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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeShaun Williams[edit]

DeShaun Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I have several issues with this person. (1) He's a basketball player who doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL standards. (2) All of the references used are either routine coverage or Syracuse University's school newspaper. (3) This is an unwatched BLP, and there has been tremendous slander against his character that has been up for months ([1][2]) and hasn't been removed. I'd also like to point out that the article's creator, User:GoCuse44, is an avid Syracuse basketball fan who's had numerous articles deleted in the past for WP:CRUFT. This, IMO, is another one of them. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: As blatant G10 attack page violation, to which several SPAs have added as their sole Wikipedia contributions. Even were the attacks trimmed, the subject wouldn't meet any criteria of notability.  Ravenswing  02:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just removed the various attacks ... not a lot left there.  Ravenswing  02:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article begins with Williams appeared in 97 games, starting 67 - this meets WP:NBASKETBALL, which only requires one appearance. All the personal slander and unreferenced current living conditions have been removed; article can be kept as it is. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Appearing in one game for a college team does not presume inherent notability, only if they appear in one professional game. The fact that he appeared in 97 games, starting 67, for a college team does not make him notable. Article still does not meet WP:Notability (sports)#College athletes. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The games referenced above are at Syracuse - appearing in one college game doesn't meet notability standards. Neither does the current incarnation of the ABA - it's the original ABA (which was nearly on par with the NBA in its day) that would qualify someone. Rikster2 (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is a similar AfD currently open which exactly pertains to this discussion; it can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devin Brennan-McBride. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:31, 7 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. keep arguments don't reference GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open Web Analytics[edit]

Open Web Analytics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article fails our requirements for notability, the notability tag on the article is more than 2 years old. I made an attempt to find coverage of the article in reliable sources but couldn't. Currently the article only uses blogs and the software's own wiki as references. The article was created and primarily edited by the software's author (Peter Adams). -- Atama頭 23:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'd say that Wikimedia using this software as Web Analytics for the WMF and all its wikis count as a reliable source. Article simply needs updating with references. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Really? Is something notable because it's used by Wikimedia? I must have missed that part of WP:N. If you can find reliable sources, by all means present them, and I'll consider withdrawing this nomination. Otherwise I don't understand your argument at all. -- Atama頭 17:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Use by Wikimedia is not sufficient for WP:N and I can't find much in the way of coverage, just some brief mentions in lists of other similar products. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nominator and Tijfo098. Perchloric (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just having the WMF use it is not enough for notability. But this and Piwik are two of the most notable open source Web analytics toolkits currently available. See additional coverage from an InformationWeek magazine article and in the book "Web analytics 2.0". Those took me about five minutes to find in Google, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's more. Steven Walling 00:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - I think you'd need to find more. The Infoweek article merely mentions the name of the software once in passing in a discussion about Web Analytics, and the book is the same case. We look for "significant coverage" to establish notability, and neither of those sources seems to satisfy our general notability criteria in my opinion. -- Atama頭 16:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My point is that if you look around, both in search engines, books, magazines, and in our own categories, you can clearly see this is one of the two most prominent open source Web analytics packages. If something is obviously prominent in its field, you don't need a million sources to prove it. Case in point: both Cisco (PDF release notes) and one of the largest hosts on the Web, Dreamhost (see announcement) provide OWA. Steven Walling 17:06, 9 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North American Soccer Reporters[edit]

North American Soccer Reporters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable group of reporters who write about soccer. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. While some of the members may arguably be notable on their own, their notability doesn't transfer to the organization. Appears to be little more than a promotional article, listing members and providing links to join the group. Appears to fail WP:ORG Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I should note that they give away a player of the week award, which gets their name mentioned a lot, but again, I didn't find that significant in-depth coverage of the assoc that a notable org would have. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a journalism related professional association, and not specifically a business as defined by WP:ORG. Similar US and UK based sports journalism associations are found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. WP:ORG is not relevant criteria. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Guru, listing other orgs with articles is really just WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't it? Whether it falls under WP:ORG or another criteria, which criteria doesn't require significant coverage by reliable third party sources? That is what is lacking. What criteria do you think it should be judged under and where is the significant coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No real coverage in reliable third-party sources. – PeeJay 18:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:47, 8 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, no outstanding deletes (non-admin closure). GB fan (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Hairer[edit]

Ernst Hairer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail WP:Academic. While he may be notable in the future, currently there are not sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. The only claim to notability is the single prize awarded, but it is not cited. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Honorary doctorate, stupendous cites on GS. Did the nominator carry out WP:Before ? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Three of his works have over 1000 citations each on Google scholar; if it were ten times fewer it would still be enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And I think the two birthday conferences in his honor are also significant. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A prestigious prize from SIAM, an honorary degree, two birthday conferences, and top GS cites of 3892, 2607, 1166, 766, 608 are more than sufficient to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Sufficient resources on Google Scholar, Honorary Doctorate and Birthday Confernces in his honour confer notability for WP:Academic --Whiteguru (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep Extremely prominent academic. Nominator is advised to read and understand WP:PROF before making such nominations in the future. Ray^Talk 17:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per whiteGuru. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The subject of this BLP is about as notable as it is possible to be without winning a Fields medal, the mathematical equivalent of a Nobel prize. I suggest that the nominator withdraw the nomination to reduce by one the number of AfDs clogging up the system. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, as per Xxanthippe, etc.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Nomination withdrawn. I had checked using Web of Science and had inadvertently used the social science index instead of the science index. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:13, 8 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. State Names: The Stories of How Our States Were Named[edit]

U.S. State Names: The Stories of How Our States Were Named (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not sure this passes Wikipedia:Notability (books). Article was created by the book's author. Rd232 ^talk 22:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds interesting. Falls short on the notability issue, but still sounds interesting. Delete would seem to be in order. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no inherent notability in the subject is conferred on the book; as above, it does sound interesting. Book is self published; insufficient references to establish notability. WP:NBOOK Criteria#1 is not fulfilled. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:10, 8 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. However, the sourcing is underwhelming. Sources 1 and 2 have identical material and clearly reprint a publicity release by the Church; I have removed one since having both is simply padding. I have removed reference 4 since it was a circular lift from Wkikipedia. Many of the other sources are of a directory nature or deal with incidental aspects of the Church's activities. Having said this there is validity in Carrite's point that "a verifiable and neutrally-written article has been constructed". The consensus is that the key points should be kept in some form but whether as a standalone page or merged as part of the locality article is moot. The next step should be to take the discussion to the talk page in order to agree which form is best. TerriersFan (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carey Baptist Church[edit]

Carey Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is not a notable church. The building is not particularly special, and having the street named after the church is no big deal. The former minister, Jonathan Stephen, is probably notable as a college principal, but this notability is not inherited by the church. StAnselm (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If the church is that old, there may well be coverage about it, but I didn't find any. Might be keepable if someone finds the coverage, but in the meantime, Merge to Reading, Berkshire#Religion. The fact this church exists and how long it's been around has a place in Wikipedia. The section "Carey Today" certainly doesn't. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I wouldn't call a church established in 1867 "old" by British standards. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly early for a Baptist congregation to have erected a building on that scale in Britain. And churchs that survive for 150 years often acquire notibility along the way.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Reading, Berkshire#Religion. There seem to be a number of references in Google Books and Google Scholar, although. Some further research may establish sufficient notability for a separate article in future. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the article is useful even as it stands, and surely it is more efficient to keep it and tag it for improvement, than to remove it merely because it needs improvement and make some future editor replicate all of the sourcing and the image that the page already has.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a large, active church with a wonderful Ruskinian gothic building. I am improving the article and sourcing accordingly.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Further thoughts What makes a congregation WP:notable? Having a recent pastor who is WP:notable. Being a large enough church to support two pastors. Being housed in an architecturally notable building. Supporting missionaries in India. The fact that a missionary they sponsor was among the many Christian missionaries in recent years arrested on trmped-up charges in a country where many people resent Christian missionaries? The hiring or departure of a pastor meriting an article in the local paper. I believe that any or all of these add up to WP:notability for a congregation.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of those would make a church notable. If we said those things make a church notable, we would have articles on most of the churches in the U.S. BelloWello (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I have struck the comments of User:BelloWello, who has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for sock puppetry. OCNative (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In order for the church to have been notable, it needs to have been written about in independent reliable third-party sources with significant coverage. Articles in local papers can count towards notability, but it would need to be a lot more than one article in a local paper when a pastor arrives and another when he leaves. If you can find this coverage (and GNews and GBooks doesn't pick up everything), there can be an article. If not, it can be merged to the article on Reading quite easily. Should someone find more information that demonstrates the church's notability later, it's a simple matter to restore the old article and add the new information. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete notability is not inherited, nothing about this church makes it any more notable than the 5000 member baptist church down the road from my house that I am forced to see every sunday. BelloWello (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see[3]I.Casaubon (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. See WP:ADHOM. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have struck the comments of User:BelloWello, who has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for sock puppetry. OCNative (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• foreign missions It takes a pretty significant congregation to send missionaries to India and Peru. You many or may not like missionaries, but it is not the scale of enterprise that ordinary churches undertake.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Recent expansion to the article has now given it notability. Spiderone 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A couple of local human-interest pieces such as the collection of Christmas gifts or the departure of a minister do not qualify the subject for notability in a worldwide encyclopedia. Nor does the church inherit whatever notability Stillman may have; some of the cited articles on Stillman don't even mention the church. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the "localhuman interest" article makes the church notable almost all by itself because it is about this church funding a local man on a four-year long mission to Peru. Relatively few churches play in this league. The church also bought a neighboring church when that congregation departed (disbanded?), so it runs a significant campus, not a single building, and it has had two apparently full-time pastors for years. In my opinion, this is more than plenty. And their last pastor Jonathan Stephen now heads a good-sized Seminary. But, as I said, we all judge differently.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funding a missionary, owning multiple buildings, and having two pastors are not notability criteria, and your reference to Stephen, who doesn't appear to be notable either, is an attempt to invoke WP:INHERITED, which is an argument to avoid. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speaking as someone who has served on a few hiring committees and been a member of a few congregations, I can tell you that ordinary churches hire ordinary pastors because that is who they can get. Hiring, in his second congregation, the kind of hot young preacher who is soon hired away form you to head a seminary is an indication that this congregation is something above the ordinary. I leave others to judge whether this meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. For my part, I fail to see the point of working to delete reasonably well-sourced and well-written articles. Wouldnt it be better to spend our time improving them?I.Casaubon (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there are millions on articles on Wikipedia as it is and it's the same pool of volunteers who end up working on all of them. When you have too many articles and not enough volunteers (as has happened in the past), articles end up having libellous things inserted into them which don't get spotted. Besides, you are mixing up notability and claims of importance. Anyone can claim their club/business/product is notable through subjective claims of importance, which is why notability for Wikipedia purposes is defined as significant coverage from independent reliable third-party sources. Find stuff that has been written about the church (that's the church itself, not just people associated with it, and it needs to be more than passing mentions in local papers), and Carey Baptist Church gets an article. Ignore the notability guidelines and it probably won't. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"not enough volunteers" is a serious problem. I submit that if Wilipedia maintained a less combative environment, and if editors were able to spend less of their time on AFD debates and more on working together to improve articles, more people would be willing to edit. When all of this time is spent debating whether a perfectly respectable church like Carer or College Church can or cannot have a page, working here becomes less than appealing.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are are underestimating how much bigger Wikipedia would be if there were no rules on inclusion. About half of new articles are posted by single-purpose accounts intent on publicising themselves, their band, their business or something else they're connected with. In general, users who join with the intention of improving the encyclopaedia as a whole over a wide subject area - even those who break rules and have to be corrected by other editors - have a good chance of staying, whilst those whose main agenda is to push a single article/product/viewpoint tend to make no further contributions, whether or not their intended article gets deleted. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Let's just forget all the hidden ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT agendas and stick to the essence: there are multiple, independent, non-trivial articles out there, from which a verifiable and neutrally-written article has been constructed. This more than century-old church is inclusion-worthy. The end. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impulse Accelerated Technologies[edit]

Impulse Accelerated Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP. Hasn't seen references in several years and a google search turns up nothing of interest. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is better than most. It is brief, and seems free from promotional language; it nevertheless manages to sound highly technical while being vague to the point of unintelligibility. I found at least one instance of what might be non-mostly-press release based coverage in a reliable source[4], but I'm not sure that's more than a story about a product rollout. I'd be open to persuasion that this might be notable enough to keep, but it's gotta be in English. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being mentioned in trade journals like "Chip Design Magazine" and "Electrical Engineering Times" as a company with good products is not notability. Perchloric (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to be plenty of references in various news and magazines[5] as well as books[6]. Obviously a lot of work to be done, but enough references to be notable. --Icerat (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Observation You listed to a search (the AFD already does that) but have you read the results? Most are either press releases or passing mentions. The books seem to be incidental mentions (didn't buy them to find out...) I'm open if you can show some links to actual articles from reliable sources that is more than a press release or passing mention. I didn't find any originally. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:40, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social enterprise in the United States[edit]

Social enterprise in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be an essay that is a few days old, very long, and outside of the scope of Wikipedia. Edited issues aside, it is still an essay based on pure OR. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A college student somewhere wanted to see his or her 5-page paper on Wikipedia, but it's speculative and it's WP:OR. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete or --Reference Desker (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the United States section of Social enterprise. There's some okay material in it (better than what's main US article section actually), but a lot of it is not so great and there's no reason to have a separate article yet. Steven Walling 00:53, 9 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry and the Wizard of Oz[edit]

Tom and Jerry and the Wizard of Oz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Just 4 Google hits, counting WP. WP:CRYSTAL, utterly non-notable. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this page should be deleted just about yet. Besides, four Google hits is just only the beginning. -- SonyWonderFan (talk) 21:25, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I don't write articles about future events, however I don't see any reason this one should be deleted. Clearly the movie exists/will exist and is notable enough being the production of a major studio. Why waste time talking about it? Borock (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As we don't have a crystal ball and can't tell if this direct-to-video production will ever be notable. As to Borock, the question isn't why should it be deleted as much as what criteria does it pass in order to be included?. The answer is none. That something exists is not a valid reason to have an article by itself. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is its page at Warner Brothers, a major studio. Tom and Jerry are also major characters. Although it is not something I am interested in (mainly 'cause our kids are grown up and we don't have grandkids yet) I honestly don't see how it could not be notable. Also the fact that they are taking orders for it shows that a crystal ball is not really required.Borock (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:RS which describes what 'reliable sources' means. The studio is not a reliable source, they are a primary source. That is fine as a cite for some stuff, but it doesn't establish notability. Of course the studio is talking about the DVD. What makes it notable is if someone ELSE that isn't making money off it is talking about it. IE: The New York Times, other papers, other websites that are not user generated (IMDB doesn't count as 'reliable' for notability, for example). We know it EXISTS. The problem is that if no newspaper, magazine, mainstream website, etc is talking about it, then that means no one cares, which means it isn't notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. It doesn't even exist yet. We have announcements from WB that it will be released in August, but August isn't here yet. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 9 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 and rename. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Busignani[edit]

Patricia Busignani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm on the fence about this. NN bio could be deleted, but might be better off as a merge & redirect to San Marino. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• She is the equivalent of a President. Granted the country is small, and the terms are only 6 months, but still the head of state. All other entries at List of elected or appointed female heads of government and List of elected or appointed female heads of state have articles (with today's other additions of Edda Ceccoli and Gloriana Ranocchini). At List of Captains Regent of San Marino many, clearly not all, have separate articles. Leading a country, in my opinion, is not NN. --Tbennert (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep via Tbennert. Heads of State, no matter how short the term or how small the country, would seem to be inherently notable. We have had a couple presidents that served shorter terms here in the US, for example. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Head of state of an internationally recognized sovereign nation. Period. Slam dunk.  Ravenswing  02:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Head of State and former president of one of the main politcal parties in her country. Note, her actual name is Patrizia (not Patricia) Busginani. The "Patricia" appears to be an artefact of past attempts at translating her name for English-language press releases. See Google news and Google books. Would anyone object if I moved the page to her correct name? Voceditenore (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Heads of State are always notable. Dimadick (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above and close as WP:SNOW. I support voceditenore's page move.4meter4 (talk) 09:23, 7 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) 05:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Hilb[edit]

Emil Hilb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail WP:Academic. I am unable to locate any reliable sources to establish notability at the level suggested by WP:Academic. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to be a little rude, but you are obviously not a Mathematician - Emil Hilb contributed a lot of energy in the "Enzyklopädie der mathematischen Wissenschaften", calling him not notable is hilarious. Mathsfreak (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mathsfreak, he may well be notable to you or other mathematicians, but notability for academics in Wikipedia follows these guidelines the WP:Academic guidelines and your article on him fails to demonstrate this. You need to back the claims of notability with sources that are recognized on Wikipedia as being reliable. We need enthusiastic editors like you on Wikipedia - but Wikipedia has developed rules and guidelines as to what is or is not a suitable Wikipedia article, and if you want your work to survive on Wikipedia, you do need to work within them (even if they do sometimes seem irrational). ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per his article on dewiki. Seems to be enough over there to establish his notability. Mato (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm a mathematician (at least by training) and I've never heard of Hilb - but that's probably irrelevant, as I was mostly interested in logic and algebra. The German article, if translated rather than merely cited, doesn't seem particularly good but would go some way to establishing notability and mentions (though, by English Wikipedia standards, doesn't properly cite) at least one source I'd definitely regard as reliable - the Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. However, what it mentions of his career, his definitely notable colleagues and his encyclopedia articles (unless they can be shown to have been cited in later mathematical research) seems to me to repeatedly fall just short of Wikipedia notability - though repeatedly enough to give a decent chance that other sources (probably several decades old and in German) would actually establish either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. There's nearly a week still to go on this AfD - I'd very much encourage Mathsfreak or other interested and knowledgeable editors to expand this article and look for further sources and facts for it. PWilkinson (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hilb held the chair for mathematics at Wurzburg until his death in 1929, being preferred over Ernst Zermelo for the position. Chairs at major German universities in the 1890-1935 era were extraordinarily difficult to attain (there usually being no more than one or two per university), easily being on par with endowed professorships and the like today. Internet sources are difficult to find that far back, but [7] this excerpt from Gbook's scan of Scripta Mathematica ought to be helpful in tracking down further sources. Ray^Talk 17:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the source cited: "Apparently, Zermelo's teaching qualities had been questioned in spite of Hilbert's judgement that “Zermelo's lecture courses are always very successful”". Tijfo098 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment At first glance it's far to slim and neither the article nor references (an entry in a database and a passing mention in someone else's biography) indicate notability, but the German version suggests otherwise. Something really needs adding to this article though.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ray Yang. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added a bit more information to the article on what he did professionally. I found the information here. I had not heard of Hilb before, but of course everybody's heard of Lindemann and Zermelo. Doing a Ph.D. thesis under the supervision of someone that everyone's heard of falls short of establishing notability; maybe getting a job that Zermelo couldn't get doesn't fully do that either, but it's something in the article that got my attention. Contributing the encyclopedia articles on trigonometric series and differential equations seems to be the principal occasion for notability, as far as I can tell so far. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. There's not a lot there, but what there is seems to be adequately sourced and to indicate that he was one of the respected mathematicians of his day. I think the article creator, Mathsfreak, would be well advised to focus more on quality than on quantity — he or she has been creating many short articles about mathematicians that need significant cleanup by others, and I think this is a good example of that pattern. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Equivocation. Although WP:PROF seems hard to establish, he does get some WP:GNG-type coverage in German (stole these from the de.wiki):
  • Otto Haupt: Emil Hilb. In: Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. Band 42, 1932, S. 183−198.
  • Siegfried Gottwald (Hrsg.): Lexikon bedeutender Mathematiker, Verlag Harri Deutsch, ISBN 3-323-00319-5, S. 203.
  • Hans-Joachim Vollrath: Emil Hilb. In: Peter Baumgart (Hrsg.): Lebensbilder bedeutender Würzburger Professoren. Degener, Neustadt/Aisch 1995, S. 320−338.

As you can see it's mostly obits from his day and modern historians of German mathematics that pay attention to him. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems notable to me as judged by cited refs. Have added a couple of refs. (Also is Otto Haupt: Emil Hilb, Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker Vereinigung, 42, 1933, S. 183-198 1933 or 1932?) This source http://www.didaktik.mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de/history/vollrath/papers/073.pdf seems very useful as has a list of biographies of Hilb and a list of his publications. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep on basis above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 10 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) 05:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xue-Mei Li[edit]

Xue-Mei Li (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail WP:Academic. While she may be notable in the future, I am unable to locate any reliable sources to establish notability at the level suggested by WP:Academic. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She has already written two books ("The geometry of Filtering" and "On the Geometry of Diffusion Operators and Stochastic Flows"), and is one of the few experts in the UK in stochastic differential geometry, how could you possibly consider her not notable? Mathsfreak (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mathsfreak, she may well be notable to you, and indeed to other people in stochastic differential geometry, but notability in Wikipedia means something rather different from being notable in real life, and your article on her fails to demonstrate this. Having a PhD and researching in mathematics even at an institution as reputable as the University of Warwick is simply not enough to make her Wikipedia-notable. If other mathematicians have reviewed her books, which you have not mentioned in the article, at length or regularly cited them or any of her other research papers, that may well mean that she is Wikipedia-notable - but as well as mentioning them in the article, you would need to back the statement up with sources that are recognised on Wikipedia as being reliable. We need enthusiastic editors like you on Wikipedia - but Wikipedia has developed rules and guidelines as to what is or is not a suitable Wikipedia article, and if you want your work to survive on Wikipedia, you do need to work within them (even if they do sometimes seem irrational). PWilkinson (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Delete in view of MathSciNet h-index below. Too early. I find a GS h index of 13 which may give a pass in a low cited field. Input from mathematicians would be helpful. I am concerned that this nominator is not carrying out WP:Before before nominating. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I think this is a case of not quite there yet, per the rank of associate professor. I can't altogether account for the GS h-index (suspect it may be a case of multiple researchers with the same name), but the MathSciNet h-index is 2. Ray^Talk 17:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The citation record is borderline, but not really quite enough to convince me, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. In the UK, she and David Elworthy are practically the only people involved in Stochastic Differential Geometry. Furthermore she is married to a fairly famous Mathematician, Mathsfreak (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per above. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In the physical sciences you would need an h-index in the 10+ range to be considered for an initial academic position at research universities. At h=13 she would still be pretty junior. Notability requires a lot more, otherwise most university lecturers in the sciences in the UK would get a wikipedia bio article. Perchloric (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC) (edited Perchloric (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. It doesn't look like there's enough for WP:PROF and not inherited. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:31, 9 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) 05:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

England national football team results 2008[edit]

England national football team results 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be an unnecessary content fork of England national football team results – 2000s. Seegoon (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. This is a redundant content fork. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not needed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, content fork. GiantSnowman 16:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, redundant to England national football team results – 2000s. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Content fork. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:44, 8 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) 05:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caslink[edit]

Caslink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nonnotable software project, no independent sources cited, article author also appears to be author of the software. Author removed prod tag without explanation or improvement of article. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A good faith google / google news / google books search did not turn up any notability for this piece of software. There are hints of notability for an older database search scheme with the same name, but it doesn't appear the two are releated.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• [Alexey Podrezov] First of all, please check editing history before making such claims. I did improve the article before I removed the prod tag. I wrote the preface explaining why the project is notable. Maybe the project is not notable for the entire world, but it is very known in the MSX community. Many MSX community pages are linking to my article, also there are a few discussions on msx.org resource about my project. A few similar software projects were started after my Caslink v1 was released because it caused inspiration, people started to see the use of their old MSX hardware again. And my presentations about the article were welcomed on several demoparties in Finland, including a such a big event as AltParty.

• [Alexey Podrezov] I am very much shocked by Wikipedia's policies and admin practices concerning deletion of articles. You guys approved articles about "rusty trombone" and similar kind of crap, but you want to delete my article that describes a software project that is used by a generation of gamers and enthusiasts on MSX hardware. What about innovation? What about computer history? What about technology? Should we just drop everything because 95% of Earth's population does not care?

• Delete per nom - no evidence of notability whatsoever. Note that almost every word in the article comes from http://www.finnov.net/~wierzbowsky/caslink2.htm - if the author isn't the owner of that site it's a copyvio and if he is it's spam. andy (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although a copy of the project's site, the material is not a copyvio as it has been licensed appropriately, and verified with an OTRS ticket. See the article's talk page.

• Whoops! andy (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This software lacks coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• [Alexey Podrezov] Yes, the project is not advertised on any big media's site. It was created mostly for the vintage computer lovers. And their numbers are not large comparing to, for example, Android fans. However, please tell me what "reliable sources" provide coverage of the crap that is described in the "rusty trombone" article and why that article has the right to exist and mine does not?

• [Alexey Podrezov] As for the sources, my project was mentioned in several MSX magazines, for example in the August's edition of Freesoft MSX Magazine (http://xoomer.virgilio.it/enribarb/msx/freesoft.html), on several MSX community pages: CAX pages (http://cax.nm.ru/msx/packed/index.html), Devili (http://www.devili.iki.fi/Computers/links.html), Planet Retro (http://planetretro.org/index.php?basicsearch=comp), on MSX.ORG resource as well as on several other pages (http://handige-zaken.nl/msx/hardware.html)

• [Alexey Podrezov] Added various external and internal links, references, categories, optimized the article, added a screenshot of UI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Podrezov (talk • contribs) 20:56, 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 no consensus. I'm discounting the "keep" opinions by Gaius Claudius Nero, Bearian, Dr. Blofeld, Dream Focus and Outback the koala because they are not based on applicable guidelines such as WP:N or other community standards. I am also discounting the "delete" opinion by Hrafn for incivility. I am not giving particular weight to arguments based on the WP:FOR criteria, since these are not community-adopted guidelines, but neither am I discounting them. This leaves us with the following opinions to take into account when adjudicating consensus: Fut.Perf., Serpent's Choice and LibStar (delete) versus Doktor Plumbi and FeydHuxtable (keep). This 3-2 outcome does not represent consensus to delete the article.  Sandstein  08:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Netherlands relations[edit]

Albania–Netherlands relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another bout of mechanical creation of useless new "X–Y relations" substubs. Next to no non-trivial content. Didn't we finally reach some project-wide consensus that this type of stub is not wanted? Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations has recommendations on when and how such articles should be written; these standards are certainly not met here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs are for being expanded, i can't write whole albanian part on my own, luckly you and the others can help --Vinie007 18:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, your argument isn't right. Please read the article of the relation, and the guide: They have been engaged in a war (not fully at war, but see Dutch military mission in Albania, They have been/are in an alliance (see NATO), read article of Albanian army. --Vinie007 18:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The concern about the article is legitimate, but I agree with Vinie007: Condition#3 of Bilateral relations (They have been/are in an alliance) is satisfied. The Dutch military mission in Albania was clearly a strong alliance between the Albanian and the Dutch crowns in 1913-1914. As far as the "triviality" of the subject is concerned, I don't believe this article deserves more space than the relationship between the Netherlands and Albania. There are 50k Albanian emigrants in the Netherlands, and both countries have important import-exports, aside from their alliance in 1913-1914. In addition it is important to point out the relationship between Albania and the Netherlands for the implications brought by the refusal of the Netherlands to sign the SAA with Serbia because of their lack of compliance to bring Mr. Mladic to the Hague tribunal. --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not certain that the Dutch participation in the International Gendarmerie constitutes either a war or an alliance in the sense intended by the WikiProject guideline. The Great Powers ambassadors chose the Netherlands for the police mission in Albania specifically because there was no treaty relationship between the countries; the Dutch were considered neutral in Albanian affairs, and -- as far as I can tell from available sourcing -- that participation engendered no lasting alliance; the Dutch simply went home when they were done. By means of comparison, and at the risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, I don't think there's a risible claim to an Iran-Sweden relations article, although Sweden performed exactly the same role in what was then Persia, at the same time. Nor does the revolt in Albania during the Dutch Military Mission constitute in any real sense a "war" between Albania and the Netherlands. Certainly, there are no evident sources that claim it does. If I misunderstood the intent of the guideline conditions, I'd certainly be open to re-evaluating this position, but at the moment, I just don't see how this meets the standard. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You say that the participation of the Netherlands engendered no lasting alliance. Condition#3 of Bilateral relations simply says (They have been/are in an alliance), it doesn't necessarily warrant a lasting alliance, but simply that they were once in alliance or they are now in an alliance. You may not deny that from the moment the Dutch mission was established, an alliance was set up between the two crowns, the Albanian monarchy and the Dutch one. The choice of the Netherlands which had been neutral until then, doesn't mean that the alliance wasn't established from that point onwards, for a certain period of time. And I don't see how the inexistance of an article Iran-Sweden relations should undermine the argument of having an Albanian-Dutch one. We are considering only point 3, not other points of Bilateral relations: there have never been wars between the Netherlands and Albania, on the opposite, good relations, which were started by the Dutch mission, that was key to the creation of the state of Albania.--Doktor Plumbi (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I don't think the Dutch Military Mission constitutes an alliance at all. It wasn't a negotiated agreement between the Albanian and Dutch governments. There was no treaty. When Albania was occupied by the Central Powers during WWI, the Netherlands did not intervene (indeed, they remained officially neutral throughout the war). The modern equivalent to the Dutch Military Mission is a UN Peacekeeping Force. If a country, under the auspices of the UN, engages in police action in a third party state, there isn't any expectation that that constitutes an alliance -- or something sufficient to base a bilateral relations article on. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can't see why this would be deleted. With some expansion it could be a great article.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

because it fails WP:GNG. this is a WP:ILIKEIT argument. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the WP:GNG does it fail? And how is that a WP:ILIKEIT argument? It sounds like you're saying you don't like it.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please provide evidence of significant coverage of specific bilateral relations. all the article has is multilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: (1) On the basis of past outcomes, almost all bilateral relations between European countries articles have been kept. (2) The Netherlands appears to have been instrumental in the independence of Albania, as it was for the United States; its early recognition paved the way for other nations' bilateral relations. (3) There is a lot more to be added, and this can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Many bilateral relations topics betweeen European countries are notable; not all are. There are (depending how you count transcontinental countries and so forth) about 50 countries in Europe. There neither are nor should be (50 x 49) / 2 = 1225 articles as a result. Even within Europe, many pairings simply lack notability. As for point #2 (or #3), where are the sources? If reliable third-party authors agreed that Dutch political recognition was "instrumental" in Albanian independence, that might led credence to the topic's notability. But I don't see that in a source. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This book contains a bit about the role of the Netherlands in the Greek–Albania dispute. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Gaius.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: yet another stringing together of isolated tangential and/or trivial mentions in an attempt to give a pretence of a relationship where no substantive relationship exists.If this had the potential to be "be a great article", it wouldn't be currently based upon such marginal bottom-of-the-barrel-scrapings. It seems that citizens of two countries need only sneeze in the same room for an 'X-Y relations' article to be created. That past AfDs allowed themselves to be bamboozled by such shenanigans does not mean that we should continue the idiocy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One nation helps another in its creation/independence, then its a notable relationship. Them sending people over to help prevent anarchy is rather important. Dream Focus 12:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The claim that a brief (well under a year) mission, nearly a century ago, to help set up a police force, in the Provisional Government of Albania, had a significant impact that endured through a peasant revolt and ensuing imprisonment of most of the officers, their replacement with Austrian/German officers, the Principality of Albania, the Albanian Republic, the Albanian Kingdom, Albania under Italy, Albania under Germany , the Socialist People's Republic of Albania & post-Communist Albania is both ludicrously tendentious and an insult to our intelligence. Notable. Close to notable. In the same galaxy as notable. Can see notable through a powerful telescope on the night sky. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, but you made me LOL. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Involved in a military operation is notable. Whether the outcome was successful or not is not relevant. Dream Focus 02:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - on the one hand, Albania and the Netherlands have no current significant diplomatic relations. On the other, the Netherlands has had more important historical involvement with Albania. I'm leaning towards suggesting that this article should be deleted and replaced by one detailing the Netherland's relationship with the Provisional Government. Anthem of joy (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - alminac entry standard for all encyclopedias. Expand the article, don't delete it. Outback the koala (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. the article merely confirms a little bit of interaction. most of the interaction is in a multilateral not bilateral context. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closing admin not all bilaterals are inherently notable or form part of an almanac. a number of users have used this as an argument when over 200 bilaterals have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant? Some of the ones nominated got deleted, others have been kept. During one mass nomination spree, guidelines were suggest by many, and then they were made. Most of the keeps in this AFD have stated it meets those guidelines. Dream Focus 10:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dream focus. There's at least one whole book specificaly on the Dutch help to Albania in 1913. For details of the modern relationship see 'On Dutch Albanian Friendship' in "To Albania with Love". FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really. The entire book is certainly not about this topic. "On Dutch-Albanian Friendship" is a 3-page section (beginning p.37), which doesn't do anything to dispel my belief that the guideline isn't met here. It discusses a workshop in 1999 in which "ten parliamentarians from Albania" attended a workshop in the Hague, along with some Dutch legislators. Nor was it an official government function, but one "organized by the East/West Parliamentary Practice Foundation," which doesn't appear to even approach being a notable organization. It also discusses another seminar, this time attended by "a group of ten representatives from several Albanian municipalities and the Albanian Association of Municipalities, headed by Albania's Deputy Minister of Local Government." Although I didn't write the guideline on notability of bilateral relations, I cannot envision this as being the sort of event that constitutes "an alliance" under that guideline. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am involved editor who wrote following articles related to the topic of this debate:

1. International Gendarmerie
2. International Commission of Control
3. Peasant Revolt in Albania

Bilateralism means: political, economic, or cultural relations between two sovereign states.

The Principality of Albania, established in February/March 1914, did not exist as sovereign state when Netherlands gave its soldiers to help Great Powers in October/November 1913 and during next four or five months after that. The International Gendarmerie did not support Provisional Government of Albania. On the contrary. The International Commission of Control and International Gendarmerie forced Ismail Qemali to step aside and leave Albania. In case of the establishing and functioning of the International Gendarmerie there simply were no "bilateral relations between Albania and the Netherlands". Great Powers needed neutral soldiers to take care about law enforcement in future Principality of Albania and Netherland accepted to help Great Powers. The International Gendarmerie was subordinated to the International Commission of Control until German prince Prince of Wied took the throne in March 1914. Soon population of Albania started revolt - Peasant Revolt in Albania. Dutch mission together with Kosovo kachak forces of Isa Boletini tried to fight against people of Albania and failed.

My comment does not mean that I support deletion of the article. Maybe there are some political, economic, or cultural relations between two sovereign states Albania and Netherland that justify existence of this article. But in case of the International Gendarmerie there were no bilateral relations between Albania and Netherlands. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:25, 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Monty₈₄₅ 16:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti[edit]

Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEVENT, the relevant part of the latter being "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate". His role in the event was, basically, be stupid enough to not notice being tailed. There is little of note to be said about the man personally apart from his connection to the bin Laden raid. Wat little needs to be said is already at Death of Osama bin Laden#Identity of his courier. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is not about one event or news, this guy provided training to the 911 perpetrators and provided safe have to the top suspects in its aftermath, its mentioned in this book briefly here. By the criteria of this nomination Death of Osama bin Laden also fails because of "one event" and "not news". Absurd. This is about a terrorist which the CIA and US intelligence knew about and tracked for years and was essential to eventually finding bin Laden. His name is mentioned in tons of wiki leaks documents that the CIA tried to extract from people in Guantanamo. He was described as bin Laden's right hand man and his contribution to the al Qaeda network planning and infrastructure is immeasureable. Bin Laden relied on such men and were the brains behind his operations, at least for influencing developments in the al-Qaeda network. He is independent in his own right as an al Qaeda operative, the US government and intelligence would verify this. He's been linked to Tora Bora and many of the other top officials and events. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is already more to be said about him, and it is clear that more will come out. Looie496 (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Saw this on Jimbo's talk page. Incredibly notable and getting more so.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the above. Hugely important figure already, and will be becoming more so in the coming days/weeks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think harboring the most wanted man in the world for several years constitutes as a significant role. Leading the US to bin Laden's location would be another significant fact and also and apparently he trained the 9/11 hijackers in the use of computers. I think a article is called for. I also think that the media will dig up more on him as the weeks and months pass. We may end up seeing an actual photo of him and some more biography. I think deleting this now is a mistake. I think there is a lot of interest in finding out who he was and what his full role was and I think some of those details will emerge. 1.4k people hit on this article yesterday demonstrating a high interest and significance. --Ishtar456 (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom et al - frankieMR (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He has become a historic figure, worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable individual. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEVENT inapplicable. Training individuals pre-911. Continued association and confident of Bin Laden. His not noticing he was being tailed of no consequence, specially as there are satelites circling the earth that can zoom in on the unsuspecting and determine which finger they use to scratch their noses. That more about the man's actions becomes available now that investigations can be revealed is a boon for Wikipedia. Good article. Most informative and helpful to our readers in their understanding of the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think we should give an article to every friend of bin Laden, but he certainly has some real historical significance. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable per WP:GNG / WP:BIO, in his own right  Chzz  ►  10:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Numerous news sources over several days, notable individual Jebus989^✰ 12:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable dead historical figure. Erxnmedia (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Notable figure as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 13:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Notable in his own right for his terrorist training activities and role in numerous terrorist attacks. Numerous sources already cited above to show he passes WP:GNG. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this WP:SNOW yet? If there's little chance of deletion, let's close this AfD and get the AfD tag off the article, as thousands of people are seeing the deletion tag every day when they view the article. OCNative (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Let's close this AfD right now. It looks really bad on the article. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 14:34, 7 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) 05:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Munck[edit]

Ethan Munck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No sources, no notability obtained. We've already deleted his article on 5 seperate occasions. [8], [9] (ones i nominated). Redirect this or delete, then WP:SALT the page until Ethan gains notability. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:40 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Has only a bit part in one television show to his credit. Perhaps one day he'll meet the notability requirements, but not yet. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:00, 7 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. Following rewrite and improvement.  Sandstein  09:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Baptist Churches in Alabama[edit]

List of Baptist Churches in Alabama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication that any of these are notable for any reason. Altairisfar 17:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC) *Nomination withdrawn due to complete rewrite of article and change of heart. I'll try to convert to a table and clean it up instead. Altairisfar 17:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep Has now been completely rewritten with all new content, now in a table, the scope is narrowly defined as Baptist churches that "are National Historic Landmarks, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, listed on the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage , or are otherwise significant for their history, association with significant events or people, or their architecture and design (meaning they must be notable enough for a stand-alone article)." Altairisfar 02:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Let it continue since there are still obviously issues. Altairisfar 06:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Altairisfar 17:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many Baptist churches in Alabama which are notable, including at least the following ones that are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places (list below). I don't happen to really like having vague lists, but there is room in Wikipedia for a list of all the notable baptist churches in Alabama, i think. IF the creator of the article actually wants to develop it. The list should be moved to "List of Baptist churches in Alabama" though. And the intro text should clarify that it is only about notable churches, not every church. --doncram 19:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

draft list of NRHP-listed Baptist churches in state, since put into article

(begin list of NRHP-listed places in Alabama with "Baptist" in name) Ackerville Baptist Church of Christ, Ackerville, Alabama First Baptist Church (Greenville, Alabama) Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church (Auburn, Alabama) County Line Baptist Church, vicinity of Dudleyville, Alabama First African Baptist Church (Tuscaloosa, Alabama) First Baptist Church (Selma, Alabama) Siloam Baptist Church, 503 Washington St., Marion, AL Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, 454 Dexter Ave., Montgomery, AL Pastorium, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, 309 S. Jackson St., Montgomery, AL Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, 1530 6th Ave. North at 16th St., Birmingham, AL Stone Street Baptist Church 311 Tunstall St., Mobile, AL St. Louis Street Missionary Baptist Church 108 N. Dearborn St., Mobile, AL Montgomery Hill Baptist Church, E side Hwy. 59 on CR 80, Tensaw, AL First Baptist Church (Bay Minette, Alabama), N side D'Olive St., Bay Minette, AL Mount Zion Baptist Church (Anniston, Alabama), 212 Second St., Anniston, AL Parker Memorial Baptist Church, 1205 Quintard Ave., Anniston, AL Sardis Baptist Church (Birmingham, Alabama) Sardis Baptist Church (Union Springs, Alabama) Canaan Baptist Church (Bessemer, Alabama), 824 Fifteenth Street North, Bessemer, AL First Baptist Church, East Thomas, 419 11th Court West, Birmingham, AL East End Baptist Church, 2609 Sixth Ave. S, Birmingham, AL Peace Baptist Church, 302 Sixth St. N, Birmingham, AL Shady Grove Baptist Church, 3444 31st Way North, Collegeville, Birmingham, AL First Ebenezer Baptist Church, 420 Graymont Ave. North, Smithfield, Birmingham, AL First Baptist Church, Kingston, 4600 Ninth Ave. N, Birmingham, AL West End Hills Missionary Baptist Church, 1680 19th Place SW, Birmingham, AL New Rising Star Baptist Church, 3104 33rd Place N, Collegeville, Birmingham, AL New Pilgrim Baptist Church, 903 Sixth Ave S, Birmingham, AL Mount Ararat Baptist Church (Birmingham, Alabama), 1920 Slayden Ave., Ensley, Birmingham, AL Bethel Baptist Church, Parsonage, and Guardhouse, 3233, 3232, and 3236 29th Avenue North Collegeville, AL New Hope Baptist Church (Beatrice, Alabama), vicinity of Beatrice, AL First Baptist Church of Wetumpka, 205 West Bridge St. Wetumpka, AL Aimwell Baptist Church, 500 Earle St. Mobile, AL Mt. Olive Missionary Baptist Church No.1, 409 Lexington Ave. Mobile, AL (end list)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Changing !vote -- see below. First off, it should be noted that the list Doncram created above is not the list in the article. As for the topic in general, this is an intersection that is appropriate for a category, but not a list. The universe of Baptist churches in Alabama is so nearly unlimited in scope as to make a list of them unmaintainable (although the number of Baptist churches in Alabama is admittedly not infinite, it is unbelievably large, more so if the list includes defunct churches). Additionally, almost all of those churches are nonnotable per WP criteria, and all of the ostensible purposes of a list of them would be something that Wikipedia is not: a worship guide, travel guide, or directory. As for the list that that Doncram created above, there might be an encyclopedic purpose in something like a List of Baptist churches in Alabama on the National Register of Historic Places, but that would be a different article (and some of the blue links in the above list don't actually point to Alabama churches). The article that has been nominated here should be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to substance of Orlady's comment are given in replies below, including specifically link to wp:CLN which explains relationships of lists and categories. --doncram 11:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Orlady. The list in the article is extremely disorganized, using neither alphabetical nor any other obvious order. For example, at one point, an Antioch Baptist Church is listed, and ten lines later, another Antioch Baptist Church is listed. Is this the same church listed twice by mistake, or two different churches? No wikilinks are provided (if, indeed, any of these churches are notable enough to have articles of their own), nor is any data provided about the churches other than their names (for example, the towns where they are located are not mentioned). Furthermore, some of the churches have changed their names, but they are listed under their former rather than current names. If an article by this name were considered useful, and I am skeptical of that, I don't see how the current list could be considered helpful as a starting point. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does not speak to notability of the list as a topic. The list is complementary to a category (which also can be created). It serves practical purpose of allowing editors to discuss, within the list, the notability of individual churches, and to include pictures, and to keep track of ones with and without articles. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists)#Lists and categories:

"Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two categories work together; the principle is covered in the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of its entries, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available; lists also permit a large number of entries to appear on a single page."

See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. --doncram 11:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my recommendation to neutral in recognition of the complete overhauling of the list in the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Above list of NRHP-listed Baptist churches in Alabama amended to point to the actual Alabama churches rather than disambiguation pages or churches in other states, as pointed out by Orlady above. But still, the above list is rather tangential to the article what I nominated for deletion. Altairisfar 22:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article amended to be the above list of NRHP places, plus more, such as the First Baptist Church (Huntsville, Alabama), established in 1809, the oldest Southern Baptist church in the state. I think any links that first pointed to dab pages have now been fixed to point to the correct redlink. As most editors here know, articles for all the NRHP-listed ones could be created at any time. --doncram 11:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you feel strongly about saving this article, I'm willing to withdraw my Afd nomination on these conditions: that the article is moved to List of Baptist churches in Alabama on the National Register of Historic Places, as suggested by Orlady, or even the horribly worded List of Baptist churches in Alabama on the National Register of Historic Places or Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage; and maybe someone could try to balance the lede?

I checked what churches were on it before and none were on the NRHP or Alabama Register, so my issue was with notability. But, as Dennis said, it was horrible before and at the present title would still be nothing more than a laundry list of crap. I can deal with a very narrow scope. My point in nominating it was that in a state with 67 counties, with the majority being rural, there is roughly one Baptist church for every 100-300 people (not literally, but very close). In my small Alabama county of barely 22,000 people there are 178 Baptist churches, none of which are on the National Register, and only one is on the Alabama Register. BTW, the editor that started this article is not new, as you suggested on his talk page, he's been churning out the same type of articles on Wikipedia since June 9, 2005, evidently without taking the time to learn any of our policies and procedures. Altairisfar 15:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I myself don't happen to really like open-ended lists, in part because it can be unpleasant to police them in terms of keeping them from becoming indiscriminate/directory-like, but I think they are valid. List of Anglo-Catholic churches is one which i was involved with for a while, trying to help for some reason i can't recall. It was difficult there to deal with multiple additions of non-significant places. I sought there to make a positive difference there by building out a table clearly calling for both evidence of Anglican-ness (which was an issue in fact) and calling for evidence of notability, and paring away items that were not supported by evidence. I no longer watch that. In Alabama, I do think that a list of Baptist churches actually makes sense; there indeed must be thousands of them and a good number are significant and are worth mentioning in a list. My sense of the consensus on list-articles in wikipedia is basically that lists of items that are all individually notable are okay, and further that the lists can include items which are not individually notable enough to have a separate list-article. (Some will disagree, but that is my sense of the consensus.) There are broad lists of synagogues and of many types of churches. So, I just happen to think a list on this topic is pretty obviously useful, in fact, and it is apparently of interest to its creator, and it is not proper to delete it as a topic.

I did suppose, apparently incorrectly, that the creator was relatively new to Wikipedia. But it doesn't really matter; we should try to be accommodating and to provide support and education and socialization. If the creator in fact doesn't want to develop this list, it is not horrible for the list to linger on, not much developed, not much read, not much linked.

I don't care if mention of the temporary prominence of 2011 tornado relief efforts is kept in the article or not, but it is salient in the webpages of numerous churches found by google search of "Baptist Alabama". I also don't care particularly about the other statement now tagged. But it is an obviously TRUE statement, not "original research". It reads: "Others are significant for other reasons, or have chosen not to accept NRHP listing with its potential restrictions." There is one church in the list that I added which is not NRHP-listed. There are other significant churches, I am sure, and I am sure everyone commenting here would have to agree there are modern, non-historic Baptist churches in the state that are not NRHP-listed. I know also that many obviously historically important churches, elsewhere, choose not to accept NRHP-listing; it is okay to suggest that some churches in Alabama may have declined NRHP listing because in fact they may have. The statement is deliberately a compound, true statement. However, Altairisfar, if you want to edit or remove those statements, please feel free to do that; editing or removing them would be better than having those tags there forever.

I don't feel strongly about the need for the list; i do think it is okay and it should not be deleted for wrong reasons. If you care to withdraw your AFD nom that is good and would probably pretty much resolve this, but since there are a couple delete votes i think the procedure is that the AFD needs to run the 7 days and then be closed by an uninvolved administrator. --doncram 16:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying in an article that some Baptist churches have chosen not to accept National Register listing because a contributor "knows" that to be true is a form of original research. That unsupported assertion -- which I surmised was based on inference from a general pattern -- is what I was tagging when I added that inline template to the article. The above comment indicates that the template (which Doncram has removed) was spot-on accurate. --Orlady (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be one more instance in a series of negative digs, in a long pattern of wp:wikihounding, in which Orlady is following me and personally criticizing me. That is a misstatement. In context of the long pattern, in which I have correctly charged Orlady of lying about me, it amounts to another deliberate lie. I did not state in the article that the any Baptist church in Alabama or anywhere has chosen not to accept accept NRHP listing. The compound statement is obviously true. In the compound statement, I did suggest the possibility that there are historic churches in Alabama. It is possible. Some might say that should not be suggested, that that is slipping something in which should not be suggested unless there is specific evidence of it actually having happened. Specific evidence could conceivably be provided by pointing to a specific instance where a historic church in Alabama was NRHP-nominated and was accepted by the National Register and where the church finally opposed its being listed, which would show in the NRHP's database as an "Owner objection" case. I don't have such an example. It is nonetheless absolutely possible that churches, like other owners of likely-to-be-NRHP-eligible properties, have chosen not to accept NRHP listings. In fact, in most cases a church's opposition to NRHP listing would prevent any NRHP nom from getting started at all. My point in mentioning it was to explain that there are historic churches which are not NRHP-listed, to get away from the potential idea that all historic churches are NRHP-listed.

I am aware of churches not wanting National Register listing, in part because of the restrictions it could impose; churches I am familiar with are clearly forward-oriented and have primary mission of religious service, and do not care one whit about history of their building, and would not want any potential restriction on how they renovate their property to serve their church's mission (while other churches do care about their architecture and historic associations). I stated that here as an assertion here which I do not need to prove; it is not original research in mainspace. For Orlady to dismiss that, she has to implicitly accuse me of lying. I accuse her of slipping in yet another insinuation of lying or other evil-doing on my part. I am not beating around the bush: I do accuse her directly of lying here. I doubt any good can come of further discussion here, so will hope not to reply further, unless to defend myself from new accusations. --doncram 21:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Further, at Talk:List of Baptist churches in Alabama#Unbalanced template, Orlady made other negative assertions about me, including some [wp:personal attack]]-type, personal comment that I am racially motivated and/or racially ignorant, to which I replied there. I am completely offended by Orlady's continuing behavior, spread across many articles and Talk pages to which she has followed me. --doncram 21:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the title, no I don't agree it should be moved to include "on the National Register of Historic Places". I deliberately put one obviously significant other one into the list, and I could add more. Long ago i created some lists defined to be NRHP-only like that, but I believe broader lists are more appropriate. There are many broad lists like List of Elks buildings and List of octagon houses which now include mostly NRHP-listed places, but it is better they not be defined narrowly, better that they can include other obviously notable ones. By the way, it is kinda poor, IMO, that there exists a list-article on NRHP-listed bridges in each U.S. state, poorly connected and overlapping with the corresponding state lists of bridges (sections or split out from List of bridges in the United States); IMO the NRHP ones should be integrated into the state lists. However, it was the interest of one or more editors to create those NRHP ones, and they serve a purpose, so live and let live, until someone actually wants to do the work to make the state lists better. Here, no reason to start with the overly narrowly defined topic. --doncram 16:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just let the AfD run its course then, If it survives I'm sure it will be come up for AfD again at the present title after it s full of of crap again. Altairisfar 16:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. There may well be unjustified future additions, but that shouldn't be cause for it to come up for AFD again. Hopefully what will happen is that the list will be developed and maintained as a good contribution to Wikipedia. --doncram 16:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Horrible unwikified list. Even if you wikified and deleted all the redlinks, you really aren't adding anything that a category can't do better. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough work has been done to justify a keep. The original was everything a list should not be, this 100% rewrite is literally the equivalent of deleting and starting over, and doing it right. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is wikified. It was not horrible before; it reflected the interest of an editor (not me) in creating a list on this valid topic. Redlinks are needed and helpful, are not to be deleted. Per wp:CLN, the list is complementary to any category. And it obviously is different in that it includes descriptions, photos, and redlinks or non-linked mentions of churches that do not have separate wikipedia articles. --doncram 11:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There are thousands of Baptist churches in Alabama. What makes the list so notable? Is simply "being" a church enough to pass the bar for inclusion? Why not a List of Burger King restaurants in Alabama? Being a church is not inherently notable. That doesn't mean you can't have articles on NOTABLE churches, or a category for them. But a list of redlinks for churches that are very not likely to be notable (most churches aren't, via wp:gng) is not what lists are for. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you will take a new look, the notability criteria is narrowly defined now, see my keep vote above. Redlinks have no bearing on the Afd process that I know of, but please correct me if I'm wrong? Altairisfar 02:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have changed my !vote due to the current article being the equivalent of a delete and 100% rewrite. Adding the section that explained what was notable about them helped, and can be addressed on the talk page if someone thinks a particular church fails the WP:N test. Limiting the redlinks also helps, although I still have concerns anytime a list is over 50% redlinks. It may be a matter of just needing new articles, or it may be a case that notability doesn't exist, or verification can't be found. In this case, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Further to my !vote above, I find that this survey indicates that as of about 11 years ago there were 3,148 Southern Baptist churches in Alabama, plus 20 churches of the Southwide Baptist Fellowship, 147 churches of the Primitive Baptist Fellowship - Old Line, 6 of the Progressive Primitive Baptists, 29 of the Old Missionary Baptists, 165 of the Free Will Baptists, 3 each of the Independent Free Will Baptists Associations and the Reformed Baptists, 37 of the American Baptist Association, 3 of the American Baptist Churches in the USA, 17 of the Baptist Missionary Association of America, 7 of the Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptists Association, 26 of the Duck River and Kindred Baptists Associations, plus a few churches of couple of other brands of Baptist that I got too bored to copy the names of. The webpage says that it does not include the "historically African American denominations" (this would include, for example, the National Baptist Conventions) and I notice that it also does not list any Independent Baptist churches.
  My point is that the universe of "Alabama Baptist churches" is very large (I wouldn't be surprised if the state has more Baptist churches than it has elementary schools) and actually rather diverse in scope. If contributors are committed to converting the nominated article into a list of churches with some sort of historical significance, I think it would be in the interest of both users and future contributors to create a title and lead section that clearly (and narrowly) define that scope, so that the list-article doesn't quickly become an unmanageable hodgepodge of disparate items. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the rest aside, I do agree on the danger of it becoming a huge laundry list. However, I think the current version that I'm working on may help. The lead statement may need further revision, but it attempts to explain in simple terms what makes one of these notable. I will not finish the full revision in the next few hours however (I'm taking my mother out to dinner for the holiday), but will refine further upon my return. Altairisfar 22:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be clear, while Altairisfar's development on the historical churches today is clearly very good, Altairisfar's choice to try to limit the list to just historic churches that are listed on the National Register or otherwise, is not binding. This AFD is about whether the list topic is notable, and is not about list inclusion criteria. List inclusion criteria can be left open, can be discussed at the article's Talk page. I think it is obvious that a huge modern Baptist church with a big public presence in Alabama would also be a significant notable church to be included in the list. Say if there is one akin to the Reformed Church in America's Crystal Cathedral in Orange County, California. Any modern, non-historic Baptist church in Alabama that has significant coverage in reliable sources, as could be demonstrated by it having an individual wikipedia article, can be added to this list, IMO. It's good that the list is better quality now; it's good the AFD will be closed as Keep. Just this AFD is not going to be binding on the inclusion criteria for the list at its current name "List of Baptist churches in Alabama". --doncram 03:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I meant above by "they must be notable enough for a stand-alone article" unless they are listed on a state or national register. Altairisfar 04:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, glad you would accept modern notable ones. That's not what the current lede suggests, i think. It states "This is a list of Baptist churches in the U.S. state of Alabama that are notable because they are National Historic Landmarks (NHL), listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), listed on the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage (ARLH), or are otherwise significant for their history, association with significant events or people, or their architecture and design." That seems very history-focused and seems not to allow for Baptist churches in Alabama that are notable for other reasons, such as merely their huge size or their current-day (not historic) activity. Perhaps you didn't mean it to be as limiting as I read it to be. Again, inclusion criteria can be discussed at the Talk page of the article. --doncram 04:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done, one way or the other. Altairisfar 06:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawing my earlier "Delete" and changing to Keep, based on the good job that Doncram and Altairisfar did in repurposing this list-article into . --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help again this time trying to do it right Thanks for the discussion on the article I had put up laballed wrongly. I am going to put up the correct historical list article on my talk page and would like constructive suggestion as to its inclusion. There are some on the list that are actually found on the existing List of Baptist Churches in Alabama or similar title (sorry) and these could be incorporated but as historical researchable information it should all be up. The deleted article is at the bottom of the page so advise on that as well as a proper title. Thanks WayneRay (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close as speedy delete per author request.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clay County Baptist Preachers 1838-1946[edit]

Clay County Baptist Preachers 1838-1946 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of notability. Altairisfar 17:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Altairisfar 17:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication of notability. Wikipedia is not a publisher of family history or nonnotable local church histories. --Orlady (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Orlady. Furthermore, this appears to have been copied directly from an inadequately identified source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pretty indiscriminate list, and no notability to boot. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is not a family history list ??? There are tons of Lists Of things on Wikipedia? It is not indiscriminate it is Chronological and containss all of the Circuit Preachers associated with each church, listing all of the Baptist churches in and around Clay County Alabama. It is relevent for any church historian researching alabama history. It was retyped from a published church and minister's history as he was the recording secretary for the local Baptist Church association. Who are you to say what is not notable. Are you a historian? WayneRay (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At Wikipedia, notability is defined by WP:Notability. --Orlady (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with apology I put up the wrong List, i replaced this with the correct one. Apology. The church listing is not up yet with a proper label. I noted there is already a List of Baptist Churches so mine is more local to Clay County. WayneRay (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the original list, if someone was interested, they could see the chronological history of who was the preacher at each church. Now, however, there is just an alphabetical list of the preachers with their years of service, and no indication of which church each one was associated with. Thus, it's not clear to me how the current version is more helpful to those studying church history than the original one was. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with Metropolitan90, the new list does not cause me to change my !vote. It looks even more like an indiscriminate list on a nonnotable topic. --Orlady (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you could put up the wrong list and no one even noticed strengthens the argument that the list is not notable, and certainly difficult if not impossible to verify. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- lists should indicate the notability of their members, if only by linking to existing articles that establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE sorry for the confusion and when I am am back online I will put the other one back up under the correct title. Delete this one if you like. You are correct. WayneRay (talk) 18:09, 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) 05:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black sea studios[edit]

Black sea studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find video game sources: "Black sea studios" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

non-notable game studio with minimal independent secondary coverage. The Tecumseh Tribune source is rather trivial local coverage. — Scientizzle 17:30, 6 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) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a company that fails notability criteria at WP:CORP. Note that a search on "Black Sea Studios" will return a lot of hits on the unrelated Crytek Black Sea, which was called "Black Sea Studios" from 2001-2008. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion read #2 there is no reason for this BAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WinB87 (talk • contribs) 6 May 2011

This issue has already been adequately explained on your talk page. Instead of inaccurately citing how two established users and an admin have violated policy, please provide a valid reason why this article does not meet the criteria for deletion found at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All hits seem to be on Crytek's acquired Bulgarian studio. Cannot find enough secondary independent RS to support notability per GNG or CORP. Single Tribune mention is insufficient. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If consensus is to delete, this page should be recreated as a redirect to the unrelated Crytek Black Sea as a plausible search term. The redirect page Black Sea Studios should also be retargeted to the same page (which it pointed to for nearly 3 years since it was moved). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no notability as per WP:CORPDEPTH. I agree with Kuyabribri about the redirects. Meph^talk 15:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete - company is just starting out, article can be reestablished if it becomes notable. The redirect should be restored as well. Seaphoto^Talk 00:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. They've manages to produce one game, "Gork", which also has received no coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 14:55, 9 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) 05:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vakur Versan[edit]

Vakur Versan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No sources leading out of obituary. General notability fails. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:23 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article and I can't find an online source in English. All of the sources are Turkish. There are three references. First reference is an article about the first legal scholars of Turkey in republic era. Second reference is his obituary. Third reference is biography of son of Vakur Versan. He is notability. --Eng-men (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And there is not a copy-vio. I didn't copy the text from another web site. I wrote it myself. I removed copy-vio template from the article, but it came back :/ --Eng-men (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Cited in several works; his The Kemalist Reform of Turkish Law and Its Impact seems to have left a mark on academia and research. Served on Turkish constitution commission and a dean at Istanbul University. Not a terribly notable person from sources, but enough to meet requirements.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've added a reference to a very reliable source confirming that Versan was a member of the commission that drew up Turkey's constitution. That certainly passes the spirit (which is what counts) of WP:POLITICIAN, in that it is a position of far more influence and significance than state legislators in Wyoming or Mizoram, who get an automatic notability pass. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an academic whose work has had significant and notable impact outside academia. A constitution for a major nation-state qualifies. Ray^Talk 22:08, 9 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) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Critchlow[edit]

Keith Critchlow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject wishes to opt-out (see [10]). Sending to AFD for evaluation. NW (Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question What does this actually mean? (The link asks me for a login I don't seem to have.) Do you mean the subject wishes to have the article on him deleted? Is that a valid reason for deletion? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the subject does not want Wikipedia to host this article on them. That rationale has not been accepted by the community as a rationale for deletion by itself, but it is something that the closing administrator is allowed to take into account per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Biographies of living people. NW (Talk) 18:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, for one, can't even see the "ticket" of complaint. Has anyone verified by phone or postal mail the identity of the complaintant? Why should the article be deleted? --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Also. This doesn't make sense. I agree with the above commentator User:Sergeant Cribb. Why is the Keith Critchlow article being considered for deletion? It's not an orphan, and Dr. Critchlow is a significant person. What does the verbiage you wrote mean?

"User wishes to opt-out per [1] ( https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=5619173 ). Sending to AFD for evaluation. NW (Talk) 17:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)"

What does this have to do with "OTRS" (Open-source Ticket Request System? We can't see the ticket anyway. Also, what does "user wishes to opt out ..." mean as the reason for deletion? --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am tempted to close this as a WP:SNOW keep. Subject is clearly notable, I accept the faint possibility that there may be a need to redact something for the safety of the subject, but that would be a matter for the oversight team/OTRS team/OfficeW/WMF, not for AfD. Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  
  • I was thinking that it was getting a little snowy as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Users may have a right to vanish, but notable subjects do not have the right to "opt out" of being covered in Wikipedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per rationale above by User:SchuminWeb. I never saw the original complaint "ticket" since I can't. So I don't know what the objection was. Everything in the article is factual and all was publicly known. Cf. his entry in Debrett's People of Today published in England. The Wikipedia article has about the same information. Critchlow is a significant public figure. If's there's a compelling reason above what I can know, since I can't see the original complaint ticket, I have to leave that to those with privileges to decide that. But on the face of it, I see no reason to delete the article short of a courtesy to the complaintant. Puzzled. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject appears to be a notable architect. Google Books suggests that he is prominent in his profession. Bringing an article to AfD based on an OTRS ticket is rarely a good idea -- it effectively says, "This article should be deleted for reasons that I can't tell you." Well, if the community can't be told the reasons, why should it be a matter for community decision? If the problem is that serious, take it to the Wikimedia office for them to delete, rather than taking it to AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Critchlow has notability in the fields of Islamic Art, Symbology and Sacred Architecture. See Google Books for a listing of his academic writings. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as no valid reason has been advanced for deletion. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per others. Sorry, Prof Critchlow, you're just too notable. Douglasi (talk) 11:49, 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) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Araki-ryū[edit]

Araki-ryū (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an unsourced article about a martial art whose only claim to notability is that it is hundreds of years old. However, it gives no supporting evidence for that claim and I found no independent sources that support notability. Astudent0 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources located to support notability. One of the two external links provided in the article appears to be a website promoting a practitioner. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I see the article needs a lot of work, I found Japanese language sources easily. Take, for example, this Google Books search, which shows Araki-ryu listed in the 日本武道辞典 (Dictionary of Japanese Martial Arts) and the 武藝流派辭典 (Dictionary of Martial Arts Styles). This article needs some severe paring down, but not deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete It's clear this art exists, but I don't see anything showing notability. At best there seem to be just passing mentions. Admittedly, since I don't read Japanese, I'm at the mercy of Google translate. Papaursa (talk) 20:50, 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus (Argentine band)[edit]

Nexus (Argentine band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Incomplete nomination by Vlad.Ureche (talk · contribs). Note: I am neutral, but the article requires copyediting. Jared Preston (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't know how reliable they are, but these sources should be considered: [11][12][13]. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative Keep, provided discography meets WP:BAND criteria. However, article is promotional in tone and needs significant rewriting to meet WP:NPOV. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:52, 6 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. Rlendog (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullaziz Al-Hlayel[edit]

Abdullaziz Al-Hlayel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced BLP (since 2009) and previously contested PROD. I could find no significant coverage of this player; note he is not listed in the Wikipedia article on his team, nor is there any evidence he has played a match in a first division game. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Tooga - BØRK! 23:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to find evidence that Al-Hlayel actually played a game in a professional league, and thus this BLP fails WP:NFOOTY. A general lack of significant coverage in reliable sources makes it fail WP:GNG. Tooga - BØRK! 20:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC) (forgot to sign earlier)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as unverified. Unless it can be established that he played in the Saudi Premier League, he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is no indication that he passes WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:08, 10 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) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Miller (model)[edit]

Amy Miller (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a Playmate, but a Playboy online model; most such "Cyber Girls" have already been deleted as, by consensus, not notable. The only substantial independent coverage cited is a profile in the hometown newspaper, and that isn't enough to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Nom seems erroneous, she was never a playmate. Coverage out there seems at least barely meet GNG.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you point us to such GNG meeting coverage? --Damiens.rf 20:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the research you did when nominating 100 articles for deletion in one hours's time to determine the subject was not notable? Yes, I am upset.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to avoid addressing my challenges. In regard to your question, while I took one hour to post all afds, I have been researching them waaay before posting the first nomination. It's naive to consider only my log's timestamp. But this discussion has become counterproductive already. --Damiens.rf 22:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you're free to avoid addressing my challenges. Fapping is not research.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Carrite. Nom says 'us' above when they mean 'me'. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 21:54, 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! 16:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist note : please can we concentrate on the sources. Do they count as detailed RS or not? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per milowent. and carrite.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They gave completely different reasons for keeping, the first one already dismissed and the second one not supported when asked to. Thanks for taking part on our democratic system, though. --Damiens.rf 16:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I agree with both. so?. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it indicates you just want the playmate bio to stay for whatever reason. But putting that aside for a moment, since you agree with Milowent statement that there's enough coverage about this girl "out there" to fulfill GNG, would you provide us with examples of such coverage (since Milowent denied to do so when asked?). Of course, this supposes you agree with Millowent because you know these coverage to exist, and not because you simply like the outcome of his opinion. --Damiens.rf 19:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (still). Nom's argument specious at best, reeking of IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not seeing anywhere close to enough to convince me this should go. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AFD has jumped the shark. It's preposterous that half the "keep" !votes have a rationale faulting the nominator for overstating the subject's notability, and there's the IP sock of an indef-blocked user !voting not once but twice. The only thing qualifying as an RS here is a hometown newspaper article saying "Local girl wants to be Playmate," and that's nowhere near the notability threshold.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep This nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [14]. Monty₈₄₅ 02:17, 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) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Air Racing Championship[edit]

European Air Racing Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There appears to be no significant coverage for this event, which does not appear to be notable or major. wctaiwan (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—Well it does seem to exist,[15] but I agree there is not a significant level of coverage.—RJH (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacks the coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing in gnews. no real coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 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) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graph of a square[edit]

Graph of a square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

How-to formula. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, verging on WP:CSD A1/A10 - frankieMR (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously. These formula are neither notable nor referenced. Jim.belk (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as A1: no context. —Caesura^(t) 20:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – non-notable original research. The graph of the (unnecessarily complicated) equation given is in general not a square but a constellation of four lines of infinite length enclosing a rectangle. The formulas given for the lower left corner and height and width are simply incorrect (unless a = b = 0).  --Lambiam 23:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Very similar recreation of Graphing a square by same author, which was deleted on May 4 (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Square). Non-notable bit of dubious original research -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:01, 7 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) 04:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball players with 2000 hits[edit]

List of Major League Baseball players with 2000 hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NOT#STATS. There is no independent notability to the 2000 hit mark as there is for something like 3000 hit club, 500 home run club, etc, etc. At best nowadays it gets briefly mentioned as a statistical note (like your car hitting 100k miles) in a game summary. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 01:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 01:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 01:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This opens a whole can of worms regarding similar pages, like List of Major League Baseball players with 400 doubles, List of Major League Baseball players with 1000 runs batted in, List of Major League Baseball players with 4000 total bases, etc. Not saying the can of worms shouldn't be opened, I am undecided right now, I'm just sayin'. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. I just think it's a can that needs opening. Outside of the big clubs, events, and milestones we have this giant set of lists of arbitrary marks. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 2000 hits is not a regularly celebrated milestone, 3000 is. 3000 makes you a likely Hall of Famer, 2000 makes you a very good player, but there have been many 2000 hit players who will not be considered seriously for the Hall of Fame. Eauhomme (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I entirely understand the rationale for deletion here, and I'm even somewhat inclined to agree. That said, I don't think this conflicts with WP:NOT#STATS. That portion of the WP:NOT policy says the following about excessive listing of statistics: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." Sure, MLB players with 3000 hits are in a much more exclusive club, but there are still only 260 players on this list – not many at all, given the sheer number of men who have played in the major leagues. As such, this list isn't exactly "long and sprawling," in my opinion. But enough about What Wikipedia Is Not; what about What Wikipedia Is? According to WP:5P, "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." One certainly can find these kind of baseball statistical listings in almanacs, both general and specialized. Finally, to address the point about the questionable notability of the milestone – sure, it's far from earth-shattering when players have their 2000th hit, but, as a baseball fan, I know I've seen newspapers and TV programs mark the occasion when a player passes the milestone. 2000 isn't as big of a deal as 3000, but it's still no small feat. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is establishing general notability for the list. Nowadays players get mentioned when they cross 2k, but I have never seen all 2k hitters collected in a list like this outside of Wikipedia, suggesting it doesn't really have huge notability. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If players get mentioned nowadays (even though they weren't back in the day, isn't that enough for notability? I easily found articles for Ichiro, Jeter and Grudzielanek crossing 2000 hits. I'm sure we could find all instances in the last ten or twenty years if we looked a little deeper. </devils advocate> – Muboshgu (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• By that logic we need dozens of these rather pointless lists. Almost every round number of anything gets mentioned somewhere. That establishes notability of the event for the individual, not notability of the group overall. A player's first MLB hit is almost always noted in game summaries but we don't have List of MLB players with one hit. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that would be an excessively long statistical list. This list is not; there are only 260 players on it.

  Staxringold, you've never seen this list outside of Wikipedia? Have you checked general or baseball almanacs to see whether this list is in there? (I hope this doesn't sound patronizing – that's not my intent. It's an honest question.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I really haven't. And remember, listing in a pure statistics source (baseball-reference, for example, lists the top 1000 in career hits which goes to 1146) does not meet the qualifications for WP:RS and WP:GNG. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In keeping with the spirit of what User:A Stop at Willoughby is trying to promote, I'd have less of a problem of keeping an article that was titled, for example, List of Major League Baseball career hit leaders whose title did not put undue notability to an arbitrary number like 2,000, but whose content was implicitly limited to a number that was manageable (and most likely round e.g. 50, 100, etc to again avoid undue significance or uproar from a reader whose favorite player gets slighted). —Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters does and in some ways I think that list is even worse than this one. It is merely a direct clone of the baseball-reference table and has no particular notability. Nobody cares, knows, or discusses who is 473rd all time in HRs, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article that keeps track of it. That's the definition of NOTSTATS, a non-notable statistical tracking better left to the likes of B-R. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Then there really is no reason to keep this article as anyone can go to List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters to find hitters with 2000 hits, especially since there is no notable text that can be added here about the 2000 hit club. This still leaves open the general question of that to do with generic "leader" lists that applies to not only to baseball articles but also to other sports. —Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Scratched above. I didnt realize Staxringold pointed to a home run list, not a hit list.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per ASaWilloughby. NOTSTAT doesn't apply, by its own terms, and there's no logical deletion rationale. "A is not as notable as B" isn't recognized grounds for deletion; if it were, virtually nothing could survive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel NOTSTAT absolutely applies. A listing of statistics alone is, by NOTSTAT, not what Wikipedia is for. The event must have independent notability. My argument, as I said above to Muboshgu, is that merely sometimes being noted in game summaries does not establish notability for the club or we would need List of MLB players with one hit, List of MLB players with one home run, List of MLB players with 100 hits, etc, etc, etc. The group has to be notable for the group to have an article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This list allows readers to get an understanding about baseball history and watch players achieve milestones. There aren't too many people on this list. Many of the people who make this list are in the Hall of Fame. It serves as a portal to allow readers to find out about other great legends of MLB. Without it, we are limited to the select few in the 3,000 hit club. Arnabdas (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Then they can read Major League Baseball All-Century Team, List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, or List of Major League Baseball retired numbers. Having notable members does not make an arbitrary group notable. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Though that is true, having people climb up the list makes it a reference tool that the others do not. "Derek Jeter just passed Frank Robinson on the hit list...so who is Frank Robinson? Let me read about him." It's a valuable portal that the other lists you mentioned wouldn't necessarily bring because of the dynamic nature of this list. Arnabdas (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NOT#STATS, the article does not " contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." Without such limitations, there are hundreds to thousands of lists that could be created that while factually correct, are not notable. Sources of the 2,000 hit club have not been found that discuss indepth the 2,000 hit club as a whole, and need to go beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage of a single sentence of a passing mention of the "milestone" by an individual. Otherwise, such an occurrence seems WP:Run-of-the-mill. —Bagumba (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for that, I forgot about ROUTINE. It's the perfect policy link to explain my point (that an article which says "John Smith recorded his 2000th hit Tuesday" doesn't establish notability for this list as a whole). Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This certainly can't provide a basis for deletion. The way to address the problem of lacking "sufficient explanatory text" would be to provide sufficient text, not to delete the article. The !vote doesn't claim that such text can't be written, and therefore fails in terms of deletion policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the editor who wrote the vote, let me clarify that I looked at the sources and do not believe that the supporting text can be written without WP:OR to prop up its notability. I suppose an AfD where the argument for deletion was lack of independent resources could be counter-argued that it didnt say independent resources couldn't be found. Note to self to be more explicit. —Bagumba (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the quote in WP:NOT#STATS says it all. Besides 2000 is arbitrary, why not 2200 or 2500. 3,000 hit club deserves a list because it is highly notable and heavily reported by the media. So, 3000 is not arbitrary. And its existence doesn't violate WP:NOT#STATS.—Chris!_c/t 19:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just like what Muboshgu said, there are tons of these lists. Saves, wins, homers, hits, strikeouts, WHIP, total bases, triples, doubles, stolen bases, walks, walks allowed, games started, games finished, etc. We would have to delete all of them... Obviously, I'm a big editor of these articles and therefore want to keep them, but that's for personal reasons. Anyway, it's a "big can of worms". Jonathansuh (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a can of worms that needs opening. Outside of the 3,000 hit club, 3,000 strikeout club, 300 win club, 500 home run club, 30-30 club, 40-40 club, List of Major League Baseball hitters with four home runs in one game, and other "clubs" with external notability I see no establishing whatsoever of notability outside of WP:ROUTINE. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply. Each statistical page has been, and always will be, a case by case basis for its merits. This is not the discussion to bring up other baseball stats pages. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that's why I'm glad Staxringold nominated this article alone and not all at once. They can be considered case by case, but all other than the "clubs" (300 wins, 500 HRs, 3000 hits) are vulnerable for their own AfDs, whether this one is closed as keep or delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I hear the NOTSTATS argument, but I think of this like a template for organizing these biographies. Sure, lists of players with 1 hit or some other number of hits might not be useful, but 2,000 is a very reasonable cut off, and it needs a barometer. Its not even that long. If this article would be removed, would a list of active players by number of hits be reasonable?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 21:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There are easy tests for that. WP:N and WP:GNG. I have yet to see anyone bring up a source which lists 2000 as a notable hit grouping. If this type of list is left to stand then there is literally no limit on the number of potential lists. 3000 hit club is an already existing, featured quality, heavily discussed by 3rd party sources list of baseball players by career hits. If this is left to stand then why not List of Major League Baseball players with 2001 hits, List of Major League Baseball players with 2002 hits, List of Major League Baseball players with 2003 hits, List of Major League Baseball players with 2004 hits, etc, etc? The use of arbitrary cutoffs makes sense for dynamic lists with a large/undefined number of members (such as List of highest paid Major League Baseball players). We already have a clearly defined career hits list (3000 hit club), however, that covers this subject. This is just meaningless, unnecessary, WP:NOTSTATS violating listcruft. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's one:[16]. Rlendog (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are some sources, presented without any judgment, as I am still undecided: [17][18][19][20][21] That last one is from 1949. Thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second source from NT Times says "Maybe 2,000 hits is not a huge accomplishment in baseball." I dont think anyone questions notability of 3000. At a generic sports stat level, while one could argue that one article on the list of leaders of a stat might be notable (throwing aside what the cutoff point is), someone needs to come up with a good argument for me to support two lists on the same stat, hits. —Bagumba (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the arguments, Stax is completely right. As these lists are, they are list cruft and should be deleted. The only way I could change my mind is if this article is rewritten as 2000 hit club with narrative and sourcing. Similarly, maybe we can revisit 600 home run club, which is just as arbitrary a cutoff not covering what 500 home run club covers in a proper way, and yet survived an AfD last year. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a list of those with the most career hits in major league baseball is certainly a notable list. Why 2000? Can't answer that--BUT that is an "editing" issue (and, of course, an "article renaming" issue) but not an issue of deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The notable list for MLB hit leaders already exists. It is called 3,000 hit club. This page is a completely unnecessary, completely unnotable extension of that list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 12:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidently it's not "completely" unnotable as you say--6 editors in this discussion believe it to be notable while 3 do not. While I understand that you believe it to be unnotable, to state that is it "completely" unnotable is putting unddue weight on your arguments and position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While I've enjoyed the irony in the argument that 2000 hits is arbitrary but 3000 hits is some gold standard, there is generally substantive media coverage when player get their 2000th hit. There isn't for their 2200th, or their 1987th, etc. It's a milestone that is deemed notable by media coverage, despite that it doesn't guarantee Baseball hall of fame admission (which though argued earlier, really has no bearing on the notability of this list). matt91486 (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For the dozenth time, WP:ROUTINE. The event of an individual player reaching 2000 hits gets noted in media reports, but the group itself has no notability. The clubs that have been listed satisfy WP:N because the group itself (such as the 3000 hit club) gets coverage from outside sources. The position you are arguing completely ignores the difference between notability of an event (reaching 2000 hits) and notability of all people who have achieved that moment. As I've said, someone's first ML hit is always noted in media reports, where is List of Major League Baseball players with one hit. Ditto for 100. And 500. And 1000. And usually 1500 and certainly 2500. If we allow collections of notable events where the collection itself is not notable then we will be able to double the size of Wikipedia purely with rehashing statistical group lists like this over and over again. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• To be clear, arbitrary cutoff lines have their place in lists where no other reasonable organizer exists. I take far less issue with a list like this for... Say career saves leaders because you need some limiter (you can't list every pitcher in history with a save) and no natural one exists from third-party sources. But with hits there is 3,000 hit club. With home runs there is 500 home run club. With wins there is 300 win club, etc. Going beyond those groups clearly set as notable by outside sourcing is turning WP:NOT#STATS on it's head. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:WABBITSEASON There's no need to keep repeating arguments already made.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess, but as an AFD with clear implications for a great many articles I would hope some of the many keep voters would answer my question/point rather than similarly repeating the same point and voting Keep. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the small number of people at the 2000 hit threshold compared to the overall number of players who have participated in baseball, I think it's obvious that coverage of this topic is not routine relative to day to day baseball coverage. It might happen every time a player reaches the mark, but that doesn't make it routine coverage. Routine coverage is a game box score and recap; milestones generally do not result in routine coverage of a player's career but something more. matt91486 (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeping count of a statistic for a few hundred people sounds pretty WP:ROUTINE to me. Especially since the article provides no context as to why 2000 hits means anything. As Stax said, why not set the cutoff at 2500, or 1500, or 2250? We have sites like Fangraphs, B Ref, the Cube, etc., for simply keeping count. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an almanac. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, to be fair, Wikipedia incorporates elements of almanacs (see WP:5P). As for the reason behind setting a cutoff at 2,000 hits – at the risk of stating the obvious, I suppose it's because 2,000 is more of a nice, round number than the others you've listed. I know that doesn't make it less arbitrary according to your interpretation, but still... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]