether new or revised policy is needed to deal with these things in the future, and the probable correct location for this is VPP (with notices at AN, CENT, and whatever other noticeboards are preferred). Please, if you want me to convince that this is the wrong venue, don't suggest one that is clearly less suited for a discussion about the deletion of articles (which this is, after all). And I have put notices at AN and at the Village Pump at the start of this discussion, just because I wanted to have sufficient input on this: this is not an AfD that should be decided by two or three AfD regulars, but by a much wider group of people (which seems to be happening) Fram (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have obviously no objection against people deleting the pages (g7) where no obvious improvement can be made, or against people truly improving articles and thereby removing them from the list for deletion, but just removing the source and adding some unsourced info is not really an acceptable way of preventing deletion. Keeping the source but removing the tag for deletion isn't acceptable either. And creating a new unsourced article and then redirecting one of the articles under discussion? Other examples: [39][40]. Perhaps these things are actual improvements, perhaps not, but turning them into unsourced stubs instead of badly sourced stubs is not really the way to go here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

Jeez, will you lay off the stalking/hounding? I didn't have time last night to complete my work. I was working on Al Ayn last night but I found it referred to something else so redirected. I've db authored the ones I couldn't find info for except those which clearly look notable on google maps and likely are notable but we have poor coverage on the web at present for obvious reasons. Of course articles need sources and I'm trying my best to help find them, so please drop your "unacceptable" bullshit and highlighting of only "negative" flaws in my work rather than the good work I did last night.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a minute please[edit]

I've recently generated a list of Afghan villages and towns, together with their region and district data, sourced from United Nations OCHA data. See User:The Anome/Villages in Afghanistan index. I've been asked by Dr. Blofeld to check these against the articles that are the subject of this AfD. I can also scour the category tree for other articles created by other sources, and look for duplicates.

Since this is very much a spare time activity for me, and there may be quite a bit of programming and testing involved (for example, working on good string matching for different transliterations of Arabic place names is non-trivial, and I would appreciate any advice other editors could give me), would the other participants here be willing to hold off on the AfD process for these articles for day or two while I do the analysis, and correct any errors I find in these articles, using the UN data and cross-correlation with existing articles as a reference?

Any articles which could then neither be corrected nor confirmed from the UNOCHA data could then be deleted. -- The Anome (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD will normally run for nearly six more days, so the one or two days you think you may need are no problem. Any article no longer in the category at the end of the AfD will not be deleted (assuming that the AfD ends in delete of course). Fram (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extension, please I am in favor of an extension in time, allowing editors to rescue particular articles. Administrators, take note. Editors, join me in asking for an extension of time for this mass AfD, please.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess[edit]

I'm going to be honest with you. I've mistakenly used geographic.org to cite the source thinking it was GeoNames which you apparently consider acceptable. It twigged earlier when I saw Fram accept an article referenced to Geonames somebody had switched on a Saudi Arabian village and I thought, hang on, aren't they the same? Every Afghan village I started is listed in the directory here which Fritzpoll downloaded in 2008 from the GeoNames server. This fact can be verified by contacting Fritzpoll by email, as he is no longer with us. So you've been ranting on about geographic.org being unreliable and that was not even the site used to compile the list even though it apparently mirrors entries of the geonames... The reason I had to cite a source was because people would moan about unsourced stubs and I genuinely believed that geographic.org was the correct source... The list by province was downloaded directly from GeoNames NOT geographic.org. So this apparent " plague of problems" with the provinces is related directly to GeoNames itself. As for Oman, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia I again mistakingly believed geographic.org to be Geonames and anticipated no problems with it being considered unreliable. I simply confused "Geographic names" with "Geonames". I'm sorry. I believed that the source was accurate and would be accepted by the community, given that I know people would kick a fuss up about unreferenced stubs but I got my wires crossed with using it, thinking it valid. It was just intended as an initial seal of verification and then the articles could be built up gradually as more sources become available. So if this mass AFD is to eliminate all entries then basically it is saying we should delete every single article from the geonames server and blacklist Geonames from wikipedia. I know articles really need additional sources but I was operating in good faith thinking geonames would be accepted to verify them,. A bot could be used to simply correct the sources to geonames rather than geographic.org. But any apparent problems with the articles are directly related to the geonames which the nominator has cited as a reliable source (and has cited for verifying other settlements, thus considering them like these to be accurate) which I also believed was reliable and acceptable. The coordinates of settlements equally are derived from the Geonames server and have been shown to be almost 100% correct. I still believe geonames to be a reliable source at least for verification and cooridnates even if they have shown with Afghanistan to have dated information on provincial location. This AFD now comes down to claiming National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to be unreliable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't check whether this is true or not, but the articles created certainly don't match with the current geonames database. It certainly contains a lot less errors, looking for the really stupid entries in geographic.org doesn't give any results. It also doesn't seem to contain the errors wrt provinces that are in the articles you created. On the other hand, it does contain "populated places" of such extreme minor importance that we wouldn't bother creating separate articles for them in most countries, e.g. for Belgium they would at most warrant a redirect, if even that. Fram (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I'm telling the truth, it was downloaded in 2008, ask Fritzpoll, he even generated a few articles using it I believe in Badakshan province. Proof is Arun, Badakhshan etc. But given that some of the provinces changed before then it seems odd that the obvious errors existed then. I gather they spotted the error since and have updated it. I only just realised what had happened when I saw you accept that Saudi Arabian village source. Honestly I think you'll find the vast majority of the these 2500 settlements in geonames server and for some of them a scraps at least in google books. Perhaps a bot could be used to change the source. I still believe National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to be a reliable source for verifying these settlements but I agree the one liners are crappy and need expansion if possible but I would NOT have started them if I believed them not to exist. I think this current situation could be sorted with a bot and some hard work over time to expand these if possible, IN regards to Afghanistan we can certainly get something done with Anome on board and organizing them and updating them. A bot could correct them, I'm certain.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please no, don't try to correct these articles by bot, haven't you learned anything from the problems you have had correcting them by hand? look at all the troubles with Al `ayn, before ending with a redirect to an older article. Or all the trouble to get Dara-I-Pech right. Fram (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, User:The Anome/Villages in Afghanistan index is downloaded from the UN which clears marks up to date settlements. A bot could easily fix any wrong entries and if there are duplicates it would create a page of what needs to be sorted out manually. Those prior problems occurred from using an old source. There should not be a problem with this. But as Anome says he knows what he is doing and I'm sure knows the best way to deal with this. Al Ayn exists, in fact there are several in Oman.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: extent of problem[edit]

Having gone through and re-sourced about 50 of the articles now, I have to say -- the problem, while it exists, is quite over-stated. Now, arguably, using a non-random sample of size n=50 would make even my intro to statistics teacher want to beat me with a herring. But in those 50-ish articles:

28 articles had to be moved (mostly for capitalization)
2 were not villages as they claimed to be (1 was a neighborhood, 1 was an "other")
1 did not have any record in the geonames db
2 were too ambiguous to be matched properly to a geonames db entry

90% of the articles checked were fine. (Of course, n=50, sample is not random.) There were only a few cases where I had to change the province name, and all but two of these were for Afghan village articles (which makes sense per Dr Blofeld mentioned above; the others were 1 Omani and 1 Saudi village.)

While it could be argued that the fact that close to 60% of the checked articles had to be moved is a bit excessive, it's certainly not cause for an incubation. And since 90% of the articles were accurate, a blanket delete is quite improper. Now those remaining 10%? Sure, delete them, hands down. But applying a blanket policy with such a disparity of circumstances is not appropriate I think. Just some food for thought for anybody still arguing one way or another. Cheers. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 12:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, "had to be moved" means that the name, which is basically fully half the content of those articles, has an error. How is that "fine"? — Coren ^(talk) 12:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure you could leave it where it was. The page moves are generally just things like Al akhal → Al Akhal. Capitalization really, the sort of thing a bot could do, with supervision. (Or someone on AWB.) The most drastic change I've had to do is Ąaćbaną Pass → Kotal-e Khushk which is just a variant → official/standard name. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 13:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, just like I said from the start, 17 out of 50 one-line articles were correct, all the others had at least one serious error in their one single line or in their name. Coupled with the fact that all of them used an unreliable source and lacked all but the most basic info, I don't see how your analysis differs from mine. Your conclusion does, but that is why we have a discussion. Fram (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the article, I mean at least 98% of these 2500 articles are also verifiable in Geonames. A bot could simply switch sources but hard work will be needed to expand the stubs into something worthwhile, much like the rest of wikipedia. They can virtually all be verified in Geonames and an obvious satellite zoom observation. Its a crappy start I agree but verifiable settlements should be notable, naturally rural villages in Asia are not going to be hotbeds of web information and I think over time they can be expanded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bot could not switch sources, most of the articles have no coordinates and no reliable province info, and the name alone is often used for many locations. Couipled with the fact that many articles have been created as duplicates of each other or of older articles, and that a number are not villages, and you don't end up with "at least 98%" but a lot less. Fram (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mass deletions, especially where a large proportion are correct, and many of the "incorrect" ones are spelling variants is a "bad idea." As for province changes - they occur, and I would not automatically assume that they qualify as "errors." AGF is key here - and it looks surely like assuming good faith will result in an optimal outcome, whilst deletion is a substantially sub-optimum outcome as existence of a location is not on the order of a contentious claim in a BLP by a few miles. Collect (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The name is practically the only thing we know about most of these settlements, so getting the name wrong is a fairly big deal as far as each article is concerned. If many articles contain only one statement and there's a significant probability that statement is wrong, why are they in an encyclopædia? bobrayner (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the idea of course in creation was that they can be expanded like Alishang,Sunaynah, Al Qabil, Jebel Ghawil and Mazim etc which I think are valuable for wikipedia to have. I only created the stubs to try to work towards better coverage of the developing world which over time can be expanded. I most certainly did not intend for them to be problematic or a negative thing. And I think if all 2500 could be expanded like those above people would be very positive. The fact is though they are virtually all verifiable settlements which are plainly more than just visible on google earth and we should have articles on settlements, Hard work is needed to expand them though but given the current web sources are unlikely for many places but that desn't make them non notable. Any errors I don't think are serious enough that a bot couldn't quite easily fix it and we move on and build wikipedia properly....♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the benefit of "expanding" them compared to starting from scratch. Take Jebel Ghawil, which you used as an example: there is nothing left from the original article[41], it has been moved three times in a row, and it turns out to be a mountain with perhaps, maybe a village of the same name (note that Geonames has never heard of Jebel Ghawil). I am not arguing that these locations shouldn't have an article, I am arguing that deleting them and starting again from scratch, from a good, more reliable list of locations, would be much more efficient and let less errors hang around. Fram (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point? Abu shaytanah for instance can easily be moved to Abū Shayţānah, and the source changed to this. Is that such a major problem? Zoom in on it on google maps. These are legit settlements but just require some repetitive edits to at least provide a sold base to build upon. A bot really is the best solution to sort these out and those which are duplicates are easily spotted and listed. Your/the real problem is not geographic.org, given that you know these villages are almost entirely all verifiable on geonames and exist. Your real problem is opposition to auto-generated sub stubs generated using a database which is why you posted on ANI and did not get the response there you were looking for so you came here to try and force it to get your own way.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point indeed. Instead of the seemingly random selection of hamlets, villages, and duplicates of major cities that you created, and which you now want to correct by bot, why not start from scratch and let the bot create articles from that list, if it is indeed reliable? You will get a much more complete coverage, with a lot less errors, and a lot less effort, than you get with the current haphazard creation - match - move -correct cycle you are proposing. Why are you so reluctant to just start this all over to get a much better result? Of course you'll need bot approval, but then again you should have gone for that the first time around as well. Fram (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Well, I have no problem with automated stub generation (even though I often feel it's unnecessary). The only bit that bugs me right now is the accuracy rate. Sure, we can walk through the 2500-odd stubs that run created manually to check against some other database and fix titles, but how is that a gain from writing those articles by hand from a human-verified source in the first place?

Certainly, you're not suggesting that we leave any of those stubs without a human having checked them for accuracy? — Coren ^(talk) 13:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. I'm proposing that a bot corrects the obvious errors, moves pages to capital letters and then I propose that they are checked and gradually improved with reliable sources as those I've expanded above. My point Corne is that you are claiming articles which are mostly all like Abu shaytanah to not be accurate, which is false. It simply needs a capitalization. The coordinates and location info are correct. At least 90% of these articles are accurate and require simple procedures such as moving page name and a ref switch. The whole point of creating the articles is so that gradually they are edited by humans and nurtured into valuable articles. If nobody chooses to work on Asian villages with me and is happy for wikipedia to blindly ignore half of the world's population then its not my faoult. I agree it is better to create articles with some sources and more info and check each one carefully but the fact is at least 98% of the articles I started are most certainly verifiable as populated human settlements which given time are likely to have sources available for them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you'd be much better off — and that your time would be much better spent — by starting from scratch and creating those articles one at a time. Surely, it's less effort to walk the (better) database and create a stub than it is to pick a current stub, find its correct match in the good database, and then alter the article to match? (It's obvious you can't just move the article blindly to title caps, you have to check its very existence against the good DB first). — Coren ^(talk) 13:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I wouldn't want to nuke them all and start again? Aside from being a waste of time, Fram and co are now so strongly against stubs on villages created enmasse that they block people indefinately for it and he would use every excuse as to why I should not create them. Of course if I recreated everyone with 30 minutes work and sources (not that that's possible) then he couldn't complain but the likelihood of that is slim; I do not have the time to spend on that amount of articles and wikipedia should be a shared project in which we all work together to better articles. Of course I prefer researching articles and writing them if possible, but I do not have the time to write every article on wikipedia.. Might I point out that if Fritzpoll had been permitted to run his bot back in 2008 creating articles on world settlements (directly verified) this would never have happened and by now the stubs could at least start to expanded. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, please don't accuse me of things I haven't done, and am not planning to do either. I have blocked (and unblocked) one editor whio continued to create articles against a clear consensus at WP:ANI, a discussion with which I had no involvement whatsoever. You did follow me to that user's talk page, even though you had had nothing to do with that discussion either, and now you misuse this here. If there is a consensus for a mass creation of articles (eg. by bot), and if they are tolerably corrct in general, then I have no opposition against that. Claiming that you don't want to delete these articles because I would stop their recreation is beyond the pale. (and can you please try to use less edits to make your point? You are constantly causing edit conflicts) Fram (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK then so if after this is fixed I go on and create say 38,000 articles on Burmese villages using geonames as a source and where possible a google book source you would support me? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec/4) Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this then. I remain unconvinced that you are, in fact, saving any time by doing it this way: you still have to manually check and correct all of those stubs, and in that interval they remain visible to be disseminated around with inaccuracies. — Coren ^(talk) 13:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ye have little faith in me Coren. You do not need to delete an article entirely from wikipedia to recreate it have you know...♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I argued strongly back in 2008 that Fritzpollbot could be used to generate articles on settlements by country verified by geonames directly and where possible the plan was for it to find population data where possible and try to produce a decent starter stubs which could be built upon. The reason being was that I know humans tend to cock things up in large scale operations and are very inconsistent from editor to editor. The reason was precisely because I did not want errors occurring as with what happened here and people creating poor quality stubs on Indian villages without coordinates or anything. There was considerable support for this, however because of the fact that 1/3 of the editors protested against auto-generated "useless sub stubs" and because Fritzpoll was such a good guy who wanted to please everybody he dropped the proposal. I couldn't agree more that articles do need human nurture and to be written properly but given that I consider all populated settlements certainly above 50 people to be notable and i think this has been proved in many places then I think the best way they can be tackled, and this goes for any geographical landmark is to be started using geonames and a few other reliable sources if possible. We had a plan almost 3 years ago to the day in which Fritz would do trial runs and it to be checked for errors and then to run it. By now we could have articles on most geographical features in the world and I could be spending more time expanding them rather than creating them. If another bot was proposed and authorised I would happily nuke all of these and get it to do it properly with more sources and data if possible. Like Tanzanian settlements all have data in the official national statistics website. A bot could be used to extract coordinates form geonames and compile info. I know that it is best for humans to work on each article individually and create them like that but the massive amount missing on what are notable places makes the task too big manually. If there was renewed support for a bot to create articles on settlements and geo features such as mountians, lakes and rivers from geonames and if possible using other sources to create new articles then I'd happily start again. But given the view of many it seems they are completely against anything auto generated and would oppose it. Unless something is done with world settlements people will continue to make desperate poor quality stub runs again and again. It is most certainly unfeasible for any normal editor to want to create so many articles manually with lots of research. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat tangential from the current AfD, but personally, I would be very happy with automated creation of location articles from a single database, if that database was better - more reliable and more detailed. However, if we want more than merely coordinates and a (not very reliable) demonym, the most likely sources are databases owned by national governments, and in each country, different details will be recorded. We already seem to have a lot of automatically-generated stubs for some developed countries, which have pulled more detailed information from national statistics bodies - they have population stats, land area, membership of various administrative divisions &c. Although many developing countries have weaker government institutions, at least some expose similar databases which we could use to create an adequate stub. Even something like the generic USA CDP articles - dominated by 200 words of barely-readable demographic statistics - would be an improvement on what geographic.org gives us. (Personally, I disagree that every settlement is automatically notable, but that's an argument for another day and I realise a lot of people disagree with me). bobrayner (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best reason to include articles about some obscure places is when there is a link from another article, XXX was born there, the bridge from a big place to YYY ends there, and that kind of thing. I created a CDP place in Pennsylvania because a bridge went there. My experience with generated articles done by another Pennsylvania editor was that much could be done with such articles in a sandbox, before making them mainspace articles. In this particular matter, I have mixed feelings. Is the category getting smaller as name change and other editing is done on articles? (Right now, 2435 articles in the category.) What about addition of talk page templates? (I have been doing that for Oman.)--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently 2224 articles in the category, down 211. Some editors must be doing some good work. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Bob, that is the idea. A geobot generates articles consistently using goenames for coordinates/maps and a government source if possible for population data. There are many countries which have available data and they could easily be created with some useful info which is useful as a start. If automated creation is strictly tested and checked prior to creation it is an excellent way of creating content consistentally without the errors and horrible inconsistencies we seen in articles and provide a start to build on. The problem of course is editors lacking to develop them further. Rambot whilst performing a much needed task and much need info it showed some disappointing results in subsequent article development and the articles are mostly unloved and frustratingly generic at times. 8 years down the line and most of them barely have anything of substance added to them apart from the detailed demographic data, which is now 10 years out of date. So that's my concern about automated creation. But the fact is articles will continue to be stubbed poorly in the future by all sorts of people as shown with the recent Indian villages. If they had been created with a bot and some data then the editor could be expanding them.. Personally I would rather articles existed and were generic rather than missing or created haphazardly with errors and inconstencies. It is inevitable that eventually wikipedia will be covering most settlements so I think we should be planning the best way to go about it and stop people form having to create lousy stubs with errors. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep I am not sure where to state my opinion here! The stubs are not against policy, even if they are not helpful when they are wrong. Therefore I would ask that they be fixed instead of creating more and more at this point. The statements on how to improve are already covered above: correct, redirect, proper source. Instead there could be a topic ban limiting the rate of creation, say to ten per day so as to make sure that they can be checked and improved. Any mass create of multiple articles per minute should get a bot approval, even if it is done by a human. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well naturally articles like Taldysay would best be created using google book sources, but we have the stubs now so they must be nurtured into something worthy. But if there is to be concern about manual editing and errors and an insistence on bot approvals I strongly urge that a GeoBot is created which generates articles on geo features to stop this sort of thing happening again. It would alos mean that I wouldn't have to resort to "sub stubs" and could concentrate on building up content. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Notability is more important than anything else. There's nothing wrong with stubs, and the idea is to start from somewhere in order to make a more comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many editors on WP, and each day many of them work on different existing articles. That's what I think this project is all about. If there's a problem with something, it's better to just be bold and expand them, source them, and improve them, because after all they deserve to have their own entries on Wikipedia. Fram himself said "a lot of articles are correct", so how can all of them be proposed for deletion? If anything, this proposal to blindly delete them all despite the fact that many of them are worthy, is puzzling, and IMO, simply wrong. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. If they can be fixed, then that should be done. If most articles come from GeoNames, which is reliable, then just look at the remaining ones. Give him time to work. Decide which sources are reliable, and get the information from there. If you have a bot that does that automatically, it shouldn't be a problem. Dream Focus 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. Blofeld claims that these articles come from Geonames, but no evidence for this has been provided, and it seems dubious. The articles match the geographic.org source more closely than the geonames source, and the errors pointed out in the nomination are not in the geonames database. At best, he used a very outdated version of Geonames, but I don't buy it. Fram (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're calling me a liar? Email Fritzpoll he will verify this and make your lousy invalid AFD massacre look like the pathetic desperate act of revenge it really is because you didn't get your own way at ANI. You're the one with the attitude problem, not me. If you just assumed good faith and worked with people you'd get on a lot better on wikipedia. I've given you the chance to quit being like this and actually work constructively but you persist with remarks like this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call you a liar, it seems to me that you are mistaken. Please keep your personal attacks to yourself. Fram (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I don't think mass creations like this are really the best idea, a mass deletion will probably cause more harm than good. Probably better to take a bit more time and sort through them individually. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Mukkakukaku's research & The Anome's approach of using material from the OCHA database. Yes, there are probably a lot of entries here that might need to be deleted, but I doubt it is as many as Fram believes it to be. A blanket delete of all of these articles will cause more problems than it might fix. This kind of response to Dr. Blofeld serves as a disincentive to other people like myself who also create articles on geographic locales -- even if I take a more conservative approach to the problem. -- llywrch (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the kind of response he gets when he vehemently refuses to believe that an article is incorrect, even when it is pointed out to him repeatedly, forcing an unnecesary AfD to get him to realise that whatever I stated earlier and the solution I proposed, a redirect, are correct after all (the whole Dara-I-Pech debacle). Note how in this very AfD, his story has changed three times or so, and his opinion on what should happen, what was the cause of the problems, and so on changes constantly. Despite an ANi discussion, a RSN discussion, a previous AFD, discussion at DGGs talk page, and my tagging of all these articles, he still didn't realise that he indicated the wrong source (geographic instead of geonames), and that his list was seriously outdated (not to mention absolutely random in its choices of what articles to create, with many tiny hamlets created, and much larger villages ignored). The problem is not the response to Dr. Blofeld, but the response from Dr. Blofeld. And I haven't yet seen how Anome is hoping to automatically correct these pages. Fram (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above you've basically called me a liar. You are the one with the attitude problem. Fritzpoll Bot generated the list from Geonames . He began creating them like this using the same source. Don't start calling me a liar because I've revealed your pathetic mass AFD to be a joke given that geographic.org was not even the source used.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't call you a liar, I said that a claim you made seemed dubious to me. You can make mistakes without being a liar. Apart from that, I have no reason to assume that Friitzpoll did anything else than what you claim, but this not about whatever Fritzpoll did, this is about what you did. Fritzpoll created pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places/afghanistan/page1. You created User:Blofeld of SPECTRE/Missing Settlements/Afghanistan. A page like Bona see Buna doesn't appear in Fritzpoll's pages, but it does appear in your page. So please stop with the arguments about whatever Fritzpoll did, and accept your responsability for all this. Fram (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not used those lists in over three years. Fritz downloaded the full list into the workspace directly from Geonames. I'll ask him to email you and confirm this. I am accepting responsibility for this which is why I've been working diligently to fix the problems while you sit around moaning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal attack, after I corrected errors you introduced at Al Hawiyah and Al Khaydar and removed your incorrect and duplicate Al `Utaybiyah from sight? Please, you are not helping yourself with these posts... Fram (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You bother because you are a WP:TROLL who stalks the edits of the others with the intent to identify only their errors. If you genuinely were operating under good faith you'd be working with me to fix the others. I am refraining from saying what I really think of you as I'd be blocked.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I go around fixing pages I propose should be deleted and recreated from a good, more complete, and more error-free list instead? That's not logical at all. I only fix those pages where you (or others) have avoided the deletion, but have left small (coordinates) or large (duplicate article on a neighborhood, claiming it is a village) errors. And considering the number of attacks I have received from you (here and earlier), and the lack of cooperation since the beginning of this story (where I had to demonstrate every error you made repeatedly and exhaustively before you acknowledged that there might be something to it, instead of, you know, assuming good faith and checking immediately and with an open mind whether my remarks were perhaps correct). Anyway, if you really don't want to get blocked, it may be better if you not only stop making new personal attacks, but also strike all the previous ones in this AfD. Fram (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were genuinely a good person and keen to improve content you'd stop making snide remarks implying I was a liar and "dubious" and start helping me out with the others and refrain from making such remarks here. Somebody acting in good faith does NOT rant on at ANI about the edits of others and does not open a mass AFD of 2500 articles without assessing each one first. Somebody acting in good faith would have contacted me on my talk page, pointed out that there were errors in my work and have kindly asked me to fix them and expand them. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Blofeld, please try to concentrate on the articles and not the editors. Many people have a sudden rise in blood pressure when their articles are nominated for deletion - that's understandable - but the best way forward is to work on a solution to the problem, rather than sniping at others. You might not agree with Fram (or me) but Fram surely has the encyclopædia's best interests at heart and they have put in hours of work looking for problems in article-space and trying to fix them on your behalf - which is, oddly, the outcome that you appear to want from this AfD (although presenting a fait accompli is not a valid justification for a "keep" vote). Fram has also patiently listened to your varying (and occasionally contradictory) explanations. If you still want to argue with people, take it to my talkpage (I'm a thoroughly disagreeable person so I'm used to it) and let other people here discuss the real problem in peace. Also, it would be very helpful if you could put a little more effort into indenting, as it's getting quite hard for other editors to follow this long thread. bobrayner (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I suggest you also put more effort into building an encyclopedia rather than wasting your own time making biased overviews on AFDs. I will agree not to comment here anymore if Fram agrees not to comment anymore and we let other people discuss it. If I had been approached on my talk page and Fram had suggested I go through these and sort them then I would have done so with the other countries and would probably have db authored the Afghan lot and started again using the update to date. Now the scenario is we are faced with an open AFD and people passing judgements with "keep" or "delete" when they are not the ones who've created the articles. Only by looking into this heavily can you see exactly what can be done to ensure they are all fixed and improved which the casual by passer cannot assess without looking into it themselves. It should have been sorted between ourselves and in a spirit of collaboration. If you want sweet comments from Blofeld don't mass nominate 2500 articles without even notifying me first. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These articles do not belong to you; this is a community-built encyclopædia and it is entirely appropriate for other people to discuss ways of solving the problem. Sniping at the rest of the community whilst they try to find a solution won't make you happier, won't make them happier, and won't help solve the problem. It is also entirely inappropriate to complain that folk who disagree with you at AfD are biased - and personally I'd love to spend my time improving other articles, so it's particularly irritating that when I spend time trying to help with this one you criticise me for it.

I've been trying very hard to extend compromises and goodwill; you've now used all that up and I'm withdrawing my previous offer to bring you better sources for future article creation. You have also completely missed the point of AfD. So, make up your mind - choose which of your previous positions you prefer:

These articles are your responsibility (which means: You can find better sources and take them all out of the category before the AfD is closed; or you could act on your previous suggestion of ((db-author))ing them).
These articles are Somebody Else's problem (which means you can stand aside whilst somebody else decides how to clean up the mess).

What you do is up to you; but if you complain about other people in the community who spend some time trying to resolve the problem you created, goodwill evaporates pretty quickly. bobrayner (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far I've made over 500 edits to plough through these. From what I see you've done nothing. Please shut up and do something useful. Your lengthy essays here also do nothing to rectify this situation or help wikipedia either. Of course people are free to vote "delete" or "keep" but I am the one doing all the work here and it is my problem so I have to clean it up. If you think for one second your condescending "rational" thinking lectures are going to make a blind bit of difference on somebody such as myself you are mistaken. Now please quit going on and I will do the same and work through these. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, or incubate with a time limit of 6 months. I don't like the idea of incorrect one-liners sticking around longer than that, even in incubator space. As bobrayner said, "This project is not a race to create as many zero-quality placeholder articles as possible from an unreliable list, in the hope that somebody else will come along and clean up the mess later." --Fang Aili ^talk 08:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sloppy method of creating these things raises doubts whether we can survive as a respected encyclopedia. We have tolerated individual article at the stub level which can, with criticism, wind up with a correct cite or two, justifying its existence. This seems impossible with this large number. We must reject mass creation based on poor input or that is the "wave of the future." Our leaders are trying to make the encyclopedia more "newbie friendly." If we don't exercise some sense, we will get junk from this new group. Student7 (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a matter of perception. Alishang, Sunaynah, Al Qabil, Jebel Ghawil and Mazim were "junk" and not from a respectable encyclopedia just days.weeks ago but ten minutes solid work changed that and they are now valuable components of the encyclopedia on parts of the world which rarely have any quality or sources or decent coverage. Many of our best featured articles today began as sloppy stubs in desperate need of expansion and proper writing. You'll find that a high proportion of wikipedia articles even with full content are often equally as sloppy and in need of rewriting/sourcing. If we are to view wikipedia as complete then of course one liners are a disgrace. But in terms of our long term goals of producing a truly comprehensive encyclopedia which contains articles on most populated settlements then it is a step in the right direction even if they'd probably be best recreated with more content and sources. A truly comprehensive encyclopedia would not ignore 99% of the population of developing world countries countries and thousands/hundreds of thousands of people who live in these settlements combined. We should be covering them but I agree substubs are not covering them until they are expanded. But they at least mention them and show up on google maps and attract people who could possibly expand them. "Useless sub stubs" can go from being worthless to very valuable within minutes if google books has multiple sources. I've expanded the smallest villages in places like Burma for instance where i got lucky with sources and it is that sort of content which makes wikipedia much greater as a resource. The idea with these stubs is not to spam it with worthless junk but to encourage the production of knowledge and the growth of wikipedia. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility, please[edit]

Remember one of the five pilars of Wikpedia, WP:Civility when responding here.
If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names. - Elbert Hubbard

If someone calls you a vile name, there is no need for you to do the same. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody called anybody a vile name. Neither Fram, Bob or myself called anybody a name. I just said to stop moaning and to stop going on and get on with helping me out...♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan[edit]

Sorry to interrupt all the name calling and hair pulling, but I thought I should come by and provide a few more insights for anyone still paying attention to this debate.

As far as accuracy is concerned --

articles about villages in Saudi Arabia and Oman tend to be accurate in both name and data
articles about villages in Afghanistan are accurate about 50% of the time; when they're not:
- the province is wrong
- the article is listed at the wrong name (not the approved one, but a variant)
articles about villages in Kazakhstan are the most problematic
- if the village name starts with Q, there's probably a duplicate article for the name starting with K
- many of these articles end up getting merged into existing articles (for many of them have existing articles)

Having editing over 100 articles in a much more random sample than when I posted yesterday, I have to say that the problems of not-a-settlement or town-does-not-exist are quite over-stated. (At 50 articles I had 5 cases of not a settlement/not in the geonames database/does not exist/could be one of 3 towns by that name; now at ~100 articles I have 7 such cases.)

Frankly, I'd !vote a blanket keep for Saudi/Omani villages, blanked incubate for Afghan villages, and blanked delete for Kazakh.

Just putting it out there anyway. Cheers. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 15:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work. I like the nuanced approach. bobrayner (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update In case you haven't been monitoring the situation Saudi Arabia and Oman articles have been sorted and are no longer in the deletion list. Kazakhstan is next for sorting out "problems".♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, the more places that get sorted, the less there'll be to delete. I still stand by my earlier !vote though. Any articles in the stated category that haven't been sorted by the time the debate ends (it may get an extension) should be deleted. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's only if the result of the AFD is delete of course....♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's how mjroots !voted. bobrayner (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but incubation is acceptable, so I should have said "delete or incubate". Mjroots (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem eliminated Today I'm in the quality frame of mind and I completely agree with Fram's nomination. Kazakhstan contains many towns which could be started bit by bit using old Soviet sources or some scraps from google books and Afghanistan could be restarted using the districts as guidelines. The problem is most of the Afghan settlements are not accessible in google books or web so are rendered useless evne if one can glam them up a bit with location details. We'd be better off working one by one working from where the info exists. I respect those views of the people who wanted to keep as I think ideally its what we would have done and added more content. However as I was virtually the only one frantically working on them to save them then I could not do it single handedly and the task was too great. I've agreed to db author the remaining I didn't tackle. Incubation would not change the sheer amount of work which needs to be put into this which I'm not prepared to spent my time on. Working solidly through these yesterday ilustrated to me just how problematic creating sub stubs without content really is. There was a mammoth task in just switching ref and verifying with up to date coordinates, If you consider the full 2500 articles then the amount of work needed to actually expand all into somethig worthwhile would require months if not over a year of hard work. Its no real loss to wikipedia given that the vast majority would likely remain as one line stubs even if fixed. I most certianly haven't got the time to write every article. Should be have decent articles on them? Absolutely. But we do not have the volunteers and man power who care about Asian villages to justify keeping them. I can expand a few for sure but I could restart them with more content just as easily. The remaining have all been deleted, this AFD can now be closed and we can all now get on with actual writing work... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Deluxe Brand Development[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. gnews reveals most coverage only in Memphis [42]. the sources in the article merely confirms it has clients. lacks indepth coverage LibStar (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see anything outside of PR spam. Shadowjams (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another independent brand development and advertising agency. Being an ad agency, they know the value of having a Wikipedia article for search engine manipulation, so every local ad agency will try for one. No truly independent sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A slick, commercial advertisement masquerading as a legitimate article. But this is no surprise since that's exactly the business of this company.--Hokeman (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology in medieval Islam[edit]

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

As it says, This article has been shortened from a longer article which misused sources. (part of the Jagged85 mess). But probably this article is retrofitting the term "psychology" to a situation where it didn't really exist. As such whatever content it may have probably belongs elsewhere. See the "AFD?" sections and around on the article talk page. William M. Connolley (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find out if they want it as a section of philosophy of mind (which has similar sections for other religions).—S Marshall T/C 10:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As William says, the use of "psychology" is anachronistic and presentist. This would be better as a section in History of psychology. Famousdog (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... isn't that an argument in favour of my recommendation?—S Marshall T/C 11:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To a large extent the "History of psychology" is "Philosophy of mind" so a subsection on both pages would be appropriate. Famousdog (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per this discussion, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article with the following title: "Arabic and Islamic Psychology and Philosophy of Mind". Just because the article has been stubbed, and there are not enough people interested in the material to quickly rebuild it, does not mean the subject does not deserve its own article. Islam refers to a civilization as well as a religion. We are discussing the work of Islamic scientists and doctors, not (necessarily) religious scholars and imams. -Aquib (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Science is secular and transcends cultural, religious and political boundaries and the ethnicity and beliefs (or non-beliefs) of the scientists themselves. Associating the pursuit of knowledge with a religion or ethnic group is completely ridiculous and religio-politically motivated. Categorising scientific endeavour with the belief (or non-belief) or the ethnicity of long-dead scientists who pursued it is unethical and logically flawed (just look at the fight over whether Ibn al-Haytham shoud be referred to as Arab, Persian, Iraqi or Muslim. If you tried to describe the theory of evolution as "Christian biology" or "British biology" (because of the cultural background of its proponents) you'd be laughed clean off the internet. I reaffirm my previous opinion that we should delete this article and move the content to History of psychology or Philosophy of mind. It is "Jaggedism" of the worst sort. Famousdog (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply To recycle your words, medieval Islamic science was secular and transcended cultural, religious and political boundaries and the ethnicity and beliefs (or non-beliefs) of the scientists themselves.

Yes, therefore your proposed title is wrong, as it boxes in our shared scientific heritage. Famousdog (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like putting science history in its cultural context, you are in the minority. Claiming science in the name of humanity is a subtle attempt to perpetuate the myth it is a western phenomena. It is also an orientalist perspective which is no longer widely supported. -Aquib (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind inventions, theories and discoveries being put in historical and cultural context at all. But I object to loaded religious terms being applied to work that is entirely irreligious (not anti-religious, irreligious). To classify science done in a particular region of the world at a particular time as "Islamic" because the dominant cultural force was Islam, is wrong-headed in the extreme. Again, I have to come back to the example of the theory of evolution - it was developed by a man who at one point trained to be a priest, and the dominant cultural force in Britain at that point was Christianity. But the theory of evolution is not "Christian science", is it? Hmm, perhaps you think it is - well, it isn't. To use an "Islamic" example, Ibn al-Haytham's Book of optics does not espouse a particularly "Islamic" type of optics, it is simply "optics". References to the great men (and women) of science, and their discoveries, can be made without recourse to their (assumed) religion. If you want to claim these discoveries and inventions in the name of Islam then I want to see incontrovertable evidence that all these great thinkers were actually religious and their work was somehow an expression of their faith. Otherwise, the title is oxymoronic. Finally, your claim that this is some type of conspiracy by westerners and orientalist simply assumes bad faith. Famousdog (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is one in a series on Science in medieval Islam. The name of the article is consistent with those other articles in the series. There is plenty of good material that has been stubbed along with the bad. This is an attempt to annihilate the article history so it cannot be recovered. -Aquib (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the titles of all the other articles - applying a loaded religious term to scientific work - are equally wrong. Famousdog (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The conclusion on the talk page was "stub and rework". In its present state the article is just a stub but the material is certainly there for a more detailed account, perhaps under a different title. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The stubbing has nothing to do with this AfD. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be enough material and sources to justify an article. I find the article a bit unsatisfying. I don't feel that I really know anything about the topic after having read it. But still seems to be a notable enough subject. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Medieval Islamic Psychology - it's not a great start, but this is a notable topic. The current title is a bit ambiguous, because it could be taken to refer to psychology of religion as applied to medieval Islam. --Anthem of joy (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator: presentism and anachronistic use of the term psychology. Psychology as a scientifi discipline in its own right originated with Sigmund Freud in the late 19th century. Earlier, rudimentary, disconnected and unelaborated psychological observations may well be summarized as pre-history in psychology-related articles, but fall clearly below the threshold of having an article of its own. I am aware that some secondary sources on the medieval philosophy of the mind use the term psychology, but this is an anachronism which should not outweigh the vast majority of psychological literature which does not do this. We have to give preference to the standard opinion of psychologists, not the minority view of some scholars on medieval Islamic philosophy. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Scientific psychology predates Freud (and his approach was borderline pseudoscience anyway). It started with Psychophysics in the 1830s (as evidenced by the fact that certain persons (namely Khaleefa, 1999) have tried to claim psychophysics - and therefore psychology - in the name of Islam). Famousdog (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that covers the article's name. What about the article's subject? Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the article's subject? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Far as I can tell, it seems to be the history of the philosophy of mind in the middle east. That's too fine-grained a topic for its own article, but Wikipedia ought to cover it somewhere as a subheading in one of our broader-scope articles.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Philosophy of mind in medieval Islam (or similar) and merge into Philosophy of mind (or another suitable article). This is a topic that I believe quite capable of supporting its own article - unfortunately, the article as it stands contains a couple of sentences that would belong in the lede to such and article, a couple that would belong (somewhat rewritten and suitably balanced) in a Modern commentary section and none of the material that would need to come in between (which should be written to reflect what the thinkers concerned thought they were doing, not with either the very questionable presentism of Jagged 85 or the less comprehensively questionable presentism of the team who have been scouring out after him). I haven't got the time even to start the work that would be necessary for this - if anyone else has the time and competence to do this, I might be induced to change my vote to (rename and) keep. PWilkinson (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merge into nafs? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that. Famousdog (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article is a stub, with plenty of available material. I would also suggest keeping "psychology" in the name for two reasons. First, it is common to refer to philosophical/Aristotelian psychology as just "psychology", even in Wikipedia articles such as Aristotle. Second, medieval Islamic physicians have also developed a form of psychology used for treating patients, or what the Encyclopedia of Islam calls "practical psychology" (entry: al-Musabbiḥī). This second meaning of psychology, which includes for example treatises on Music therapy, should not be described as "philosophy of mind". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 10:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But "Aristotelian psychology" isn't referred to as "Pagan psychology" and according to your second argument, "psychiatry in medieval Islam" would be better... Famousdog (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, do not rename – per Wiqi. --Lambiam 01:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Stanford Encyclopaedia is an authoritative source and has an article by the name "Arabic and Islamic Psychology and Philosophy of Mind". Therefore keep and perhaps rename to "Psychology and philosophy of mind in medieval Islam". Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see by the edit history it was once a long and detailed article and that there was a discussion on another page to make it a stub, the discussion being filled with a long list of trivial arguments about the title that fail to address the importance of the content of this history. I do not see any arguments about notability here, so obviously it is just a matter of finding a suitable title. 24.5.17.115 (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kinta City Shopping Center[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. shopping centers are not inherently notable. nothing in gnews. google search mainly reveals directory listings. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be shown to have regional or national notability. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any evidence of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casa de Fantasma[edit]

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

No real notability, unreferenced, nothing on google of note. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 07:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no evidence of their "widespread acclaim". Their first performance was two days ago, so they are unlikely to have achieved notability yet. According to the article it may have been their last performance too, so it doesn't look good.--Beloved Freak 10:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 10:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - frankieMR (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

I would firstly like to make clear that i am not a member of Casa de Fantasma, so this isnt a case of shameless self promotion. The band is clealy not a nationwide notable event. It is however a rare case of 4 people coming together and producing geninely innovative and good music, the results of which caused enthusiastic approval amongst a number of people that were present on the 9th May. Consequently,as i have learnt recently, they were appouched by an event organiser and asked to play at Joshua Brooks (a well established nightclub in Manchester) on 24th May. Moreover they will, apperently, be auditioning for Parklife Festival on 11th and 12th June.

Their popularity seems to be snowballing, as my first contribution to Wikipedia has been this article, it will be somewhat demoralizing if this article is deleted and it turns out that Casa de Fantasma do become 'notable'.

I will find relaible internet sources as soon as they are available. In the mean time i hope you consider my beseechment.

And of course if you are free why not come to Joshua Brooks on 24th and listen to the sounds of Casa de Fantasma (Jazz infused with Hip Hop)

Thank you, Kindest Regards

Jack Colchester —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colcjh (talk • contribs) 16:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC) — Colcjh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

the article has recently been changed, its all over now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colcjh (talk • contribs) 16:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jack. We are always glad to have new editors contribute, and I really hope that you stay and continue doing so regardless of the outcome of this discussion. In response to your arguments let me point out that the quality of the band is not in question, that is, we don't judge whether their music is good or not, and it doesn't have any weight on whether the article is kept or not. What is in question is the notability of the band, and by notability we are referring to a very particular interpretation of the word (see also WP:BAND). In short, what is normally needed so a subject can be considered notable is to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and at this point no such coverage has surfaced. Also let me point out that these decisions are not permanent. It is understood (WP:USUAL) that if circumstances change then a different course of action may be taken (for example, recreating the article down the road if the band becomes notable). There are many policies, guidelines and essays available out there, and they make for a very constructive reading. Don't hesitate to ask if you have doubts or if you need assistance - frankieMR (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i understand, i hope i havent wasted everyones time, sorry for the confusion. Colcjh (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't look like it meets WP:BAND quite yet. Sounds like they're a promising band, so no prejudice towards re-creation if they eventually meet Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in agreement with FrankieMR's lengthy and helpful explanation above. Notability has not been achieved by this band, and if they do anything else in the future, remember the "too soon" guideline. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nightingales of Beccles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article about a small, local bus company was nominated for proposed deletion with the following reason "Subject fails to meet required Notability Guidelines WP:N and WP:CORP ". I removed the prod because a previous AFD exists which was closed as "no consensus" due to socking issues. nancy 07:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The previous socking issues were latterly sorted out, which would have left the previous AfD as Delete. However as I said in the PROD this company fails to meet either our General Notability or Corporate Notability guidlelines and would be better hosted at either the UK Public Transport wiki at wikia, or on wikitravel. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources seem to be available to prove notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proper notability can be shown. Fwiw as search of both the Lowestoft Journal and the Beccles & Bungay Journal (i.e. both very local papers) retrieve zero results for the company. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can find no significant coverage of this company to demonstrate notability, and per Blue Square Thing's search of local papers. Beloved Freak 10:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in gnews. no coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Alliance[edit]

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

Coverage for only one event. Although WP:ONEEVENT mentions biographies and articles about events, it should be applicable to organizations as well. Artem Karimov (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 27 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:09, 4 May 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - organisations participating are all notable, and generally WP:ONEEVENT is not applicable to organisations.--Anthem of joy (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass the general notability guidelines. Nothing useful found on Google; everything that was in-depth was on a similarly named organization like "Library Copyright Alliance" and whatnot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crisco is absolutely right... not sure how Anthem things any of this is noteable given the guidelines already referenced. Shadowjams (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malta Storm of 25th October 2010[edit]

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

Non-notable storm. Looking at WP:EVENT, I don't think that this storm can be considered be a notable topic. Quoting from WP:EFFECT, "A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable" and from WP:GEOSCOPE "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable". I can't find any lasting coverage of this event anywhere and the few in depth reports there are on this storm are from local news sources. Jenks24 (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that that GEOSCOPE and EFFECT quotes kinda sum it up here. If this article passed notability standards, we would have literally thousands of articles on individual thunderstorms from the United States, Australia, and other countries that get severe thunderstorms. All in all, this was a distinctly non-notable thunderstorm. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 13:09, 5 May 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, as shown above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Ks0stm completely. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SMP Negeri 1 Blitar[edit]

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

The article does not show enough notability. As shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMPK 4 Jakarta, middle schools / junior high schools are not considered inherently notable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but it was the school of our current vice president. Is it not enough for "notability"? However, if the article still considered to be deleted, then please do. Sherlockindo (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that Boediono studied there. However, on Wikipedia we have policies like WP:NOTINHERITED (which states that a person must be notable of their own right, not based on their relationship to someone famous). Although this probably could not be applied to this particular case, it is important to note that the school must be notable of its own right, and not only as the alma mater of the current Indonesian vice-president. ~~For example, Obama's school in Menteng would also not be acceptable.~~ Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, poor example. I forgot about all the coverage during the election. When SBY and Boediono were up for election, did anybody do a profile of SMP 1 Blitar? Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I remember that our national newspapers such as Jawa Pos and Kompas made some articles about SMP 1 Blitar during the campaign for the 2009 presidential election. Boediono even visited this school on May 2010, six months after his inauguration as a vice president (read the news here). As for the "notability", I was once a student of SMP 1 Blitar too and I know there are so many achievements achieved by this school, ranging from local to international level:

Sherlockindo (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The school's site cannot be used to establish notability; for that, we need independent sources. As for the detikNews article, it focuses more on Boediono than the school. Although (in my opinion) it cannot be used to prove notability, we can use it for additional information if the article is kept, for example stating that "Indonesian vice-president Boediono attended SMP Negeri Blitar 1, and has said that he was proud to be an alumni. Here's the Google translation for any editors interested that do not read Indonesian. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source for the school's achievement: [43] Sherlockindo (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note for other editors: The linked article notes that two students won prizes at the National Science Olympiad. Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The WP:NOTINHERITED guideline was intended for the kids of celebs and the like. It was not intended for schools. Schools influence the lives of their students so notable alumni are significant in assessing notability. I notice that there are a number of news reference for this school (searching the news archives for SMP 1 Blitar). My grasp of Indonesian is insufficient to easily appraise them, though. However, if a middle school has been mentioned more than once in a presidential campaign that's a pretty good start to a claim for notability. I think we should keep for now and see what sources get added in due course. TerriersFan (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there's my verification that it doesn't apply here. I wasn't sure if there was a similar policy; I expect there would be, otherwise we could create Quality Hotel (Yogyakarta) because "Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono stayed there." As for the news sources, this one is about the results of the national exams, with SMPN 1 Blitar placing fourth in the province (and many of the articles found on Kompas' website are rehashes of it), I've had no luck finding anything on Jawa Pos' website. This is separate coverage of Boediono's visit linked above, focusing on a demonstration that took place when he came. There are many more articles on his visit, such as this one from the official website for the VP... a search for information that doesn't relate to Boediono doesn't turn up many reliable sources, if any. I haven't found anything from the presidential elections yet. All of the coverage seems to be related to his visit, nothing from the election. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you couldn't find any news from Jawa Pos because you must subscribe and pay the monthly subscription fee first to access its digital edition, even the back issue (read here). Here are some articles about Boediono during the campaign that mention SMP Negeri 1 Blitar (just search for "SMP" to find it): [44] (translation, the translation engine mistranslated "SMPN 01" as "SMPN 2001"), [45] (translation), [46] (translation). The last article doesn't mention SMP Negeri 1 Blitar, but the news is almost the same as the second article, search for "Tukimin" to find the similarity. And again, as for the "notability", even Boediono himself praised his alma mater's achievement. You can read it here (translation, the translation engine makes an error again, "Eks Sekolah" mistranslated as "Ex-Vice President", it should be translated as "Ex-School"). Sherlockindo (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense for Jawa Pos. Thanks for letting me know about that. However, this, this, and this are all passing references. To quote (with my own translations. As you said, Google Translate isn't very good.]

"Pensiunan guru SMA ini juga menjadi teman saat masih duduk di bangku SMPN 01 Kota Blitar." (This retired high-school teacher was also (his) friend when (he) was a student at SMPN 01 Blitar). Only mention in the article.
"Rencananya, pada hari ini Boediono akan bernostalgia dengan teman-teman SD Muhammadiyah 1, SMPN 1 dan SMAN 1 Kota Blitar, dengan makan pagi di Soto Tukimin." {The plan for today is for Boediono to go to SD Muhammadiyah 1, (as well as) SMPN 1 and SMAN 1 Blitar, with breakfast at Soto Tukimin. Once again, only mention.
"Reuni diadakan bersama dengan teman semasa Boediono menuntut ilmu di Sekolah Menengah Pertama (SMP) dan Sekolah Menengah Atas (SMA). Acara diselenggarakan di warung soto Pak Tukimin yang menjadi langganan Boediono semasa kecil yang terletak di Jalan Kali Berantas 45, Kota Blitar." (The reunion is being held with his classmates from when he studied in Junior High School (SMP) and Senior High School (SMA). The reunion will take place at Mr. Tukimin's soto stall on Jalan Kali Berantas 45, Blitar, which Boediono frequented when he was younger.) Once again, only mention.

A passing mention is not enough for notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah, as I said before, those articles only mention SMP Negeri 1 Blitar. And thanks for your translation, it's far better than the Google Translate's. I'm glad to know a foreigner who is fluent in Indonesian :) . Actually, I don't know much about Wikipedia's policy, so if this article still considered to be deleted, then please do. At least, there is still an article about SMP Negeri 1 Blitar in Indonesian Wikipedia. Sherlockindo (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment :-). If you want to read the guideline about passing mentions, you can take a look at WP:GNG. It is the first on a list of five suggestions for sources that prove notability. BTW: Thanks for the link to the Indonesian Wikipedia. Agus Suhartono, as commander-in-chief of the Indonesian army, qualifies as notable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Indonesian Wikipedia list two notable alumni of the middle school: Boediono, vice-president of Indonesia, and Agus Suhartono, commander-in-chief of the Indonesian army. Although Boediono's status as a former student has reliable sources, as of now none are available for Agus Suhartono. In other words, we have two notable alumni so far, but nothing much on the school itself. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found some sources to confirm that Agus Suhartono was also a student of SMP Negeri 1 Blitar: [47] (translation; Seputar Indonesia), [48] (translation; Republika), [49] (translation; Antara is the news agency of Indonesia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherlockindo (talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Okay, here is my signature: Sherlockindo (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will use the Republika source. For further discussion on this, we can use my talk page if you want to collaborate. Let's leave this for the deletion discussion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 5 May 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per Terriefsfan. It seems that there is sufficient media coverage combined with the notable alumni. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Bentley (actor)[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable child actor. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 27 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) 00:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won a Young Artist Award [50], and therefore meets Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". Chester Markel (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chester Markel, subject has won a notable award. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
But I have to mention that given the notability of the award mentioned, this could also be a keep close. I'll wait for a couple of more days for any further comments; and then close this as keep if there is no opposition. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nothing in this discussion rebuts the nominator's assertion that there is no nreliable third party coverage of the subject. The "keep" arguments are weak, asserting that sources exist without citing them, or simply pointing to Google results, which are not by themselves reliable sources. Sandstein 07:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aleanca Kuq e Zi[edit]

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

Delete. Article lacking indication of importance or significance. A7 CSD removed with claim that one of the sources may indicate notability. References provided are limited to two primary sources and an online article about the organization gathering signatures in protest of a government census. Additionally, notability of the subject is not established through the general notability guidelines. Cind.amuse 20:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find nothing on this. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and sven see for 131.000 articles --Vinie007 16:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A google wave at a collection of links does not provide an indication of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A mere glance indicates a large collection of unreliable sources. Can you indicate which sources specifically support content in the article? Thanks, Cind.amuse 05:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Vinie007.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please see my response above. Can you indicate which sources specifically support content in the article? Thanks, Cind.amuse 05:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources are there, but Cindamuse elected to call them primary: How can they be secondary if the NGO is brand new? --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Here is a link that may assist you in understanding the difference between primary and secondary sources and how they apply to articles on Wikipedia. Primary sources encompass material that is closest to the subject, distributed by the subject or by entities closely affiliated with the subject, or those entities benefiting in some capacity from an association or affiliation with the subject. Primary sources are not independent of the subject. Notability established through the general notability guidelines require significant coverage in reliable sources, which are independent of the subject. The Aleanca Kuq e Zi article is supported by two inline citations and two external links to the organization's own website. These are primary sources, which cannot be used to establish notability. While the other reference (http://lajme.shqiperia.com) is independent of the subject, this does not equate to significant coverage. Please feel free to contact me any time you have questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse 09:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment reply: Thanks for the clarification on the sources. Right now I see 8 independent sources. What's the number of independent sources required, for this article to be kept?--Doktor Plumbi (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hr style="width:55%;" />

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 02:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, expanded it. Maybe you can check again. --Vinie007 12:00, 6 May 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A clear delete based on the given evidence. One can almost excuse GedUK for his CSD denial, but persisting in this approach without any real evidence, especially since you created the page.... that's interesting. Shadowjams (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, please check article importance section --Vinie007 08:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did. No additional evidence of notability is very convincing to me. Shadowjams (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Heavyweight Championship (Total Extrme Nonstop Wrestling )[edit]

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

I believe this to be a hoax, as there is literally no coverage of "Total Extreme Nonstop Wrestling" outside Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors on the internet, which is extremely surprising for any sort of recent wrestling promotion. I am also nominating:

WEW Do or Die
WEW Redemption
List of TENW pay-per-view events
WEW Sin
Women's XX Championship (Total Extrme Nonstop Wrestling) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthem of joy (talk • contribs) 21:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem of joy (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them. They do not seem to have anything written about them, and the OP is correct; that is amazingly odd for a wrestling event. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - walled garden of hoaxes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, even if it is real, it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 19:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them, as a hoax. — Moe ε 23:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Carrite (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as a hoax and soon Porturology (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Unverifiable. Either hoaxes or utterly non-notable, probably the former. Where there are references provided they conspicuously fail to verify the content. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTimeScale[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable MediaWiki extension/defunct website. LiteralKa (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does changing the link to this solve the defunct website issue? This is another site by the same developer and even the logo says WikiTimeScale. huji—TALK 19:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I think huji's proposal is a good one. Alternatively, this article can be redirected to WikiTimeLine with a reference to Extension:WikiTimeLine in MediaWiki. FakhredinBlog (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The above proposals are irrelevant, since the website is not the central issue. As with the previous AfD nomination, the concern is notability. Meph^talk 15:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – insufficient coverage (one mention in a RS) to be considered notable. --Lambiam 00:46, 5 May 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Dead non-notable website. Google hits appear to be principally the Wiki itself or a Sourceforge subpage. It's difficult to verify or find significant coverage, so it fails WP:GNG. Meph^talk 03:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—It was previously deleted as non-notable. Meph^talk 03:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 argument that we should not allow small businesses to sneak by on notability is perfectly valid, but the number of sources provided for which this not-so-small-business is the primary subject indicate that this is in fact a fairly notable organization. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M1NT[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No credible assertion of notability of this nightclub. Article is advertising. Wikipedia is not a compendium of traveller's information. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article is promotional in tone (and has been worse in the past) but there is quite a lot of independent coverage, both in the articles currently listed as external links as well as a number of additional ones shown at GNews[51]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 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) 00:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. Chester Markel (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator. What independent coverage? A few examples would really help. The last time I looked all I found was their own Web site, which as a self-published source isn't helpful for testing notability. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - [52], [53], and [54] surely constitute coverage in independent WP:RS, for instance. Chester Markel (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The rationale WP:Doesn't Suck As Bad as Some Stuff doesn't cut it for me. There needs to be a very high bar for inclusion of small private businesses, otherwise WP will quickly come to resemble the Yellow Pages. This is a promotional fluff piece which smells as though the club had a role in its writing. That's not good enough. If there is material out there which demonstrates this firm's encyclopedia-worthiness, it needs to be showing in the article. Not theoretically "out there," for a commercial concern, notability needs to be showing in the piece and ad spam removed at once. In my opinion, just as we treat Biographies of Living People differently than Biographies of Historic Figures, we need to treat commercial pages of small firms differently than pages relating to large corporations. If we don't hold these pages to a rigorous and high standard, there will be negative consequences for the project down the road when the onslaught of 50 million businesses or whatever around the world begins. Wikipedia should not be allowed to become a part of any company's marketing program. Carrite (talk) 12:36, 4 May 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As pointed out above, there are reliable sources in which M1NT is the primary subject of the article. As such, it meets the WP:GNG. Addtionally, one can find even more coverage where, alhtough M1NT is not the primary subject, the coverage is more than just a passing mention. For example: [55]. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Structures[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article (movement or group?) fails WP:NOTABILITY, Has Inadequate references, no evidence of notability and what does exists seems to be press releases, unreliable references and self-promotional material like GlobalArtAffairs Publishing and Lodermeyer. Nothing more than Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT Hu12 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article contains links to magazines that cover the work associated with the Personal Structures group/forum/collective or however they wish to designate themselves. I've also found this which is more coverage. That seems to be enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As mentioned above those links are Inadequate, mere gallery press releases and self-promotional material are not reliable 3rd party coverage nor is the gallery press release link you provided above. Its all Promotional Marketing.[56], rather than reliable 3rd party coverage. Google news shows only one result which is a press release and scholar shows nothing that would adequetly establish notability. --Hu12 (talk) 16:26, 3 May 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) 00:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to a more appropriate title. It is clear that this arrticle is about an artist-group and collective movement, the article title as it stands does not lend itself to searches for notability. The German link above is a reliable third party reference. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:39, 4 May 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and disam title. Enuf independent coverage etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Cosgriff[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and pretty much any other standard. Has authored some non-notable books (some self-pub) and has a lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Has been tagged for notability since 2008 and never improved on. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources that discuss this person in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable author. All his published books are through vanity presses (iUniverse, PublishAmerica). Shsilver (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable vanity-press guy. Fails WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Mantle[edit]

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

Simply not notable. Runs a non-notable website. Has authored some magazine articles and wins non-notable awards from non-notable places. A couple of books that look like they are self-pub. Overall, there is no significant coverage by reliable third party sources and this ends up looking more like a vanity piece than anything. Fails WP:AUTHOR Niteshift36 (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An accomplished individual, but not notable per Wikipedia standards (i.e. fails WP:AUTHOR). Location (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of the titles are vanity-press, others aren't even HERS. Fails WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Wildlife Film Festival[edit]

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

Article presents no reliable sources or evidence of notability, and has very little content. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 03:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —» Swpb^{τ • ¢} 03:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this film festival is notable, as shown by decades of coverage in reliable sources. Simply use the handy Google News Archive tool above to verify the vast number of sources readily available. I recommend that the nominator review WP:BEFORE and follow its wise precepts. When reliable sources on a notable topic are readily available, add the best of them to the article instead of nominating the article for deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I forgot to take a look at Google Books before making the "Keep" recommendation above. When I did, I found in-depth coverage of this film festival in many books. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well why don't you add sources, instead of lambasting me? AfD isn't just about getting rid of hopeless cases, it's also about spurring people to improve long-deficient articles. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 16:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No it isn't: WP:NOTCLEANUP. Francis Bond (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it should be. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 15:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable despite the state of the article. AFD is not a venue for getting articles improved.--Michig (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've expanded the article and added a number of references from reliable sources. I do not think that pointing out such an excellent recommendation as WP:BEFORE constitutes "lambasting" and I am always happy to expand and reference articles on interesting and notable topics when I have the time. Thanks to Swpb for urging me to do so. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, contrary to the nomination statement, the article did contain a very reliable source published by a university press at the time of nomination: the one that I added when I removed the WP:PROD tag. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas DeMark[edit]

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

There is a long list of primary sources (articles and books) published by the subject of this article, but no coverage in secondary sources aside from a CNBC interview (the Business Week link was 404 for me). Bringing it here for discussion as to whether that represents enough to establish that the subject is notable. VQuakr (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly a piece of WP:SPAM, violating WP:AUTO and WP:COI, created by a WP:SPA. It appears that the greatest "achievement" of this marketing "guru" is to come to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of writing a promotional article about himself. The result woefully fails WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Phony sources. I've been going meticulously through the list of "articles" he put up that are supposedly by him, but few of them are. Some are dead links, others are articles by other people that tangentially mention him without asserting notability. I am removing these problematic "sources." It's bad enough the guy came here with no other purpose but to write an entry about himself, but then he tries to bolster himself through non-links and by trying to take credit for business articles written by other people! Qworty (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 21:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rummage[edit]

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

Subject is a sport recently made up by a group of elementary school students. Article is unreferenced. Their creativity is to be commended, but this clearly does not meet any criterion for inclusion including the general notability guideline. PROD was contested by author/other related contributors. VQuakr (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to WP:MADEUP. The article is well-written and interesting, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote a new sport. If this game catches on and is described in depth in reliable sources, then the article can be recreated at that time. Now is not the time. Cullen328 (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps you're more familiar with the cheese-tossing variant, but the game could be played just as easily with yogurt or any other dairy product for that matter. --MoonLichen (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Request of MoonLichen: Please explain how your recommendation to "Keep" is based on any Wikipedia policies or guidelines? Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted by the Cullen328, WP:MADEUP applies to stuff like this. It is great that they are creative enough to come up with this, but for now it is not notable. On a side note, I think that a similar sport actually does exist under a different name. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Suggest redirect to jumble sale, which is probably what anyone searching for "rummage" is looking for. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate to bite newbies, but this needs to be redirected as suggested to Jumble sale; it's a valid search term. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a very interesting game, but I'm still going to have to say delete per WP:MADEUP. On a side note, "Students in Melinda Heights" don't qualify as references. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
we developed this game over four years Treblaeel999 (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "We" developed this game? That's the main problem. Please read WP:MADEUP (and while you're at it, WP:COI). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ezzatyar[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. The current article's citations are mostly just direct links to the author's work, but I am unable to find any reliable sources which establish notability. The two links which are not to the author's work are alumni magazine mentions and do not appear to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure about source reliability but this is a regular character on the BBC world and french television where he is described as a lawyer and writer, hence a real character. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClD4_HlPJwU. Also link to robert fisk article is reliable, as robert fisk is a well established figure. The California Bar also lists him as an "active" attorney http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=261745 — 90.46.48.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The youtube link provided does not demonstrate a third party reliable source discussing the important of Ezzatyar. The Fisk article makes a passing reference to a single quote only. Being a registered attorney does not establish notability. I am still unable to find any substantial reliable source coverage to establish notability under the guidelines of WP:CREATIVE ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't the fact that Ezzatyar is a regular writer/columnist for some major news publications establish some sort of notability? Seems like those major news corporations are regularly seeking Ezzatyar's expertise in the fields of International Relations and Law for their publications and news programs. --Kazomo (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)— Kazomo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reference by Robert Fisk does not appear to be a passing reference but a reference and a quote that is more or less central to the article; Ezzatyar is quoted along with Thomas Friedman in the article. There are also a number of other references to Ezzatyar outside of his own work, a couple here; http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/index011106.html, http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=8505, http://www.iranwatch.org/privateviews/NIXON/perspex-nixon-IransBomb-0304.pdf. Does being the youngest graduate of Columbia also merit Notability under ANYBIO? It might... (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.52.214 (talk) — 90.46.52.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I have taken a look at those sources and do not see them establishing notability. The BU link is a passing citation in a source that is not necessarily of significant notability itself. Similarly the Antiwar link is also a passing citation in a source that does not necessarily have any notability itself. The Iranwatch link only mentions Ezzatyar once - in a footnote to thank him for helping with the article. Overall these 3 appearances of his name appear to be passing references that do not establish notability in significantly notable reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having only been active on a dozen topics on Wikipedia, I created this profile after seeing Ezzatyar speak multiple times on French/British TV. He seems to be a go to source on US/Middle East issues or at least is becoming a go to source, which among other justifications discussed above seems to meet the requirements of WP:CREATIVE as much as many encyclopedia entries (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallcoffee (talk • contribs) — Smallcoffee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other 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, Baseball Watcher 02:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage indicates written few article. need indepth coverage about him as a person which is clearly lacking. fails WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argao Central Elementary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Argao Central Elementary School

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

Elementary schools should be merged to their town articles given that they are not individually notable, such as in this case. Per WP:WPSCH/AG. Same reason for the following articles. Moray An Par (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Moray An Par (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after adding any pertinent information to the main article. OP should note that this is not for discussing mergers but deletions. However, while we're here... they don't seem to pass our notability guidelines on their own. If the articles are to be kept as redirects that is fine by me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, by saying that, I only meant to cite the guideline, and stress that it doesn't deserve its own article. A merge and redirect can be an option, however, I would not prefer it myself for there isn't really much content in the articles that are worth integrating to their town articles. Moray An Par (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry to misunderstand you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after taking any useful content and thinking about it and then rewriting it in any locality article which applies. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to locality per usual practice. Please note, that after any content merge a straight deletion would breach our GFDL obligations. TerriersFan (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletion is mandated by WP:BLP as this consists of (at least potentially) contentious and essentially unsourced assertions about living people. Sandstein 07:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political families of Philadelphia[edit]

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

This page is an example of what Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of tangentially related things. One source, a dead link from 2008, purports that in ~~Pennsylvania~~ Philadelphia, political families are important. This claim is not otherwise substantiated. "Political families" should encompass more than two individuals, while many of these entries are limited to two. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I found and inserted an active link for the 2006 article. Location (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 27 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, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but retitle List of political families of Philadelphia. If it is a list it has concrete inclusion criteria, finite length, meets the test of verifiability, has a navigational function, and constitutes a rational and potentially useful aggregation of names and links. As an article? Not so much. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 3 May 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, Baseball Watcher 01:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is original synthesis (WP:SYNTH) unless each of these "political families" has been covered as such by reliable third-party sources. Anthem of joy (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few of the individual names are in the one source provided, however, most of them are not. Without multiple sources, I think this runs afoul of WP:SYNTH and WP:GNG. Location (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. --evrik ^(talk) 18:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., Anthem of joy, and Location.--JayJasper (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takriz[edit]

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

Not expanded since 2009, unclear for readers Green Giant (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did a bit of searching and have been able to track down sources and provide clarification (see the revised article), so as the issues above have been addressed, this article can remain.Asnac (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - it is both clearer as to its signifigance and references. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 27 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Article has been improved, but references are stilll deficient. Only one Independent Reliable Source is cited, a BBC article which gives only one sentence to the group. I'd love to find an excuse to keep this, so maybe more refs can be found? --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the clear standards of WP:NGO, specifically "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." Wickedjacob (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only "coverage" appears to be the passing mention in the BBC article cited in the article; any other mentions I can find seem similarly trivial. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — until a few minutes ago, the article had three references, two of which are from "takriz.com" and "takriz.net" which hardly adds to the notability of the "organisation". The third reference was a BBC article which mentions Takriz but the wording in the article was misleading:

"During the 2010-11 Tunisian anti-government protests, which were noteworthy for the major role of internet communications in the mobilisation of demonstrations, Takriz was a significant player.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12180954</ref>
The BBC article actually says:

"It's like a game of hide and seek," says one blogger who goes by the name of Foetus.
He is one of two people who founded Tunisia's opposition Takriz cyber group in 1998, and now operates out of another North African country, which he declined to name for fear that he could be identified and his family targeted.

To me, that does not say that Takriz played any part in the uprising, let alone a significant part. I have therefore commented out the misleading sentence. Green Giant (talk) 14:00, 10 May 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, Baseball Watcher 01:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just searched the websites of four reliable newspapers, and though I found dozens of results for "Tunisia" in each one of them, there was not a single result for "Takriz" in any of them. Whether or not the group is noteworthy, I don't think the reliable sources we need to justify keeping this article are out there.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ISO 9241. Since the content has already been merged, a redirect must be kept for attribution purposes. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 13407[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP user per request at WT:AFD. I am neutral.

From article talk page...

As I note at Talk:ISO 13407#AFD nomination, ISO 13407 was created in July 2008 and has been minimally improved since then. While a case could be made that as an ISO standard it starts out with a WP:GNG presumption of notability, a review of of its current content and my review of a sampling of articles from an internet search places notability in question. That, combined with WP:NOTMANUAL issues and the failed attempt a year ago to PROD the article–something I just documented via ((old prod full))–prompts me to request that someone complete my AFD nomination. Thanks in advance. 68.165.77.118 (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The 2,390 gScholar hits which stopped the article's deletion via PROD cannot be ignored. It seems as though the standard has received "significant coverage" as required by the GNG. Not quoted by Ron Ritzman (neutral nominator) was this pro-deletion argument: "It is also worth noting that ISO 13407 was replaced last year by ISO 9241, further undermining its notability." However, notability is not temporary (and I can only assume this is why the nominator left it out). Furthermore, the IP nominator adds "a review of of its current content" to the list of reasons for deletion. Article issues outside of those listed at WP:DEL "should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I "screwed up" and pasted in the IP editor's rationale from WT:AFD instead of the article's talk page as was my original intention. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 03:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article currently lacks any acceptable sources. Are there any that can be shown to meet the WP:GNG?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great question. Yes, I think so. Take this, for example, published in the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies in 2001. The cover page makes it clear that ISO 13407 is an important human-centered design framework which is detailed upon in the text. Page 599 provides detailed coverage of ISO 13407's specifications. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 18:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't ignore WP:NTEMP when I nominated it, I just worded the nomination poorly. ISO standards start with a presumption of notability based just on the organisation's charter. And for that reason they get coverage in multiple places if you define "significant" in terms of numbers of hits without regard to what those multiple hits actually say about the standard. I've been part of groups that have worked on standards in the past, and from that experience I'd suggest that a hypothetical WP:Notability (standards) interpret "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice" to mean that the standard had an impact beyond its mere publication. I took a look at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.101.6086&rep=rep1&type=pdf and found it hard to come up with anything impactful about ISO 13407. Here are some statements from that paper that suggest ISO 13407's notable contributions to making software usable:

bringing together in a meeting all the stakeholders relevant to the development, to create a common vision for how usability can support the project objectives.
recognize the needs of the system user and to specify them in a way that designers can incorporate within the system development process.

Do we even know if Martin Maguire, the author of the citeseerx.ist.psu.edu citation, meets WP:ACADEMIC or is otherwise notable enough to have a perspective on the notability of ISO 13407?

Compare ISO 13407 with the equally minimal, borderline WP:NOTMANUAL article on another standard, SQL:2008, a topic whose notability is established; SQL:2008 includes references from Oracle Corporation and Sybase that demonstrate that the standard has had a notable impact on software. Did ISO 13407 have an impact on Cocoa Touch or some lesser known component of a successful product?

It goes without saying that ISO 13407 belongs in List of International Organization for Standardization standards, but no case has been made for ISO 13407 to have its own separate article or to be more than a redirect to that list. 67.101.7.246 (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can establish that notability is not determined by usefulness, but by coverage in reliable, third-party sources. As for the source I presented, which was only an example, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) does not apply (it's a notability guideline). But even if the author does not meet the guideline, the report was published in the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, a publication that's still around today and cited in plenty of other articles. The standard itself may seem useless, but it has been documented and therefore should satisfy inclusion criteria. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 18:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to find something notable to be said about the article, and came up with the two example above, neither of which demonstrates notability in my judgment. So far, your case is based on hypothetical notability based on numerous undifferentiated citations that aren't in the article. While I appreciate your rapid reply to my previous comment, you should consider responding to Yaksar (talk · contribs)'s earlier request to address the issue that the article still lacks any acceptable sourced details that demonstrates its notability. As it stands right now, it is nothing but a poorly formatted and incomplete table of contents, of questionable value given the policy that Wikipedia is not a manual. 67.101.6.204 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. Speaking of hypothetical evidence, here's a statistic supporting its lack of notability: the three dozen watchers of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing, including in this discussion by Thryduulf (talk · contribs), haven't even commented, yet alone come up with anything that establishes notability of ISO 13407 either.[reply]

Your final argument is not valid when applied to your case. Indeed the watchers of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing "haven't even commented", meaning nobody seems to be rushing in here pressing for deletion either. As for the article itself, WP:NOTMANUAL problems can be corrected through normal editing and improvement, and does not require deletion. I intent to add sources and I will when I have time. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:23, 28 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, Baseball Watcher 01:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete and redirect to ISO 9241. I'm with those who say that ISO standards should normally have their own article irrespective of whether they have attracted popular attention. One of the uses of an encylopedia is to help with those questions. But if there isn't anything useful to say about it other than its having been superseded, users will find a straight redirect more helpful AJHingston (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current state of the article is irrelevant to the question of deletion because it is our editing policy to improve weak starts, not to delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ISO_9241. It's worth noting that ISO 9241-210:2010 had a precedent as an earlier approved standard. Diego Moya (talk) 01:02, 7 May 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, Baseball Watcher 01:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the editor who initiated this AfD discussion, I've been convinced by the comments of AJHingston (talk · contribs) and Diego Moya (talk · contribs) that it is worth noting that ISO 9241-210:2010 had ISO 13407 as a precedent. So I have merged that detail, with ref, to ISO 9241, details which I now think needed to be added there regardless. What remains, IMHO, is to turn ISO 13407 into a Redirect. 67.101.6.111 (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Franz[edit]

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

The subject of this biography does not appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. The only reference is to the individual winning a "best high school film" award. VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a beginning film maker who won a minor award. I was unable to find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources and he certainly fails WP:CREATIVE at this early stage of his career. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shutokei[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOT because it is merely a retelling of various character plots and in-universe details. Needs coverage of reception to meet WP:NOTJUSTPLOT and to WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY. Most of the information is not encyclopedic, and the rest is redundant with List of Kerberos Saga characters. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no third party coverage. Plot only description, as per nom. --Anthem of joy (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Distraction (game show). Can be merged from the history as needed if there if consensus, and sources, can be found. Sandstein 07:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of events on Distraction (game show)[edit]

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

List of non-notable elements from a show that was barely notable. Clearly over coverage of the topic. Ridernyc (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Jezhotwells (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest pruning and merging into Distraction (game show): Jezhotwells (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Listed on 11 May 2011, AFD was created 15 Feb but never listed, completed the listing. GB fan (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Too much down the fancruft route. However, I'm inclined to preserve the edit history because this might be reusable on something like ukgameshows.com. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Distraction (game show) (although that article doesn't have any sources either). A similar redirect occurred with this. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. While the reliable sources are inaccessible, Google does attest to their existence. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wither (Lauren DeStefano novel)[edit]

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

Prod contested on the grounds that "lack of notability" isn't mentioned as a reason for deletion. How about Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed? That's the very definition of lack of notability. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found this. However, the only other two results returned by this search are broken links. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'keep, as there controversy itself does not violate WP:CRYSTALBALL. However, this does not preclude renaming or even merging if there is consensus to do so (indeed, a rename at least seems appropriate to me as long as this remains a controversy and not a definitive seat). Rlendog (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devonwall (UK Parliament constituency)[edit]

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

This article is in breach of WP:CRYSTALBALL, specifically points 2, 3 and 5. At the moment there is only speculation that such a constituency will be created and there is no evidence that such a constituency will named Devonwall. Also at a time of the UK referendum the existence of this article could be seen as electioneering. For a more in-depth rationale, please see Talk:Devonwall (UK Parliament constituency)#Concern Zangar (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystal gazing. I share concerns about the tone and content, particularly the assertion that the constituency exists and has been named. That could be fixed if we knew it was going to happen, but we do not. There will be a lot of debate over the new constituency boundaries and names, but we cannot allow articles on every single proposal for each of them because the articles can inevitably then be used as political fodder see, it must be real, there's a Wikipeida article about it. --AJHingston (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Zangar (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Zangar (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. The boundary commission hasn't even started drawing up the new constituencies yet. There may or may not be a cross-border constituency between Cornwall and Devon, but there again there might not. This issue was a controversial one during the debate of the bill, that that is already mentioned in Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not provide verifiable sources for the statements made; existence of the article is misleading and no definition of the districts included is given. Saltash and [part of] Devon is inadequate as a definition.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep once it's been renamed to "Devonwall (proposed UK Parliament constituency)" and cleaned up. It doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL because the article is not about a non-existent constituency: it's about the controversy surrounding the possible creation of such a constituency. The problem is the way the article has been written. As CRYSTAL states: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Well, it's certainly verifiable (and notable) - there are many news reports and the name has been mentioned in Parliament - and if it already existed it would merit its own article alongside these. CRYSTAL continues "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced", which is exactly what this article should aim to do. To further refute Zangar's arguments (sorry, nothing personal!) it doesn't fail CRYSTAL point 2 because it isn't part of a "predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names" about which "only generic information is known". It doesn't fail point 3 because it reports the position now, and doesn't (or won't once I've edited it) speculate about the future. And point 5 takes us back to the start of my argument - the article is about the controversy, not the non-existent constituency. —SMALL JIM 14:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, it does not follow that every single controversial aspect of an Act of Parliament should be reported in a separate article, nor do I think we should be having an article on a constituency that might come into play (even ones reported in the news) just because existing constituencies have articles. Putting individual aspects of controversial legislation into separate articles is generally a bad thing because they become easy targets for POV forks - indeed, this article already seems to give undue weight to anti-Devonwall comments. The issue is already covered in Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, and even if it's expanded to include the additional information given in this article, it would still fit easily into this article. If we are to start creating articles on every constituency that people say might be created as a result of this Act, it's going to be an unworkable mess. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all that, Chris, and if someone started creating such articles, I'd support their deletion. But the refs indicate that this topic satisfies the GNG. —SMALL JIM 20:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on the article rewrite SJ. I concede that I misread point 2 of CRYSTAL, thanks for pointing that out. But I still feel that the content with the title (and proposed one) still contravenes points 3 and 5. At the moment the name "Devonwall" is only really used as a quasi-description within the popular press - I know that you referenced Hansard in the article, but it was used only once and within quote marks, only really verifying that is was said - not that a constituency will be named as such. The proposed title still does not match with the content; "Devonwall (proposed UK Parliament constituency)" assumes that a constituency with the name "Devonwall" maybe introduced. It also does not point to the fact that the article does pertain to the discussions and controversy, it sounds more like it has been proposed but not yet implemented - this will only happen when the Boundary Commissions report back and until then it will only be speculation and extrapolation, contravening the above points. Although these speculations can be verified as happening, CRYSTAL requires that they be "stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field" - newspapers and the BBC are experts in the field of news delivery not political boundary reform, which is the field of this proposal. Zangar (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that my feelings are with Zangar on this one. For the benefit of non-UK readers of this I should explain that the boundaries of Parliamentary constituencies are to be altered so that each contains approximately the same number of people. These boundaries are reviewed regularly by the Boundary Commission anhd there are almost always arguments over boundaries. They will be more acute this time because the Boundary Commissions will be under a much stricter to equalise size. Since the voting population of Cornwall is not exactly divisible by the 75,000 or so that will be the new average it is almost inevitable that there will be one constituency that will straddle the boundary between Cornwall and Devon. But we will not know until the proposals are announced in the autumn. Yes, there is local opposition to the possibility, and as with all these things there is a party political interest both because it could affect the electoral outcome locally and because equalising constituencies is seen as benefitting the Conservative Party nationally. Against all that, we can be sure the new constituency will not be called Devonwall (the two counties are not to be combined, just a few thousand obliged to share an MP), and until the proposals are published people will not know where it is to be. Wikipedia is not really the place for recording local campaigns of this sort especially if it can be dealt with in the main article on a topic. However, if a neutral point of view can be maintained (which requires explaining the case in favour of change and why it may be difficult to achieve equalisation without a cross boundary solution) I would not be totally opposed to its staying pending merger into an article about the new constiuenc(y/ies). --AJHingston (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both those comments - hope you won't object to some bullets in response :)
* 1. Is it a notable topic? Yes, the controversy satisfies the GNG.
* 2. Does it fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL? No, because it's about the existing controversy, like many of these articles about proposed things. Yes, I know about OSE!
* 3. Will the constituency (if it is created) be called "Devonwall"? Of course not, but since that's the only term that's been used to describe it, that's what we must use.
* 4. What should the title be? I'm not so sure now. Devonwall (controversy surrounding possible UK Parliament constituency) is probably the most descriptive, but WP:NAME suggests something more concise is better as long as it is unambiguous. Maybe Devonwall (possible UK Parliament constituency) would be OK?
* 5. Should the article be improved? Definitely. For instance, Proposed Outlying Landing Field has sections entitled "Motivations" and "Opposition" which would fit the article nicely.
* 6. Are any of these points other than 1 and 2 relevant to this AfD? No.
I should perhaps add that I spotted this AfD on the Devon article alerts page. I'd never heard of "Devonwall", but after doing a bit of research I thought that the article, though written from completely the wrong angle, dealt with a notable topic and should be kept to inform others who hear the strange term and wonder what it's about. —SMALL JIM 16:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I do agree with all your points except 2 (in its current form). I have no problem with articles about proposed things. So I suppose after your rewrite my main problem is the use of the term "Devonwall" which does violate the line "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view" in CRYSTAL, and its inclusion in the title (even those you suggest) and prominance in the article means that it goes on to violate those specific points. But I think if the article were to be renamed something on the lines on Proposed Conwall-Devon UK Parliament constituency and "Devonwall" was not given prominance (e.g. not being the first sentence in the article), there would be less to object to. Although with regards to your examples of other "proposed" articles I notice that nearly all of them (which were not redirects) were about something where a plan was in place or a specific proposal was made. At the moment the plan is the boundary review; a Cornwall-Devon constituency is just a possible, extrapolated, by-product. Zangar (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the point on which we differ. I don't see how the article could not contain "Devonwall" in its title since that's what all the sources call it (see WP:NAME), and it's what anyone looking for info on it would search for. But this is a discussion for the article talk page (assuming it's kept). —SMALL JIM 20:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article in its present form with revised title.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your revised opinion, Felix, you ought to ~~strike~~ your previous "delete" above, for clarity. —SMALL JIM 20:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep till confirmed in the meantime proposed is relevant.Lihaas (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies, probably as its own section or sub-section. Now that I know this article exists, this looks like the best home for all the controversy about the redrawn boundaries (Devonwall certainly won't be the only one).Whatever the outcome, "Devonwall" isn't a good name for the article as there's no chance any constituency will be called that (although I've no objection to a redirect). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:00, 9 May 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, Baseball Watcher 00:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Lihaas.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. I've done the redirect, any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technosys[edit]

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

This was proposed for deletion a year ago, and in deference to the ensuing discussion on User_talk:Ausgangskontrolle, I left it until now; however, I believe the original concern still exists; there is no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources (WP:GNG), and the company does not seem to meet the requirements in WP:CORP. Chzz ► 11:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, or redirect to Aamber Pegasus. This was a very early maker of a line of personal computers in the early 1980s. According to the Pegasus article they sold less than a hundred of them. That doesn't mean that the business or its product lacked significance: but if this business had any historical or technical significance, I would not expect Google Books and Scholar to draw a complete blank on it. All hits seem to be misfires. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Aamber Pegasus. Insufficiently notable on its own. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to see such articles deleted, but it looks like no suitable sources exist. I think a merge is an appropriate solution, as this will leave the article content in the history should some source later come to light. If the article is deleted, I will be happy to provide the contents of the article on request to anyone who might be interested in finding an alternative host for the information.-gadfium 21:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Aamber Pegasus. Kind of interesting that there's sources for that article but they failed to mention the manufacturer! --Icerat (talk) 06:25, 7 May 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, Baseball Watcher 00:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Flowers[edit]

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

Not notable - see WP:GNG and WP:BIO - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Disputed proposed deletion with same reasoning (28 March 2011). Chzz ► 11:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply falls far short of the criteria for notability here. Being a "runner up" a the San Francisco International Comedy Competition is the most notable thing he has done so far, which is far short of the mark. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 4 May 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, Baseball Watcher 00:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No "keep" arguments after a month of discussion. Sandstein 07:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Groselle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the last deletion discussion, no contextual changes have been made.
The first keep was merited because it had a number of ghits.
Not notable.
Not many references. Curb Chain (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 27 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) 00:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The matter under discussion here is if this person is notable; the other points raised can be fixed by normal editing. I agree the article is a mess and a new start may be required, however that's not too big a job.

The reference in the article states "Groselle was the 1976 NCAA Division III national champion in the 50-meter freestyle event and was twice named an All-American. A recipient of the Donald M. Campbell, Jr. Memorial Award, Groselle earned All-President's Athletic Conference honors twice and was the PAC Most Valuable Swimmer in 1976. In addition, Groselle held six Hiram College school records as well as over 20 world and national Master's swimming records." Therefore this swimmer has held over 20 world records, twice named All-American and seems to have won sufficient awards to be notable. Edgepedia (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, point 2 says that one of the editors claimed that because it had a number of ghits that the article should be kept.Curb Chain (talk) 02:07, 6 May 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, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Coverage about him to meet WP:GNG appears to be insufficient. There is some coverage locally, but I don't see that being sufficient to establish notability. There are hints at political activity in the article but no specifics. I was unable to find any indication that he would meet WP:POLITICIAN. As a swimmer, we would need to look to see if WP:NSPORT is met in any way. There is no specific criteria for swimmers, so going by general guidance, we would need to see if he has competed at the highest level in his sport. In college he competed in NCAA Division III, but there is no mention of international competition. He has competed in FINA Masters events and set world records for his age group. However, masters swimming events are not the top level of competition, and coverage of his world records appear to consist of the local coverage mentioned previously. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 content of the article is not overtly promotional to the point where it would qualify for speedy deletion. I actually find that assertion a bit puzzling since the nominator has been involved in editing this article since 2008 and has had more than ample opportunity to fix any content problems. The desires of the owners of the organization regarding this article are not at all relevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TalkSwitch[edit]

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

The company page has been previously listed for speedy deletion, and the firm has been bought by Fortinet who do not wish this page to be kept updated on Wikipedia. Tim Welch (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure an article can be deleted for that reason. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fair enough, however I would state this article never met WP:CORPDEPTH and likely should have been a candidate for WP:SPEEDY in 2010 under section G11 when the article was not edited for ((db-spam)). Perhaps it would be better to relist for deletion under ((db-g11)) however either way the article in my view is (a) unwanted by it's new publicly traded owners, (b) was never complete or acceptable and is in reality using Wikipedia as WP:SOAP and should be deleted.

Tim Welch (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree with Erpert. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:27, 7 May 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) 00:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lan-Secure Switch Center[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Was previously listed for CSD G11 as advertising, article cleaned up of advertising lingo, no references to show notability. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 4 May 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) 00:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (by page creator): The product provides alternative Network management and Network monitoring features. Check other products on Wikipedia Comparison of network monitoring systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron-Winner (talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC) — Ron-Winner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong delete nothing in gnews [57]. above editor has a clear conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (by page creator): With full respect to Wikipedia and its editors and without harming or offending other articles in Wikipedia in any way. Just for the sake of this discussion and as Wikipedia enthusiastic reader. Can someone explain in plain text, why other product articles that appear on the following page Comparison of network monitoring systems are kept and this article is nominated for deletion?

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS cannot be used as an argument for why this article should be kept. LibStar (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable third party coverage in evidence as required by WP:V#Notability. Sandstein 07:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Baseball Watcher 23:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K. N. Rao[edit]

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

contested prod. Not clear how this person might meet WP:BIO. References provided are to primary sources. Claim of founding "world's largest school of astrology" is not supported by the citation. Notability of conference he is mentioned as "chief guest" is unclear. Claim of introduction of Vedic astrology as a course is comletely unreferenced. Tried a good faith search on the name (both forms mentioned in the article) and found little. Google scholar brings up several hits, but they are all his books. A chemist with a similar name makes searching difficult. RadioFan (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fellow has notability as mover of having Vedic Astrology included for degree courses in Andhra Pradesh Universities. He has published a number of books on the subject and searches return biography and interview with KN Rao by third parties. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment contributions to higher education such as being a "mover" as you describe would make him notable but without references to reliable sources supporting this claim, his notability is still questionable.--RadioFan (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:CREATIVE, etc. etc. etc. Qworty (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shri Kotamrau Narayana Rao was a Director General in India Audit and Accounts Service.i,e Head of an Indian Govt. Organisation. Which is a high gazetted post.[KNRao bio] --Tall.kanna (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being Director General of the Indian Audits and Accounts Service is a seriously important civil service role, which should confer notability. I'm sure there's plenty of coverage in non-English language sources. Anthem of joy (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Bernard Actress[edit]

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

Non-notable minor actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cant find significant coverage in reliable sources. According to her IMDb page, she has appeared in "multiple notable films, television shows (..)" but not in "significant roles", so it fails WP:NACTOR too. Maybe WP:USERFY if the creator Mishyred36 is the person on the article. Nimuaq (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable (at least not yet). Google News Archive finds three or four other Michelle Bernards who appear to be more notable than she is. She claims a few movie credits, but Any Given Sunday shows her with a tiny, uncredited role; Santorini Blues lists her 21st in the credits; Bent lists her 13th in the credits. A good trend, but a long way from notability at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Kanwat[edit]

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

Non notable individual. No meaningful content. werldwayd (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but not in this format! Rahul Kanwat is notable, having played first-class and List A cricket, which is a requirement for WP:CRIN. I'll tidy it up and add references. Oh... says he played ODI cricket... certainly not true! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My initial comment was on the content that was practically nil. Now with the new additions and amendments to page, I have no objection keeping the article as it stands now after all the editing werldwayd (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't know what the article was like originally, but as it now stands it looks fine. JH (talk page) 19:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - It appears the user who listed it wants the AfD to be discontinued. See above comment. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Boyd, Jr[edit]

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

I am unable to find any coverage of this person in reliable secondary sources. They appear to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. VQuakr (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Hairhorn (talk)

I have many articles on him. He also the most know radio show in the city of nashville. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdlap (talk • contribs) 16:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide links or references to those articles, I can assist with adding them to the article. I have not independently been able to find coverage of this person in reliable sources, and right now there are no secondary sources in the article at all. VQuakr (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another link on with Carl Boyd, Jr http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/rex-titans-crash-vanderbilt-fundraiser. He is also on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_hlRPSbISU, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upV-oYOaKZ8, here is another article http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2010/nashville-mayoral-race-karl-v-carl/, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdlap (talk • contribs) 17:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — Tdlap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Here is another with Carl Boyd, Jr on a political show in Nashville news WKRN Channel 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-4wvzZzx0U —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdlap (talk • contribs) 02:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article with Carl Boyd, Jr http://www.nashvillechatterclass.com/2011/02/02/cm-maynard-puts-raceway-with-crack-houses/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I had a look at the links posted by Tdlap, and am not convinced they constitute adequate coverage to establish notability. Aside from the blogs and youtube links, we have a brief mention in a local Nashville paper and an article in the Nashville Chatter Class on a specific episode (which does not appear to be a reliable source to me. VQuakr (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article on Carl Boyd, Jr from one of the local tv station WSMV Channe; 4 http://www.wsmv.com/news/27829232/detail.html VQakr why are you hating on the young talent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdlap (talk • contribs) 02:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way the nashville chatter is the biggest editoral journal in Nashville. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdlap (talk • contribs) 02:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Boyd, Jr make appearances on the local news station, he is considering a run for Mayor of nashville and you say this is not crediable source. Who you are to judge what is crediable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdlap (talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I am doing it wriong please help me to put it in the correct format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdlap (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still a student, has a local radio talk show, has a way to go to before he becomes notable. Of the references listed at the article, #1 is an item in the Tennessean but it doesn't mention Boyd; instead it includes a message from him in the "comments" section. #2 is Boyd's own website. #3 is a listing on "UStream" which I gather is a channel that streams his program. Nothing there in the way of a Reliable Source. Of the additional references provided here by Tdlap, the youtube items and blogs are not Reliable Sources so they add nothing to his notability. There is a mention on a Tennessean blog, which mentions that he is thinking about running for mayor, but that doesn't make him notable. There is a mention at Channel 4, about a complaint that he filed. That's it. He might well become notable in the future, but he isn't now. BTW Tdlap, please understand that we are simply applying very well defined criteria for WP:NOTABILITY that are required for a Wikipedia article. We are not passing judgment on Mr. Boyd or his talent or his career, and we are certainly open to an article about him later if he should become more notable (for example if he should run for mayor and win, or if his talk show should become syndicated or reach beyond the local market). --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boardwalk and Marina Casino Dealer School[edit]

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

not clear how this might meet WP:CORP. References provided are difficult to verify. Google search on the title brings up nothing in Google News and a single directory mention in a book from Google Books. RadioFan (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are claims of semi-notability (accreditation), but no reliable sources showing a depth of coverage. I found two mentions in the archives: an article in NYT mentions the school because Bill Baroni lobbied for it (NYT: JOHN SULLIVAN. (2003, November 23). Bucking the Trend, One Republican Got In), they were at the bottom of the barrel for student loan repayment rates (NYT: New Jersey Schools Trail Nation In Repayment of Student Loans 11/16/1997). There might be more to find under the name "Casino Dealers School", but the signal-to-noise ratio makes it very difficult to research. tedder (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no extensive indepth coverage. [58]. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Atmoz (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tango tree[edit]

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

This feels to me very much like original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a relatively recent data structure introduced in 2004. It has had some coverage at algorithm conferences: [59], [60]. It's included in a Princeton Algorithm Design course. So it isn't original research in the sense that this is some idea thought up by the original creator of the article. It is a data structure known to those doing research in search algorithms. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 6 May 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, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Same rationale as User:Whpq. Recent does not mean original research (see for example current event articles); work on Tango Trees has been published (heck even cited in the article) many times. This tag is completely unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjagecko (talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. As User:Whpq has shown, there is real evidence of notability and I don't think we should delete articles on notable topics because they currently contain OR. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Interviews don't count towards notability as they are a primary source so the only proffered sources have been debunked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Pappas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I have a hard time believing that a one year head coach of an NCAA DIV 3 college's football team fulfills our general notability requirements. NCAA Div 3 is not the highest level of the sport---even in US college terms it is third tier at best. To make matters even worse, it looks as if the school only offered football for seven years so we are not talking about a powerhouse at the DIV 3 level. Similarly the coach hasn't written any books nor has he been instrumental in the field. The article typically is hit 3-5 times a day, but I suspect that most of those hits are looking for the Chairman of the Poker Player's Alliance. This notion is supported by the fact that in the days immediately following black friday the number of hits jumped to 10-25 per day. There are virtually no articles or anything that link to this article. The page history shows less than 20 edits being made in the past 3.5 years---most of them housekeeping. Despite about 8K google hits I couldn't find any reliable sources that weren't Wikipedia Mirrors or sites that did more than confirmed he existed as an NCAA DIV 3 head coach. ---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. College head football coaches are normally considered notable, see essay at WP:CFBCOACH for details. While there is disagreement on this at times, the essay does provide details. Even without that, the general notability guideline would take over.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The essay does not define the policy. I'm sorry, but I do not see Division III head coaches of minor colleges as notable. I would fully agree a head coach at a Div 1 school is by definition notable for the reasons outlined, but not Div 3.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the essay does not define the policy... the policy defines the policy. The essay provides additional reasoning that articles such as these should be kept especially when policy may be interpreted different ways. Of course you are free to disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until I see reliable sources that show he meets WP:GNG. A Google archive search [61] shows only trivial mentions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Boston Herald work for you? That's an independent reliable source. I would say the others are as well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I see one trivial mention from the Boston Herald and no other sources that would make Pappas pass GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I Personally could live with Trivial mentions, if I believed that Division III coaches were the highest level of their sport/competition. Instead, we are dealing with coaches of football programs that generally have a total student body that numbers in the hundreds to a few thousand. While I do believe that individual head coaches at this level may rise to notability, I do not see it as a class. If he was a Division I head coach, then I would have no problem keeping him, even if it was for one game. But Division III? IMO that barrier is so low that if it were applied elsewhere, we would be completely rewriting other notability guidelines.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Consider this: "College" is the highest level of the amateur sport. Players do not compete for four years in Division III and then qualify for Division II and on up the ladder. Also, the "size" of the school student body should not matter because that is not only arbitrary, but also irrelevant. There is more on this at WP:CFBCOACH for review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        So by your standards, every Division III player is notable? Anyway, it doesn't matter what the policy you wrote says, Wikipedia's policy on this says Pappas is not notable (per WP:ATH#College athletes). Eagles 24/7 sock (C) 17:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        First, we're talking about a coach not a player here--I wouldn't say that every division III player is notable--I wouldn't say that every division I player is notable. Second, WP:ATHLETE/WP:NSPORTS is "inclusive" and not "exclusive", meaning the subject can still achieve notability through other means such as the general notability guideline as described at WP:ABELINCOLN. Third, WP:CFBCOACH is an "essay" and not "policy" -- just wanting to be clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You're the one who brought up players who play in Division III as an argument. You're correct that if Pappas did not meet ATH (which he doesn't), then he could still meet GNG (which he also doesn't). Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Consider this: "College" is NOT the highest level of amateur sport. The Olympics are a clear example of a "higher" level. But let's go with the assumption, that NCAA Div 1 football is the highest level of Amateur Football. There is a world of difference between Division 1 football, which can be argued to be the highest level, and Division 3 football. When was the last time that a top high school prospect chose a Division 3 football program over a Divison 1 football program? How many football players are drafted every year from Disivion 3 football programs? When was the last time that a Division 3 school played a Division 1 school? When was the last time that a Division 3 school beat a Division 1 school? My alma mater (a Div 3 school) takes pride in the fact that the last time they played Ohio State that they won... now granted that was before the War to end all wars. Div 3 is NOT the highest level of amateur sports.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It is the highest level for the age groups concerned. In 2010, five BB&N Knights footballers were signed up for Division 1 or Football Championship Subdivision schools. So clearly this coach is doing something right. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Huh??? I made a comment about Division 3 not being the highest level, and then you counter with "it is the highest level for the age groups concerned." NO it is not. Division 1 is still the highest level for the age groups concerned. Division 3 is several levels removed from the highest level. You then start talking about the BB&N Knights---which is not a competitive school for aspiring football players, but rather the most expensive prepatory school in the nation. You then suggest that because he had 5 students in one year sign to Division 1 or Football Championship Subdivisions (the next level down from Div 1) that their head coach in HS inherents their notability? Notability doesn't work that way.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 May 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, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His career appears to be well documented in newspapers, halls of fame, and at colleges that he has coached at. He isn't the most famous football coach in the world but he's not invisible. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The refs you have added still do not make Pappas pass WP:GNG, which is the deciding factor here since he clearly fails WP:ATH and any other notability guideline. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Halls of fame"? His 1973 high school football team that he played on was inducted into the High Schools hall of fame! We are not talking about a team that went on to win a state or national championship, but one that did well in its district, and that the high school honored by creating its own hall of fame. Now show me that he made it into a college/pro/coaching hall of fame as an individual, then we might be onto something. As is, we have nothing but trivial mentions in media sources of a high school football coach who coached one year at Division 3 (the 4th tier in football---and that's only if you consider all Div 1 schools the same tier.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: That the CFB Wikiproject has long since stumped for coaches at every level of college football to be notable is true, but their fervent advocacy doesn't overrule the GNG or WP:ATHLETE, nor does Division III football become the "highest level" of that sport because they think it ought to be. The wording of the controlling criteria is:
College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who: 1. Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record; 2. Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame); 3. Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.
Pappas meets none of these criteria, nor does he meet the GNG. Indeed, it would be quite astonishing for a single-season Div. III coach of a team with an undistinguished record to receive national media attention, and no evidence that he did has been proffered. Ravenswing 12:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he has been a head coach since 1999 through 2011. Not "a single season" and his team has not only done good it has spawned a number of great football players who have worked their way up in to national teams. Moreover, he is the director of a football clinic that brings together college coaches from all over the United States to teach young footballers. He has been mentioned trivially in a number of newspapers including "out-of-state" newspapers and on the radio. He deserves more than a dismissal as a "single-season Div. III coach". Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is a HIGH SCHOOL Head Coach. He was a Division 3 head coach for one year, and has been a HIGH SCHOOL head coach for a school known not for it's being a football powerhouse, but rather for being the most expensive prepatory school in the nation with fewer than 1000 students pre-k to 12. There are a number of "clinics" around the country and if the clinic isn't notable, then the odds are that the director of said clinic isn't notable.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, WP:ATHLETE is a guideline and not policy. To refer to it as "controlling criteria" gives undue weight to the argument. It's not as "hard and fast" as you are attempting to paint here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no other guideline or policy under which Pappas does qualify for an article, one turns to the inclusion criteria of WP:ATHLETE, which he also fails. I believe the point was that he didn't pass the GNG due to a lack of sources which didn't run afoul of WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 17:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proper heirachy: Doe he meet the policy WP:GNG---no. Does he meet the guideline WP:Athlete---no. Does he meet the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability---yes. Between a policy/guideline/essay, which holds the least sway?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that he is borderline WP:ATHLETE.

"==Amateur sports persons==

===College athletes===

College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches ... Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team."

He has been quoted in out-of-state newspapers talking about rival football coaches. That's non-trivial media coverage and it is also non-game related and it is not WP:ROUTINE coverage either. Moreover, the media coverage that he has has been accumulated over a number of years and more recently the news-space that he has been getting has increased. So I think that he qualifies for WP:ATHLETE. Moreover, I think that he just meets WP:GNG mostly due to the football clinic that he setup which is attended by more than 500 footballers from more than 30 states. That's not trivial. In fact, that is notable and it has been talked about in media and blogged (also published out of the New York Times blog in the New York Times). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the epitome of trivial/routine coverage. "Coach can you tell me about how your team played today? Next week you'll be playing the Tin-buck-too tigers, what can you tell me about them?" "Oh the tin-buck-to tigers are a great team with a solid head coach that likes to run up the middle, but tries to confuse you with different packages." That is trivial routine coverage in spades---both of the coach being interviewed and described by another coach. Again, the fact that he set up a clinic does not make him notable. There are scores of sports clinics where the founder is not notable---just as there are scores of companies/corporations where the founder isn't notable.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read the articles. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 18:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the articles and I see only trivial mentions. This is an article about the 1973 high school football team he was on that won a league championship, providing a quick two-paragraph blurb on Pappas and his memories of the season. This is an overview of a camp he runs, not a news article. This is the most legitimate source in the article, and it provides a quote from Pappas about a game he is about to coach. This is an overview of Pappas as an instructor at a camp. This is a trivial mention of his name, this includes a brief, trivial mention of Pappas as the successor to a long-time high school football coach. This is a trivial mention that five of Pappas' players from high school will be going to the college level. This and this state he was the coach of a high school football team for a season. This mentions a quote from Pappas talking about one of his high school football players. This and this are articles about a football camp Pappas runs. This is a trivial mention of Pappas in a featured article of Rich Fisher, and so is this.

Not one of these references is enough for Pappas to pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last two that you have listed are out-of-state articles. They are not local news stories. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if they are out-of-state articles, they mention Pappas trivially and not significantly, thus not meeting WP:GNG, or WP:ATH for that matter. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a trivial mention, as he is not a topic of the article, merely used as someone to quote. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if The New York Times and ESPN think that he is worth quoting then they must consider him to be notable enough. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 11:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IMO there is enough non-trivial reliable media coverage. Some sources may be questionable but as a whole there is enough. 09er (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out to me one instance of "non-trivial reliable media coverage"? I'm having a hard time finding anything that meets that description. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if The New York Times and ESPN think that he is worth quoting then they must consider him to be notable enough. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 11:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to policy. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, and where did you come up with that interpretation of wp:N? The fact that a news reporter cites you in one or two articles, is now sufficeint grounds for an article in WP! Local news personell are often cited, local politicians are often cited, local college professors are often cited, local police officers are cited... based upon that logic, Lisa Stauber (a home schooling blogger) deserves a wikipedia article! I mean, she was cited by ABC News and NY Times! Apparently she is notible enough for her own article!---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone disagrees with you is no reason to ridicule their position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if they had some backing to their opinion rather than "this is what I think policy should say." Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not ridiculing their position, I am pointing out the fallacy of the argument. An argument which is not supported by policy/guidelines. The times he has been cited in media outlet is trivial in nature. Other people, who are clearly not notable, get cited more than Pappas has been. He's a high school coach who had one year in Division three... which is anything but the highest level of college sports.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is open to interpretation and at least three people believe that this is a keeper. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass the two relevant guidelines, WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Having looked through the references, I agree completely with Eagles 24/7 that none of them provides the "significant coverage" that is required by the GNG. As for the WP:CFBCOACH essay, well, it's an essay. The day it becomes a guideline, I will gladly change my !vote to keep, but I can't see that happening in the foreseeable future. Jenks24 (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a glance through the references given, I'm not seeing anything that makes him notable. Fails WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 19:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring two media interviews. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two "interviews": The NYTimes is doing a story on sports injuries and somebody asks Pappas about it. Pappas responds that high schoolers emulate the pros and gets 2 paragraphs in the article. The two paragraphs are not about Pappas, but are trivial. The ESPN article gives Pappas 4 paragraphs, but wait what is the subject? The subject of the article is college prospect that Pappas coaches. Pappas is thus being interviewed not because he himself is notable, but rather because he happens to be the coach of a player who may someday be notable. Both are trivial and neither is about Pappas.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was interviewed because he's a notable expert on the subject at hand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ways to interpret WP:N and that is not one of them. Eagles 24/7 sock (C) 17:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction There are many ways to interpret WP:N and that is not one of the ways that you would interpret it. Others obviously disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the doctor I saw today is an expert on his speciality, but that doesn't mean that he meets the expectations of notability. Pappas interviews were nothing more than one might expect from any random high school coach. Notice, that we have no significant coverage OF John Pappas. We have yet to see anything that provides reliable coverage of WHO John Pappas is. We have John Pappas being asked questions about other people, but nothing ABOUT John Pappas. Ok, John Pappas is a reliable source when it comes to opinions about a person who has just been hired to a notable university, but the potentially notable person is the coach that was hired. Ok, John Pappas is a reliable source when it comes to opinions about a high school student who might someday be notable. Ok John pappas is a reliable source, just as any other High School Coach/Teacher/Youth Director or anybody else who works with kids when it comes to saying, "High schoolers will emulate what they see in the professional ranks." That is not a notable position, you can call ANYBODY who works with high schoolers and get similar quotes... that doesn't make him wp:n---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:NSPORTS. Also does not meet WP:GNG as coverage is WP:ROUTINE. The coach is WP:Run-of-the-mill. —Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulcsú László[edit]

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

Croatian linguist who seems to fail all of the nine criteria listed at WP:ACADEMIC. Although he appears to have written a number articles published in what seem to be peer-reviewed linguistics publications and has taught various courses at several American universities, his impact on the field does not seem to be major. The same goes for his work in the fields of assyriology and machine translation. He has received no honours or awards, he does not seem to be a member of any prestigious and selective scholarly society (the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts would be the first place to look but he is neither a full or correspondent member there). He never held any of the highest level academic posts, he is virtually unknown outside the academia and I cannot find any evidence that he ever edited any well-established academic journals. His main claim to fame is the prolific coinage of purist Croatian neologisms in the mid-1990s, the large majority of which never became accepted in regular use.

Out of the seven references used in the article two are Croatian lexicons (e.g. tertiary sources) which describe his impact in his research fields in very vague terms (and only one of these lexicons is published by the Miroslav Krleža Lexicographical Institute, the premier lexicographical publisher in Croatia). The third reference is a book published by linguist Stjepan Babić who gives him a passing mention and says that the subject "influenced the Zagreb linguistic circle" which itself "influenced Croatian linguistics" but does not discuss it in more detail. Reference no. 5 is an overview of the history of the linguistics department at the Zagreb Faculty of Humanities which gives the subject passing mention as he taught there, reference no. 6 is a 1994 handbook of computer terminology which was only proofread by the subject and which was never accepted into mainstream use, and reference no. 7 is a broken link to a article in the Vijenac cultural magazine which describes his somewhat eccentric purist theories about the Croatian language. In fact the entire article boils down to assorted bits of biographical information plus a description of his theories and neologisms, without offering any proof of their acceptance by the wider research community or the public at large. In addition it is littered with sentences such as

"his contributions to the formation of Croatian standard language is not easily determinable";
"his contributions in the area of terminology used for computing and other modern disciplines is yet to be acknowledged"
"the acceptance of other valuable contributions by this philologist, chiefly at the field of orthography and language purism, are about to be seen in the future".

IMO this fails WP:ACADEMIC and is an example of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Timbouctou (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Timbouctou (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also Talk:Bulcsú_László#Deletion. I'm not keen to express a preference at this point because I just don't care enough about the matter to spend any more time on it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here is what nails it down for me:

Google hits
	Jutarnji list	Slobodna Dalmacija	Večernji list	Vjesnik	hrcak.srce.hr
Stjepan Babić	53	188	25	85	373
Ivo Pranjković	13	61	1	84	235
Dubravko Škiljan	14	2	2	2	66
Marija Znika	0	1	0	2	148
Bulcsú László	0	0	0	0	17

For those who know something about Croatian linguist(ic)s, this should be sufficient. Znika is actually rather obscure (even as a co-author of a major work), but she nevertheless gets at least some hits. GregorB (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added one more column with hrcak.srce.hr hits as a rough assessment of academic notability. Note that Škiljan did not live (and presumably did not publish) in Croatia, which is why his figure is comparably low. GregorB (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 6 May 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, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMO the only way to justify keeping this one is to find reliable sources to meet Criterion 1 of WP:ACADEMIC. Looking at the above post by Gregor, it is clearly not met.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any evidence that he meets the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Francis Bond (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First source on page is following: "Hrvatska enciklopedija", LZMK Zagreb, 2004, p. 444, vol 6, ISBN 953-6036-36-3 That would mean that current edition of best paper encyclopedia in Croatian language deem László as scholar worth including. Above is also written following: he have written a number articles published in peer-reviewed linguistics publications, (I left out non appropriate sarcasm like "appears to" etc), as that seem to me like most possible reason why he is included in premier encyclopedia on Croatian language. Further, although today lot of sources are available online, not all are, and googling is not reliable answer to all questions, it can be used in most cases as guideline, but if we are to build quality encyclopedia, sometimes Internet is simply not as relevant as paper. But similarly as above Joy wrote, if users who are not linguists versed in Croatian language deem László not relevant based on quick Internet search, why should I (or anybody else) bother? I do not care enough. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although it is not written rule (nor it should be), usually all articles present in best paper encyclopedias have place in Wikipedia and we are usually keeping or deleting articles which are not present in best paper encyclopedias after check do they meet our criteria. Again, our criteria are good but if we want that also result to be good (Wikipedia to adhere to higher standards than paper encyclopedia(s)), we would need not only to have good criteria, but also well versed experts to enact that criteria. Otherwise we are behaving like robots who having lack of access to paper sources and insufficient real knowledge about subject are doing job with whimsical results, depending only on chance that Internet presence of some name/term is proportional to paper presence of that same name/term. If that assumption does not stand, we (and consequently Wikipedia) will in that case miserably fail. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name a specific field in which Laszlo had a major impact? Or do you think that just about any person who published any paper in any pee-reviewed journal merits an article here? We all know that googling is a less than perfect method of measuring someone's notability. However, it is reliable enough to be used for checking the 9 criteria set at WP:ACADEMIC. And Laszlo fails each and every one of them. There is virtualy no evidence that his purist theories were ever accepted by any other linguist and the neologisms he "prolifically coined" never came into widespread use. As evidenced by lack of hits in daily newspapers he is virtually unknown to he general public, he is not a member of any scholarly society that I know of and he did not receive any awards for academic achievements. Whatever the reasoning behind his inclusion into "Hrvatska enciklopedija" was, it is pretty obvious that it was not encyclopedic. Timbouctou (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paper sources are of course perfectly fine, but if editor(s) of this or any other article deem such sources as relevant, those sources should be by all means properly referenced, and nobody could reason against keeping the article. If on the other hand, the editor(s) vaguely point to 'works' and fail to reference them, the article is unreferenced and applicable notability criteria are not met. The papers need not be available online, magazine contents specifying author and title would probably do and those are generally available. The issue of major impact or otherwise is a further unreferenced point. Anyone publishing a scientific paper makes a contribution, but a major contribution should be verifiable through reliable sources.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify the "Google test": it is most certainly not a proof of someone's lack of notability, but it is a strong indicator (and I believe BL's Google standing is a case in point). Inclusion in Hrvatska enciklopedija is, in turn, not a proof of someone's notability. Wikipedia has its own notability criteria, and these must be met regardless. So, while I'm pretty certain BL is not notable (he apparently does not even meet WP:GNG), it should be pretty easy and straightforward to prove me wrong: that's what WP:ACADEMIC is for. GregorB (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this information --Modzzak (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. This linguist got its place in major Croatian lexicographical project (in last 20-30 years), Hrvatski leksikon. Why should we search for more? Further, Google test is not always good and representative. Majority of today's Croatian newspapers do not have archives older than 2000. Some have reorganized their websites, so we are not able to see what was before the reorganization (for some sites it's possible). The situations is worse with the portals. The site Hrcak hasn't digitalized a lot of works from 1950-1998 [62] (Gluhak about Bulcsú László, Broj u jeziku, 157, Naše teme 1959:6, 128—176). Also, there was time before the age of Internet. Some important Croatian state and party functionaries are rarely mentioned now, contrary to 25 years before. Also, in recent 10 years there's a serious degradation of Croatian journalists. Majority are inadequate, illiterate and uneducated. Majority of texts look like the same group of re-chewed texts. So, if certain person isn't too much exposed, exponed, they don't know anything about that person. Sad but truth. Anyway, Bulcsu had an interview with Slobodna Dalmacija in 1994 and in those years also for magazine Globus also - I don't know for other newspapers and magazines.

"The third reference is a book published by linguist Stjepan Babić who gives him a passing mention and says that the subject "influenced the Zagreb linguistic circle" which itself "influenced Croatian linguistics" but does not discuss it in more detail". Have you read that book at all? It's not one sentence, but several chapters: chapter: Hrvatski jezikoslovac Bulcsú László, chapter Lászlova jezikoslovna gozba, chapter Računalci nemaju više isprike.p. 258-260. This is not broken link [63]. Therefore, Bulcsu is not just some "another unimportant professor from some faculty". If the academist (Stjepan Babić) gives importance to that person, who are we to judge that? Therefore, I disagree with Timbouctou. I find his explanation as WP:OR. I don't understand, Timbouctou, GregorB, why do you have a pick on Bulcsu? Why do you ignore Hrvatski leksikon? Tomobe03, I don't understand you. You give importance to all those bridges and tunnels, but not to such a linguist? Francis Bond, prof. Bulcsu should be in your area of interest; he's one of the pioneers of machine translation (Mechanical Translation and Computational Linguistics, vol.9, no.2, June 1966 Syntax and Interpretation by B. Vauquois, G. Veillon, and J. Veyrunes, C.E.T.A., Grenoble, France,
Reference nr.1: Lamb, S. M., “Stratificational Linguistics as a Basis for Machine Translation,” in Bulcsú Laszló” (ed. ), Approaches to Language Data Processing. The Hague: Mouton, 1965</ref> and the initiator of the work on computer processing of Croatian literature (Ustroj tok pisina, mentor of work by Vjera Lopina:Strojna obrada imenične morfologije u pisanome hrvatskom jeziku, 1999 (Machine processing of noun morphology in the written Croatian language [64]). Ako čovjek nije samoreklamer koji pati od toga da ga se vidi u medijima, to nije razlog da ga ignoriramo. Ljudi, niste mi jasni. Zašto se niste više informirali? Pa nije mjerilo važnosti neke osobe ako je eksponiran u medijima kao neki opskurni likovi iz nekog talent showa ili polusvijet iz Big Brothera. Njima se imena spominju u tisućama Googleovih rezultata. Je li to mjerilo? Man, if a person isn't present in media like some strange persons from talent shows or Big Brother, that is not the reason to exclude him. I think that we forgot the mention the importance of Bulcsu as accentologist [65]. Here's also a reference of important linguist name Radoslav Katičić about Bulcsu [66] (László je uvijek znao svoje, Suvremena lingvistika, 18/2 (34), 1992, 5-9, On Bulcsú László). Or do you find the opinion of Mate Kapović as valid [67] [68] (I would like to thank Bulcsú László for many useful examples and ideas concerning the subject) [69]? Here's something about Bulcsu's methodology [70]? Besides his linguist side, Bulcsu is interesting as a sportsman. AFAIK, he held Croatian record in butterfly style, national team representative and a candidate for the Olympics (1948). Sorry, everyone, for being this long. Kubura (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not that Laszlo is media-shy but that he fails all the nine (9) criteria set at WP:ACADEMIC. And the random collection of links you posted serve very little to contradict this. So far all the criticism I've seen here from Speedy and Kubura boil down to how ignorant we Wiki editors are and ignores the fact that there is not a single shred of evidence that an allegedly important scholar was ever honored as such by the academic community. Have you ever read WP:ACADEMIC Kubura at all - or do you think that Stjepan Babić is the final word on academic notability? Laszlo is verifiably a linguist with eccentrically purist views which themselves always represented a tiny minority in academic circles and that is the only reason why his theories are ever mentioned by anyone, just like a geologist claiming that the world is flat is likely to get some airplay in geology magazines simply by virtue of being bizarre. In this vain he coined a whole lot of words, but these words are not used by anyone. And his day job for the past 40 years consisted of translating Assyrian texts, writing papers on Old Slavic accents, dabbling in machine translation and teaching courses in Basque and Sanskrit languages to students of linguistics. His impact (defined as the "acceptance of his research and/or original ideas") on any of these fields is minimal at best.
Now let's go through the random set of links Kubura came up with:
[71] is a bizarre 2001 article published in the Vijenac cultural magazine written in archaic Croatian in which Laslo argues for a "back-to-the-roots" ortography of he language. Its impact is certainly "difficult to determine" as no other linguist bothered to comment on it.
[72] is a 1966 paper by three French linguists about syntactical analysis which lists 15 references, one of which is a paper by a certain linguist named Lamb which had allegedly been included in a collection of papers edited by Laszlo. This collection, in turn, does not seem to have actually been published anywhere (the 1966 paper which references it says it is "in press" and my library searches do not come up with anything);
[73] is an entry from the archive of courses taught at FFZG which says that he at some point taught a seminar about Tok Pisin (I have no idea why you thoguht this would be relevant but there you go);
[74] is a link to an an entry in the Croatian scholarly papers database which mentions a 133-page master thesis written by Vjera Lopina titled "Machine processing of noun morphology in the written Croatian language" which was mentored by Laszlo - which does not seem that remarkable to me considering the fact that Lopina and Laszlo worked at the same department of the same faculty at the time. Again, how mentoring a thesis is relevant here is a mystery to me. An average university professor in Croatia mentors dozens of such works throughout their career and every single thesis written by students has to have a mentor.
[75] is a link to a personal page (unacceptable for Wikipeda but let's pretend it is not for the sake of the argument) which says that Laszlo held a lecture on the "Lithuanian nominal accentual space" in March 2011 at a linguistic conference in Zagreb. That's nice but how does that contribute to his notability?
Kapović's papers (and Mate Kapović is a young linguist who btw also comes from the same department of the same faculty) [76] and [77] say that he (Kapović) thanks Laszlo for "useful examples" (whatever that meant) but hey - he also thanks Kristina Marenić for "reading the text carefully". Is Kristina notable as well? This hardly indicated notability does it.
Kapović's third paper listed here ([78]) mentions two articles published by Laszlo in its list of references: one is a 1996 article about differences in Serbian and Crotian ortography published in 1996 in a collection of articles issued by a Croatian (possibly peer-reviewed) linguistics magazine; the other is an article by Laszlo about pretty much the same topic in relation to 19th-century Hungarian politics published in a collection of articles commemorating "900 years of historical relations between Croatia and Hungary" published by - you guessed it - the hungarology department of the very same faculty that Laszlo, Kapović, Lopina and others work at.
This paper written by Bojan Marotti is a real gem - it concerns the issue of philosophical terminology and whether certain expressions used by Croatian philosophers when discussing philosophy should be translated or not. So on page 35 Marotti gives a passing mention of Laszlo's ideas (presented at one of his public lectures) about how words should be accepted for inclusion in dictionaries: Laszlo apparently proposed some ludicrous points system which would take into account vague criteria such as "how ancient the word is", "readability", "completeness", "harmonious sounding" and 15 others. Of course, anyone who knows anything about lexicography or semantics is probably laughing his head off after reading these lines, and let me just add that Laszlo has never compiled any lexicographical work himself so his expertise on the issue is pretty much non-existent. This is just an extension of the age-old debate of prescriptive vs. descriptive approaches to languages - and this is a fine example how Laszlo represents an extreme end of the former stream of thought.
Now let me add a link of my own - here's a short article published in September 2004 in the satirical weekly Feral Tribune which openly made fun of Laszlo and his neologisms, referencing the limited fame he achieved for his statement published in the Globus weekly in October 1993 when he, seriously speaking, stated that "Croatian language and its ortography are the most perfect in the world. Our language is so perfect that nobody can learn it, including ourselves."[79]. Spoken like a true linguist. The statement was later ridiculed in Feral's contest for the "most stupid" quote of the year in 1993. In addition, in 2007 Denis Kuljiš, a columnist writing for Globus, published a column in which he also made fun of Laszlo's and other linguists' neologisms. Kuljiš also added that "[because of this habit of inventing unnecessary words] linguists stir incredibly negative emotions among the Croatian public" and that "no academic field has ever enjoyed a lower reputation [in Croatia]".
So in conclusion, as evidenced above by GregorB, Laszlo fails WP:GNG. In addition, he fails WP:ACADEMIC. The academic community itself (you know, the knowledgeable group of people who do not rely on Google hits) never gave him any awards and never invited him to become a member of any scholarly society (the Croatian Language Technologies Society where Laszlo is an "honorary president" is more of an interest group and according to their website they have a grand total of 9 members, 7 of whom just happen to come from the same department of the same faculty at the same university as Laslo, including Vjera Lopina). He never published any book as far as I know (feel free to prove me otherwise), very few of his neologisms (if any) found its way to dictionaries of the Croatian language. He was never part of the mainstream linguistic thought in Croatia and he never contributed to any prescriptive publication such as the official orthography of the Croatian language. He never actually taught a course which dealt with Croatian (yes, he taught introductory courses about Tok Pisin, Lithuanian, Sanskrit, Basque, Old Slavic and Assyrian at the department of linguistics - but so do great many other professors in that kind of departments), there is absolutely no proof that whatever he did had any major impact on any academic field whatsoever, and the handful of his papers which did get published were published by journals of questionable academic rigor which were all sponsored by the very same departments at the same faculty he spent a few decades lecturing at. As to the single tertiary source which Kubura keeps bringing up (the Croatian lexicon) - I have no clue what their criteria for inclusion was, but I strongly suspect it was because linguistics purism was inextricably connected to right-wing politics of the day - the Croatian Lexicon was published in 1996, at the height of the authoritarian rule of Franjo Tuđman (coincidentally, Franjo's son Miroslav Tuđman worked at the same department as Laszlo at the time), the lexicon was edited by a somewhat shady publisher named Ante Žužul, published by the otherwise unknown "Leksikon Naklada" publishing house "in cooperation with the Miroslav Krleža Lexicographical Institute (LZMK)" and the book is not even listed in the list of lexicons available for purchase on LZMK's website. Even if one was to disregard all this, see WP:TERTIARY for guidelines on its relevance.
P.S. @Kubura: Spare me the Croatian-language rants. Unlike you I've attended some of Laszlo's lectures and I am familiar with Katičić's and Babić's work as well as Lopina and Kapović. Kapović (a linguist in his own right, definitely more notable than Laszlo) published a book recently titled "Čiji je jezik?" ("Whose language is this?") in which he adamantly opposes the purism espoused by Laszlo and his less eccentric colleagues. And unlike Laszlo I did receive some training in semantics and sociolinguistics except I was taught by actual linguists (such as Milena Žic-Fuchs to name one) whose contributions to the field can be evidenced by published books, citations in international academic journals, membership in scholarly societies and so forth - as opposed to Laszlo whose contributions to the field consist of musings on what he thinks is "pure" Croatian. So please refrain from personalising the issue with "you are all ignorant" remarks, in English or Croatian. Timbouctou (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created the original article and I support its deletion. László is really a minor figure, unworthy of encyclopedic coverage. He didn't publish any important works, and most of his "papers" are written in some imaginary purist language that nobody has a clue what it means, but which gives a boner to the Croatian right-wingers who of course readily publish them in their irrelevant little journals. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rolex Gang[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS or merge into Crime in South Africa — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think ZjarriRrethues is spot on. This is more of a news blurb (and partial 'how to not get killed by them'), as are the two sources, and there isn't proof being demonstrated that they are notable. There are many problems with the article (from tone, to synth to OR) which could be fixed, but that wouldn't change the fact that Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 4 May 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, Baseball Watcher 00:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You have to respect their singlemindedness. They could steal cash or electronics, but instead they only go after a single brand of Swiss-made watches. --MoonLichen (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Reply WP:ILIKEIT is not a criteria for inclusion. Care to explain how they pass WP:GNG or similar, which is required to be included? Dennis Brown (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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