< 22 October 24 October >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm Kissing You[edit]

When I'm Kissing You (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 only unsourced, but even the Twitter source sums this article up: "Not true, that I know of". As fragile a piece of WP:CRYSTAL as you will find. —Kww(talk) 23:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:36, 24 October 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maneater of Hydra[edit]

Maneater of Hydra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable horror film. Fails WP:GNG and uses poor sources. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original 1967 Spanish release title:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original 1967 US release title:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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. DGG makes a convincing case here. Tone 21:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph W. Moss (writer)[edit]

Ralph W. Moss (writer) (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 really covered in reliable sources. Quite simply, there's just not enough information to make a sufficiently good, balanced article, and searches for good sources have apparently failed for many years.

Note that the only good, strong sources in the article... are just background sources, not specifically about him, used merely to provide the mainstream view on fringe theories he espouses. Once you ignore those, you end up with an incredibly weakly-sourced article, with no apparent hope of improvement. Source #3 is especially telling: http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/ralmosphdonl.html - this is used in close paraphrase to provide the history of Moss' life, despite coming from a questionable transcript of Moss talking about himself. It's not a suitable source for a WP:BLP, and fails pretty much every point of the guidelines for self-published sources by the article's subject, but it's arguably our main source for the article.

As for source #7, the only reliable source actually about Moss, it's available on Google books [5] and from that, we can see the coverage is limited to a single paragraph.

For a biography of a living person, we need top-notch sources. Without these, we pretty much have to fail it under the general notability guideline, since we simply lack the material to make an article. 86.** IP (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

86.** IP (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His books on cancer have reviews similar or greater holdings: The cancer industry : unraveling the politics has a review in the LA Times [9] -and Publishers Weekly [10] and Oncolink published by the Abrahamson Cancer Center of the University of Penna. [11] -- and there are 464 WorldCat holdings, again including all major university libraries- [12] The Cancer syndrome, his earlier version of The Cancer industry, itself has reviews in the Boston Glove [13] and LA Times [14] -- and 487 World Cat holdings, including the main academic libraries. [15]
The reviews prove notability. Library holdings are not a formal criterion and are not regarded a proving it, but they help show the notability. I can't imagine hundreds of mainstream health care libraries buying these books if he were not a major influence to be contended with. For most works by alternative medicine figures, there may be many public libraries, but only a few universities trying for completeness. Regardless of that, the reviews prove the notability of the author.
In declining the prod, I gave considerable weight to his membership on the Alternative Medicine Program Advisory Council of the National Institutes of Health. The Toronto Star apparently agrees with me, for they found this appointment worth an article . [16] The NIH also in its principal public review on Laetrile lists his work as the only non-academic reference they include. [17] and gives him a profile [18] I am really puzzled how the i.p. nom missed all this -- which is just from Google News Archive, supplemented with Google. Maybe he didn't look--I notice he does not say he made any attempt to check for references. The first commentator above right after him says he did look in G News--but he seems not to have found the many dozens of items, so maybe he didn't check in their Archive also. It's time people stopped judging by appearances. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis by 86.** IP Going through in order:

Conclusion: I do not believe that DGG's references serve to show that an article conforming with the stringent standards of WP:BLP can be constructed for Ralph W. Moss. A BLP has too high of standards to go by inherited notability. His books likely could have encyclopedic articles on them,.

In the end, between WP:BLP (we need high-quality sources), and the WP:GNG (there simply isn't the substantial coverage in secondary sources about Moss himself that we require), we don't seem to have a choice.

I admit this is surprising - one would think his career would make him more notable, but we have almost no information about him. I am happy to be shown wrong, but don't think DGG has as yet. 86.** IP (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what are we supposed to use to make the article? If there's no sources about him, we can't. 86.** IP (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can make a fine stub article that lists the non-controversial stuff, where he was born, went to school, worked, etc., plus a bibliography with a few reviews. That's enough. Whoever tagged the fact that he graduated such and such a school with "self-published source" was being overenthusiastic. With rare exceptions, when someone writes he personally graduated such and such a school, we believe them. That's not the "unduly self serving" material that WP:ABOUTSELF warns us about. --GRuban (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Toronto Star article found by DGG is probative: the man has been publicly notable for a number of years. GNG. Let's go ahead and cite that in the article.
Nom's analysis isseems zealous and incorrect, and seems to assume bad faith. I am sorely tempted to strikethrough its errors: I sincerely hope nom will do so.
  1. About ref #7, a paragraph is quite sufficient. It meets the definition of "substantial", and is clearly not trivial.
  2. Nom claims the NY Times 1988 book review "A Cut Lemon Doesn't Turn Brown" (single-page) spends only "one sentence" on Moss, but the article bears reading to show that's not true. 86 claims "not a book review at all", when in fact it clearly states "Mr. Moss's book is a detailed and quite readable study of the life of a man" and "he presents a generally sympathetic portrait of a man he clearly admires. He does not, however, gloss over ...". Bluntly, it's a book review.
    The way I read it was that it mentioned the book, then went on to talk about the subject, without mentioning the book again. I did skim, however. 86.** IP (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The NIH bio is not self-published; though it may have been provided by Moss, it is published by the NIH National Library of Medicine. It is therefore not an autobiographical statement, it is a biographical statement. If there were factual problems with that bio, it would either have been pulled or redacted. The NIH NLM PR office would not sanction unverifiable bios. As is the case with all secondary sources, we basically trust them.
  4. In fact, most BLPs about authors of notable works are thin on biographical totally independent sources (the reason for so few BLP GAs!). Most secondary sources about living authors consist of spotchecked autobios, and interviews. We trust them. The sources rule. Is the nom suggesting deleting all of the author BLPs, even though their works have attained considerable notability? I would hope not. This author is conclusively notable through their works and offices held, which (now, thx DGG) have RS.
  5. About the paywalled articles, per WP:V, verification has to be possible, not guaranteed to be easy or free. This includes university alumni records - all alumni can verify them, unwashed public cannot - but they are still considered verifiable, like it or not, because all it would take for anyone to verify that source is to register for a class, or befriend an alumnus, etc. An editor cannot arbitrarily exclude sources that he cannot or will not personally verify, see WP:SOURCEACCESS (trust me, I have some bitter experience with this).
  6. PBS's two productionsThe two documentary productions broadcast by PBS based on his work were in the 80's, and articles about them and press releases will be on paper. Again, WP:SOURCEACCESS. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, if there is reasonable certainty about the existence of sources, deletion should not be pursued.
  7. About WP:BLP, we require sourcing primarily in order to avoid blatant promo, falsehoods, and defamatory content. We permit wide latitude in primary sourcing, as long as secondary sources are also cited. Of course, extraordinary or controversial claims require stronger sources, but I see no such claims in this article mandating such a zealous pursuit of deletion.
  8. It is unseemly for a nom to argue, belittle, and gainsay every single point of every !vote different than the noms, and this should stop.
Auxiliary supportive, but not definitive, source: This validates Moss's claim, of his film documentary Albert Szent-Gyorgyi: A Special Gift - 1984 (production company, Pacific Street films). We'll have to go through offline 1984/85 newspaper archives for reviews of that show and The Cancer War - 1983, which may have won an award. My point is, sources exist, probably offline. The fact that the online independent biographical material is thin is insufficient justification for deletion. --Lexein (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I didn't think Book reviews would be good enough. I see that that's apparently acceptable, now, but please, assume a little good faith here. As for evaluating DGG's sources, that's what one should be doing, surely: I disagreed, yes, but only after considering it. Had I NOT considered them, that would have been far worse. 86.** IP (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The seeming stridency of the analysis and its seeming ABF prompted my stern-ish wish for some strikethroughs. Your courteous reply above frees me to AGF going forward. Analysis is good, but should still be civil. I tend to agree that book authorship and reviews alone would be on the bubble, without best-seller or other notable attached events or RS pub of any bio details. However, we have broader coverage than that, fortunately: films, officialdom, organizations, advocacy, etc., and we don't know any of his book sales ranks. I hope for depth at the library, and some movement of found sources into the text. . --Lexein (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise. I didn't mean for it to be uncivil; I merely meant to express disagreement, but was balancing 10 pages at the time, so was probably too blunt in my analysis. Honestly, if book reviews are enough, we can probably close this now; we'll be limited in how much we can say, but, I suppose DGG and you are right - we can say a bit, and I guess there's no harm doing the little bit we can. We can always look at it again later. Withdraw? 86.** IP (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gah - "never give up, never surrender". Text is a harsh medium; things can easily seem to be what they are not. I think a certain amount of grumpiness should be permitted, but I also overreact. I'm fine with this staying open for the usual period, for other voices (I've been wrong before), or withdrawing. --Lexein (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Washington Observation[edit]

Mount Washington Observation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

UFO claim is cited to a single fringe site. Does not have notability in reliable, independent sources. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the actual stereocard
That it is an ice formation makes it all the more notable - it means the UFO has landed! Looking at it closely, it's not a chunk of wood (too much structure at one end), it's not crud on the lens, it's not a smudge. It must be real. After all, it's not like a photographer taking a picture of a really large ice formation might have wanted to put something there for scale, is it? . . . Ach! . . . . never mind. Delete Maybe we need some special rule for WP:FRINGE material, whereby it has not met the benchmark for notability until it has become well enough known for someone with credibility to publicly debunk it. Agricolae (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One site even claims that a swastika is visible on the, er, thing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy App[edit]

Alchemy App (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined Prod. Application does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A search revealed no substantial, third-party sources which would suggest otherwise. France3470 (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alchemy (game). There's no reason whatsoever for this to have an article to itself, but it's worth a brief mention in the game's main article itself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Upon looking at the article, there's already a brief mention of the app version in the intro, which is all that's really required.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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 incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Pacifica Online Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pacifica Online[edit]

Pacifica Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Seems to fail WP:GNG, and the only potentially reliable source I could find was the video of the Homepage TV show. A Google search failed to provide any other reliable sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Inks.LWC (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 October 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, Rcsprinter (constabulary) 20:31, 23 October 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. At the moment there is simply no consensus to delete, but the article needs a lot of work to prevent another AfD in the future. – sgeureka t•c 08:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Love of Three Oranges (Dad's Army)[edit]

The Love of Three Oranges (Dad's Army) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 October 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, Rcsprinter (converse) 20:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wantage#Education. The opinion here is relatively split between merging the content and outright deletion due to lack of notability, though some do favour redirection. Common practice will generally redirect non-notable schools to a parent article, and I note that in this case Wantage#Education exists, so I'll redirect it there and anything worth merging can be done from the history, but care should be taken to not give the school undue weight in the article. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrew's School (Wantage)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St Andrew's School (Wantage) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Junior schools are not generally considered notable in Wikipedia and the article offers no reason to view this one as an exception. asnac (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 17 October 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, Rcsprinter (talk to me) 20:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would create a new Education subsection in Wantage and put it there. Sorry for the lack of clarity.--Milowent • hasspoken 11:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you were aware of a schools in Oxfordshire type article - I haven't been able to find one. I considered Wantage above, but if the only educational establishment listed is a defunct private school, I'm not sure that Wantage would be any better for it, and in any case I foresee other editors blanking the section as soon as it's created. asnac (talk) 19:32, 29 October 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. I know the AfD hasn't run a full course, but it doesn't have to - in this case, the hoaxes should be eliminated immediately. m.o.p 05:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Cruse-Cohen[edit]

Baron Cruse-Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sir David Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Jean Alexandre Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These three articles are hoaxes. There are various false claims that can be checked, e.g. that Sir David was a Privy Councillor or that Jean Alexandre Cohen (in early versions of his article) was Mayor of Charlotte, NC, but the basic point is that there is no such title as "Baron Cruse-Cohen". I have checked Debrett (the only source cited) and, also thepeerage.com. This AfD is a start on clearing a tangled web of hoaxes and misinformation inserted by a group of users, mainly throwaway accounts which edit on only one day, but one longer-running account and two IPs which appear to be static and which it may be possible to block. Credit to JoannaSerah (talk) and Vivisel (talk) who flagged these and have done considerable work on checking them out. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 23 October 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. Tone 21:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Desa.FM[edit]

Desa.FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems non-notable; no Google hit for any reliable, third-party source. The source cited does not even mention desa.FM. PleaseStand (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 23 October 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homa Quazilbash[edit]

Obviously I feel the article should be up. She's notable in Oregon and I feel it worthy of a wiki entry. Time since graduation from college is technically an irrelevant detail and the sources used are clear - they're from KTVZ! User:AAMKhanMD —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Homa Quazilbash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A news producer for the 5pm newscast at a TV news station in Bend, Oregon. Just graduated college and has only been a producer for 21 months. Article says she is a newscaster, but unable find references to where she is or not. There are videos of news stories on Google with her name attached, but never show her. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Prod was contested Bgwhite (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 October 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, Rcsprinter (state the obvious (or not)) 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: (Google search results for context)
  • It says at WP:BASIC, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article at its current state doesn't satisfy that, neither do the search results. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 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.

Ijosé Chow

The result of this discussion was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "histhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ijosé_Chow&action=historyory" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. postdlf (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife Acoustics[edit]

Wildlife Acoustics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had been looking over the 'bat detector' page, preparing to do some editing to include better information about some of the more state of the art "full spectrum" detectors (such as those made by Wildlife Acoustics and Pettersson Elektronik). I am a bat researcher in the U.S., and have used many of the call recording & analysis systems available. When I found that the page for Wildlife Acoustics has been proposed for deletion, as "not notable" I posted comments to apparently the wrong place (talk) so am adding them here. I believe that the Wildlife Acoustics entry is notable, has publicly verifiable information and should remain a separate entry. This company's products are in use worldwide in wildlife bio-acoustic studies and surveys. I suspect that when the bio-acoustic and bat detector Wiki entries are updated & improved, then the significance of Wildlife Acoustics's contribution to state of the art technologies for bird and bat surveys will be more apparent. I am familiar with some non-industry sources, such as bat research and professional meeting presentation that have had discussions and evaluations of the products and technologies that are being developed by this outfit, including coverage in at least 3 formal presentations at the Western Bat Working Group 2011 meetings and articles in the newsletters such as the one on page 20 of Western Canada Bat Network- Newsletter - Fall2009.Bigearedbatguy (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)— Bigearedbatguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (gossip) 20:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

t*Keep here's enough to show the company notable in its special field. that's all that is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Catholic Answers. The points raised by the keep !voters generally stated that the article had sufficient references. However, there is also a general agreement that the sources in the article were not reliable and independent. As such, the result lies with the delete or merge !voters, who generally agreed that Jimmy Akin's coverage in Google News claimed sufficient noteworthiness that could be used in the Catholic Answers article.

Anything worth merging can be done from the article's history. (non-admin closure) →Στc. 01:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Akin[edit]

Jimmy Akin (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 real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:AUTHOR. prod removed without change. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please identify any of the sources found by Google News that have coverage of Akin, rather than just quoting him? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 October 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, Rcsprinter (constabulary) 20:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, name 2 that are not a Blog or a CA publication.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:14, 26 October 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Cheng[edit]

Pablo Cheng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article doesn't state reason for notability, however it has been around for a long time. Is this person really notable? SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus at this time seems to be to keep the article, but this does not mean it cannot be re-nominated at a future date. Those in favor of deletion note that there is no available information for a biography and those in favor of keeping say there is. The article is less than a month old. I would suggest letting it be for a couple more months to see if anyone can add any useful biographical information before renominating for deletion. (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giuliano Mignini[edit]

Giuliano Mignini (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:NOTSCANDAL This article lacks any verifiable biographical information because it is not publicly available. The page as it stands only exists to question the reputation and credibility of the individual. I would suggest the content should be split into The Monster of Florence article (which currently has nothing on him mentioned, even though it has been cited as grounds for notability) and into either Murder of Meredith Kercher (the only article to link to him) or Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (if it continues to exist) and probably given a good review to ensure that it is not being given undue weight. Connolly15 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like you have not read your own link to WP:BLP2E which I will quote here for you: "BLP2E or Subjects notable only for two events is not a policy on Wikipedia. It is a misconception of some editors that WP:BLP1E can be extended to two (or more) events. Arguments invoking BLP2E as a reason someone is not notable are outside of policy and fallacious. It invokes induction where it doesn't apply. It is similar to saying that a hamburger stored at room temperature will never rot because if it is edible now, it is also edible a microsecond later." Dougbremner (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you did not read the banner at the top of WP:BLP2E, which states that the page reflects the opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors and is not an authoritative policy or guideline. My point is that instead of offering any kind of balanced overview of the subject's life, this BLP is almost exclusively dedicated to a small handful of events with which he is connected, essentially forming a content fork of other articles (or should that be POV fork?) SuperMarioMan 15:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SMM, I think the point is that you made an argument that seemed to point to a WP policy/guideline supporting your view, when in fact it is not a WP policy/guideline and it directly opposes your point of view. I mean, go ahead and make your point, that's fine. But why make the point in a condescending and arrogant tone when it looks like your original opinion was not as accurate or clear as it could have been.LedRush (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm still trying to get my head around 'that' response. I certainly won't waste that much time in the future. It is just argumentative and banal. Dougbremner (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, the link was a poor choice, and for that I apologise. That aside, in my original comment I still went on to explain quite clearly how I believed that the article was unsatisfactory (i.e. the lack of unique, non-WP:CONTENTFORK text). SuperMarioMan 19:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been live for almost 2 weeks and I raised this issue a few days ago. It was only after it was nominated for deletion that some biographical information was added (by you only I believe) and it seems to all be cited to one book - "A lot" of information seems to be missing if you have it in reliable sources. I have looked through a lot of the Google hits (mind you not 199,000 worth) and most are covering the same story - the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. (Connolly15 (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Please check WP:NOTSCANDAL. Although this may be true, Wikipedia is not a venue for a witch hunt and you cannot write articles about living persons which only seek to attack them. (Connolly15 (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
A Google search between 1/1/2001 and 10/31/2007 (day before the murder) filtered as follows: "giuliano mignini" -2008 -2009 -2010 -2011 -knox -preston, gives 14 hits. The number one hit is an obscure essay Mignini wrote on Christianity and the law. This is not notable man apart from the monster he has been been portrayed to be by his two nemeses. Brmull (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I wasn't questioning notability. I raised BLP concerns, which were not addressed by the editors of the article (and I tried to find the information myself without success). Some progress has been made to address the distinct lack of biographical information but only after this deletion request was made. Unfortunately, the "ton of biographical information" was excluded from the article originally, which seems to suggest it was not created with the intention of being a biography at all. I'm happy to see a couple of authors are now making efforts to address the BLP concerns, though the ton of biographical information, in my opinion, is still not there - and what has been added all comes from one source, which seems to suggest the information is actually not that prevalent. (Connolly15 (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Actually, a quick look at the references suggest that the biographical information comes from about 3 pages of one book. Quite a bit of basic information about him, in my opinion, is still missing. (Connolly15 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I agree that the legitimate BLP concerns must be addressed.LedRush (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, happy days, we are now citing stories from The Sun about him without even mentioning that our source is a tabloid! Definitely presenting a legitimate neutral point of view... (Connolly15 (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
That view doesn't make any sense. Mignini isn't notable because he sometimes unsuccessfully prosecutes defendants. He has played an important role in two of the biggest murder cases in the last 100 years in Italy. That's what makes him notable. And the media was reporting on Mignini far before Knox and Sollecito were found innocent on appeal. Like when they were found guilty at the lower level. He had just as much media attention then. Let's not make this into something it isn't.LedRush (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. So, why are we including content about the unrelated prosecution of Bulgari? (Connolly15 (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
If it's picked up by reliable sources, it may be included, but we'd have to be careful of putting undue weight on not-very notable subjects. I took your comment above as an argument against an article and responded to it as such. If that is not your view, and you are merely discussig the inclusion of Bulgari, wouldn't the article space be better for this?LedRush (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just went to the page. It seems that Bulgari is notable enough to have her own WP article, and that reliable sources covered this case (like CBS news). Seems fine for inclusion to me. And, of course, it strengthens the case for this article to survive deletion. Still, the best place for the argument seems to be the article's talk page.LedRush (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the CBS News source all it does is cite a British tabloid (The Sun). (Connolly15 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
An "appropriate amount of biographical information" that seems to be limited to the first two lines of the introduction and the one-and-a-half-line paragraph that makes up the section ambitiously titled "Education and career". The rest is pretty much just a rehash of sections of Monster of Florence, Murder of Meredith Kercher and Brigitta Bulgari. Fifteen out of the 27 "RSs" (apparently, something that was originally reported in The Sun now passes the test for reliability) include the name "Knox" in the title, which is rather suggestive (at least to me) of what this "BLP" is really about. SuperMarioMan 15:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP is not a notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think she ment this one - WP:Notability_(people) Dougbremner (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever was meant, it was just was WP:VAGUEWAVE "vote" to be dismissed. Nothing at all of substance. Tarc (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "2 major events" are actually related: There was almost zero media coverage of Mignini's involvement in the MOF case until the Kercher case came along and some people sought to draw a parallel. I checked the article again today and it looks like a stub that has been drawn out by repeating similar information in different ways. Despite the encyclopedic tone, there is an unmistakeable sense that the page is devoted to airing Mignini's dirty laundry. Brmull (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. the sources added after the relisting were clearly convincing, for almost all the subsequent comments after they were added were keep. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network[edit]

International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP in that there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. —Biosketch (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

( Please note immediately-following reply was added per wp:indent after most or all of the comments from other !voters shown below had already been posted. )
@Biosketch: The WP:NONPROFIT subsection of WP:CORP is the applicable governing policy in this AfD; just mentioning WP:CORP in its entirety is too broad. Saying the same thing another way, WP:CORP comprises Alternate Criteria for Specific Types of Organizations which itself comprises WP:NONPROFIT, which states:
( non-commercial ) Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
(1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
(2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple third-party, independent, reliable sources.
Non-commercial orgainizations have a much lower bar to clear to establish notability than wp:corporations do, in other words.  – OhioStandard (talk)
A misinterpretation, Lambian? It's a subtle distinction, but if it's notability of the orgaization we're considering, not the reliability of any assertions made by the guest writer, then it seems to me that it's the independence of the publisher that's most relevant. Here we have an independent print newspaper with a circulation of 75,000, The Register-Guard, that has judged this organization and its message as being significant, timely, and relevant enough to merit the attention of its readership, and on the prime real-estate of its A7 editorial page, too. Of course, if the text had been self-published (e.g. if it only appeared in the newspaper only via a paid advert) then that would be a different matter; that wouldn't say anything at all the notability of the org. But as I see it, a guest editorial does.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
( note timestamp ) Similarly, I just found a ten-minute video interview/debate with IJAN spokesperson/co-founder Mich Levy, published under the title | Not all Jews support the Israeli government by RT News. I include it here just to keep like with like: The RT interview is pretty general I/P slugfest stuff, but a similar argument applies as with the guest editorial, as I see it. RT News considers IJAN important enough ( or however you want to say that ) to use their representative as a principal in a debate/interview.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —RolandR (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A small radical group can still be notable. That's not the problem. The problem is that the sources that establish this organization's notability aren't independent third-party reliable sources – and the independent third-party reliable sources that do mention the organization don't establish its notability. What I find most perplexing, though, is that you've not seen fit to make any comment in relation to FrontPage Magazine, which currently seems to be the number-one source being invoked for arguing that IJAN meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. After all the energy you invested in this dicussion, one would think you'd at least have something nasty to say about them in this context. Not to mention that you were personally brought here by an editor yesterday to reconsider your vote.—Biosketch (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, Biosketch, you're making this terribly personal. There was nothing even remotely improper in this notification. I bet many more of the early "delete" !votes here would also change if the editors who registered them revisited this re the sources that have now been added. Don't you want !voters to give their best judgments based on the fullest and most current information available?
And no, I wasn't aware that FrontPage Magazine had previously been disqualified at RSN. But so what? We still have 15 or 20 other WP:RS articles that establish notability just fine, thank you.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I.E. news coverage shows the group's importance and the article written by a member and possibly its own site gives details. This is what is normal for most political activist groups here. No reason to treat this one differently. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is "antisemitic"? If you think the article is antisemitic, then change it. But if you think the group is itself antisemitic, then that is certainly not a valid reason for deletion. RolandR (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a service to people who do not read German, on the page of the German-language source that is accessible via Google, the organization is the subject of the two sentences at the top of the page, apparently in the context of a general discussion of the concepts of antizionism and antisemitism. The two sentences, of which the first is incomplete, translate as: "... 2008 the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network [was] founded. It was initiated by a Jew living in Canada."  Sandstein  19:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you note I haved not voted.Slatersteven (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I broke it out as a side note. Horologium (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Need to reconfirm me (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So instead of deleting it, you'll replace the article with a redirect? Virtually the same thing. Is there more than a sentence or two at most that would actually be "merged"? Dream Focus 21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An artciel does not have to claim notability, we just need soourcs that discuse them in a couple of paragraphs. We have sources that do this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what doesn't qualify as significant coverage: " Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability."—Biosketch (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, the full sentance says "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." This is excatly what has been done. This clearly meets the notabilty criteria, but thank you for drawing my attention to the fact. Two paragraphs discussing the organisations activities [40] . This [41] says “International Jewish Anti-Zionist … have important roles in creating policy and setting anti-Israel agendas but do not organize a significant number of events.” So the ADL think they are important, this also from the ADL [42].Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a comment at the Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). There's a problem, in my opinion, with the way WP:CORPDEPTH is formulated. It starts out saying that depth of coverage is the crucial consideration, only to undermine its own claim by next saying that unsubstantial coverage is fine as long as it spans multiple sources. It then concludes by reinforcing its first claim and contradicting the second one.—Biosketch (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It says "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered", not that it is crucial. Indeed I see no contradiction, it says that either one very in-depth source or multiple non-in-depth sources are needed to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The modal must communicates obligation, i.e. we're obligated to consider depth of coverage, which is also the spirit that issues from "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient."—Biosketch (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What defines Trivial or incidental coverage"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any independent sources which discuss the organization's aims or goals? It's rather obvious that the only sources in the article (or which have been referenced in this discussion) that cite the goals of the group (beyond mentioning that they organized a specific seminar or were amongst a score of groups invited to speak at a handful of symposia) are sources from the group's own website. Even the sources which are critical (from the ADL) don't mention the group, only specific incidents without any context at all. If the group is notable, then somebody must have discussed them in a depth greater than what is presented here. I don't see that for this group. Horologium (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already cited in the article the book by Irish academic David Landy, Jewish Identity and Palestimnian Rights: Disapora Jewish Opposition to Israel, which refers several times to IJAN. This is clearly an independent and reliable source. RolandR (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please quote the three relevant pages of the book (pg 118 and pp 213-214) to demonstrate that they are more than a cursory discussion of the book? Again, I am not contesting the reliability of the sources; I am stating that they are not the substantial independent coverage. But now that you've brought it up, a publication from the former chair of the "Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign" might have some issues with weight and balance. Horologium (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most substantial reference is on page 118: "This is far from the case and it may well be that Americans are more aware of this problem; it is suggestive that the transnational organisation IJAN is by origin a US enterprise. While still a very small network, IJAN, established in 2007, has attracted considerable interest due to its uncompromisingly anti-Zionist pole of Jewish resistance to Israel. In terms of activism, IJAN is primarily involved in the boycott campaign, but has ambitions to set itself up as a transnational anti-Zionist pole of Jewish resistance to Israel. While it has small groups in Canada, India, Argentina and several European countries, its main organisational base is in the USA. Nevertheless it can legitimately be called a transnational network since it consciously tries to coordinate activities across continents --- one example of this is its campaign against the Jewish National Fund (JNF) for its involvement in ethnic cleansing in Israel/Palestine, and more broadly for its rôle in furthering what is seen as a racist vision of an ethnically pure Israeli state." There are also less substantial references to IJAN on pages 92, 100, 108, 152, 164, 195, 213 and 215. Please note that Landy, who discusses in the introduction to the book his possible conflict of interest as a Jew and a former chair of Irish PSC, is a lecturer on race, ethnicity and conflict in the department of sociology at Trinity College Dublin, and thus an acknowledged expert on the subject. RolandR (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that David Landy's name appears at this IJAN petition (number 243 on the list). He openly endorses the group and therefore might not qualify as an independent source.—Biosketch (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Signing a petition hosted on the IJAN website is not the same as "openly endorsing" the group, which Landy has not done. IJAN is merely one of the 30 groups and individuals sponsoring the petition. Landy's book, based on his PhD dissertation, is a peer-reviewed academic study of the subject; and one of the first to study this issue. As I note above, in the introduction Landy explicitly addresses the implications of his own activism. The section is too long to copy, but I recommend reading what he has to say in this before dismissing the book as necessarily biased. RolandR (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This organization's Never Again for Anyone on-campus event at Douglass College of Rutgers University on 29 January 2011 gained considerable coverage. It was met with very emphatic and well-organized opposition from Zionist groups. There were accusations and counter-accusations between opposing groups and this organization that generated significant coverage from multiple media sources:
  • The Jewish Week published a guest editorial about the organization, the Never Again for Anyone tour, and the controversy at Rutgers. It should be noted that this opinion piece was written by one a young man affiliated with the group that was most prominent in organizing opposition to the Rutgers event, a young man named Sam Weiner, "a junior at Rutgers studying Jewish Studies and Political Science. He is a member of Rutgers Hillel and is a member of the board of directors of Hillel International" according to his byline. See here re the Hillel group's involvement.
I haven't checked other locations where the Never Again for Anyone events were also held. But it'd probably be worth looking into that more closely... Oh, wait; there was evidently also some controversy around the tour's event at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee:
I also saw some criticism of the Never Again for Anyone events held in Canada and California, but only in obscure, possibly non-RS sources. Also, the org's own description of the Rutger's controversy can currently be found on the its subsidiary website, NeveragainForAnyone.com, while Rutger's official statement about the controbversy may also be of interest.
Please note that I haven't added any of the above to the article myself. I'm not spending as much time here as I have in the past, and find that I'm enjoying research more than composition lately, anyway. I hope other editors will feel free to use the sources I've documented here to contribute content to the article itself.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are excellent sources for Anti-Zionism#Jewish_anti-Zionism but don't actually discuss the organisation in a great deal of detail. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Policy does not require indepth coverage, just non trivial coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
  1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
  2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,<ref name=Multiple /> third-party, independent, reliable sources.
Note that it is necessary for the organization to meet both criteria. Is the scope of IJAN's activities national or international? It hasn't been established that IJAN's activities are either national or international in scale. Can information about the organization and its activities be verified by independent reliable third-party sources? Presumably "information" in this context means, Who founded the organization?; When was it founded?; Where are its offices located?; How many members does it have?; Who currently leads the organization? etc. Outside of the organization's own publications and the writings of individuals variously affiliated with it, there's little or no information about the organization and its activities in reliable sources.—Biosketch (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Edited per request.—Biosketch (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Debolded per request.—Biosketch (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well apart from organsing speaking tours and demos in the USA, attending gatherings in Ireland, and suppriting tours in Scotland no. An organisation is RS for information about itself.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an independent RS as required, though.—Biosketch (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RS do not have to be independant, as long as the information is not unduly self serving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. So for information like who set them up or When it ws founded they would be RS for.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just so, Slatersteven: policy says self-published sources are fine in this case for basic, non-controversial organizational information. And anyway, half the questions Biosketch says can't be answered from independent sources are actually independently documented in the very first source I listed : "The IJAZN (sic) was created in 2008 when Professor Moshe Machover and Selma James announced the adoption of the organization’s charter at a press conference in London." Different sources also verify this, along with related organizational information.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, re national/international objection Biosketch raised, perhaps I gave him the wrong impression in a comment I made above about the organization's recent Never Again for Anyone tour. It didn't just take place at Rutgers; those tour/events were all across the U.S., in 15 major cites, and also included Toronto, Canada, as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only in the US and Canada. In 2010, the tour visited Paris, Lyon, Strasbourg, Vienna, Geneva, Berlin, Glasgow, Dundee, Edinburgh, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester, London, Belfast and Dublin.[43] RolandR (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still, as User:Nableezy was honest enough to point out, FrontPage Magazine isn't considered a WP:RS as far as Wikipedia goes. The Admin considering this AfD needs to note carefully that per WP:NONPROFIT two criteria need to be met. Assuming good faith vis-a-vis User:RolandR's argument for international scope (I don't know where the sources are for all those cities, but supposing there are sources), we're still left without independent third-party reliable sources that give details about the organization and its activities.—Biosketch (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re WP:NONPROFIT criterion one: No one here, including Biosketch, genuinely disputes that "the scope of their activities is national or international in scale". If he doesn't like their web site claims, or the press clippings there, well, we've already cited five separate WP:RS articles documenting one of its recent tour events in New Jersey, one WP:RS article for its event in Wisconson, and here's an as-yet-unmentioned source documenting the Toronto events and the ensuing controversy there. The org's recent U.K. events were also documented in WP:RS articles, e.g. this London RS article does so. Even tha Anti-Defamation League's own press-releases mention, in the past tense, about all the different places around the world this org has made these presentations.
Re WP:NONPROFIT criterion two: Can "information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources"? Information about its activities sure can, easily: We have an abundance of reliable source articles about its activities. I'd also like to see e.g. a "history of" article about the org that user Biosketch keeps insisting is necessary to meet this part of the standard, of course, but I'm not willing to say it isn't notable because we haven't found one. That just seems pretty far fetched when its activities get so much coverage and generate so much controversy. Organizations always get much more coverage for what they do than what they are, anyway; than for their structure & history. Besides, it would seem absurd to admit, as we can't avoid doing based on the press coverage, that their international presentations comparing the Holocaust with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians are notable, but the organization making them isn't.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—Biosketch (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, not done. Your "done" edit still says "I'm formally logging my vote as a strong delete" with "strong delete" in boldface, no less. Thanks for your response, but you missed the point: As nominator, you have no separate vote; it's implicit in your nomination.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lay of the personal comments people.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
(2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple 3rd-party, independent, RS."
This org clearly meets criterion (1), and re criterion number (2), it gets so much press ( 15+ articles ) for its activities that I don't much care that no WP:RS journalist appears to have done a "history" article on the organization yet. Further, I don't think this really needs the nudge, but I'll also go ahead and mention that a bit lower in the text for WP:NONPROFIT, the policy suggests that "Factors that have attracted widespread attention" ( which would appear to include generating emphatic controversy documented in national and international media ) are also relevant to notability.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bambu Cocoa[edit]

Bambu Cocoa (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 reads like an advertisement, contains no references except an external link to the company that produces the product and makes various claims that go beyond what is claimed on the one external link. Autarch (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Forgot to mention - no indication of notability.Autarch (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 23 October 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. Tone 21:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Paragliding Association[edit]

World Paragliding Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by Joe Faust about own organization, this article does not meet our general notability requirements, not does it meet WP:GROUP. In particular, a Google News, Scholar and Book search for "World Paragliding Organization" yield zero hits, while a Google web search reveals no coverage by independent reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this really matters, but while trying to understand his topic ban, JoeFaust mentioned that the article isn't dishonest; speaking as Joe Faust (the actual human being who registered the organization), apparently the history is a bit more complicated than that (and has to do with name changes on several sides). I'm not going to go into the details because it doesn't really have any bearing on the deletion discussion (because the exact ownership/recognition doesn't specifically say anything about notability) but we should be careful when we use words like "dishonest"; it's much better just to state that something is incorrect (with reasons). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I withdraw 'dishonest' and put 'misleading' in it's place. Sorry Joe. Jontyla (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very glad to see this. Whatever problems Mr. Faust may be having with complying with our guidelines, he's remained polite and respectful in the face of some pretty heated pushback, and we should acknowledge that, I think. Google reveals that he has played his own role in the history of hang gliding and we need to appreciate that; even if he may be having trouble complying with our editing policies, there's a real world person out there. So kudos for retraction and apology. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to C data types. This is a close one, but the "Keep" votes are not very convincing - and one of them waffles into merge/redirect. Also, I'd like to adddress something: the OP's statement that it was just redirected to - the same as deleting it but without a afd. Specifically, that this is untrue. Redirecting has the page history present for accessibiity for merging or reverting; deleting makes content go bye-bye. The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limits.h[edit]

Limits.h (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Please show specific examples. As far as I can see, most of these books are programming manuals/teaching books which fail significant coverage criteria of WP:GNG, because if we remove the how-to part of the content, only very limited mention of limits.h is left. That notable material is already at C data types, no need for a separate page. 1exec1 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this material in C data types. I see brief mention of some of the data types and one single mention of limits.h, but zero details. The coverage of this material simply does not fit into what WP:NOTMANUAL covers. This material does not explain "how to" do something. This material gives an overview and is precisely the type of thing our readers come to Wikipedia to get a brief overview of. Our notability guidelines also state: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content [...]" so the idea of "That notable material is already at C data types, no need for a separate page." has no place at all in this discussion. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please show what specific material is not included and I'll show where to read at C data types. 1exec1 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I didn't want to AFD it. The place for discussions like this is in the talk page, not here, since replacing the content with a redirect doesn't need attention of an administrator. 1exec1 (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, bringing this to AfD was indeed the correct thing to do in this case, for the very reasons Christian75 brought it to AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, deletion of many other similar C programming-related articles (including among others, inttypes.h [44] and tgmath.h [45]) by way of redirection is highly inappropriate. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's already in Wikibooks at b:C Programming/C Reference/limits.h. 1exec1 (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing this allows us to do is to add ((Wikibooks|C Programming/C Reference/limits.h)) to the external links. Any material which explains in detail how to apply limits.h to a software program can be included on Wikibooks (such material is not present in this article). --Tothwolf (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I believe this passes WP:GNG for the reasons you mentioned, I also believe this fits the exact and intended purpose of WP:NOTMANUAL. I.e it belongs on Wikibooks (b:C Programming/C Reference/limits.h) instead of Wikipedia. Could you argue why you think this does not fit WP:NOTMANUAL instead of merely asserting it? —Ruud 09:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone has transwikied material which they believe fits in well with other material on another wiki does not mean it should exist in only one location. Could you argue why you think this fits WP:NOTMANUAL instead of merely asserting it? I've already stated my reasons, but the main argument that it is an "instruction manual" does not make sense as this material is an overview and does not explain "how to" actually do something. It also isn't a "travel guide", a "video game guide", an "internet guide", a "FAQ", a "textbook", a "scientific journal" or "research paper", "academic language" (it uses common usage), or "case study". I've begun to witness people again and again attempt to misapply WP:NOTMANUAL to more and more encyclopedic material seemingly for the purposes of creating "busy work" so that they can look active and this is not a good trend. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the specific phrases "how-to" and "owner's manual" don't adequately describe Limits.h, it belongs in a reference manual, not in an encyclopedia. I think #1 in WP:NOTMANUAL is the one which is relevant. As I read more carefully, I see that #8 in WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies: "Wikipedia articles are not a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Emphasis mine of course: knowledge includes facts but it's not just a list of all available facts. #3 in WP:INDISCRIMINATE says "Wikipedia articles should not be excessive listings of statistics." While it's written to discourage, say, publishing a list of the median income of every U.S. census-tract, its intent is relevant here. --Pnm (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There exist many different kinds of reference works. There exist reference works listing the names and parameters of all functions of the standard libraries of hundreds of different programming languages (often called "language references", "programmer's guides" or simply "manuals", although these differ from the kind of "manual" that describe how to operate your microwave). An encyclopedia does not happen to be such a kind of reference work. An encyclopedia will give you summary of what the C standard library is, historical and other background information. A language reference gives you an in-depth description of each functions that makes up the C standard library. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikibooks hosts other kinds of reference works such as language references. —Ruud 23:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already merged to C data types, that is, the content is rewritten so that it fits into the layout of the target article. Please specify what exactly is in limits.h but not C data types and does not fail WP:NOTMANUAL. 1exec1 (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite those arguments, the material has not been "merged to C data types" and it absolutely does not "fail WP:NOTMANUAL". --Tothwolf (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to elaborate sentence by sentence which material has been included? Or will you read and compare the articles again more carefully? Please show specific material that has not been merged before asserting that. 1exec1 (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SpiderBabe[edit]

SpiderBabe (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. No reliable links come up on a Google search. Cleanliness (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 23 October 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Bulldog III[edit]

Operation Bulldog III (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 know due to the date of the training (1955) the number of hits on internet is not very reliable, but 192 hits is seriously low. No books mentioned and a tag that casts doubts about neutrality and notability (due to COI):This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Night of the Big Wind talk 17:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Wellow, Hampshire. Black Kite (t) 14:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wellow School[edit]

Wellow School (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 primary school. First reference is just a link to the school itself. Second doesn't really discuss the school, only the head teacher. Third reference does discuss school, but one reference in a local paper is not enough to meet WP:GNG. I prodded, but it was removed soon after; note that simply existing is not sufficient to have a WP article--the school must meet our notability rules (see WP:GNG). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a source

I added a source to identify the school, it is just as noteworthy as any other primary school in the UK. I can edit it so it meets Wikipedia's notability rules WP:GNG), and therefore it should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAmberGold (talk • contribs) 16:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stats may show that primary school articles are in fact almost invariably redirected. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessarily so, since the chances of anyone searching for them are pretty low! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to get the community to change their opinion on primary schools then. Currently, the consensus is that, just like any other organization except for high schools and universities, must meet our notability requirements. Also, please note that SuperRepublic is almost certainly the same editor as User:MrAmberGold; an SPI is being opened right now. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to clarify, the added source is still a primary source, so it still doesn't establish notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, they are not. Primary schools do not generally have articles. Where have you seen articles on village primary schools on Wikipedia? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, the sock (MrAmberGold blocked indef, SuperRepublic blocked a week) has a good point. Take a look at Category:Primary schools in Hampshire. For that matter, take a look at Category:Primary schools in England. OMG. Some of them are single line stubs; I've so far found only 1 with a reference. I'm going to start looking at these over the next few days. I'll probably just redirect every one that doesn't have good references, then XfD each one that gets undone. I guess I know what I'll be doing with my WP cleanup time for the next few days/weeks. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Either these articles should be deleted or they are exceptions for specific reasons of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be an exception if those sources established notability, but they do not. [www.thisishampshire.net/news/8736400.Schools_march_up_the_league_tables/ This is Hampshire article] only lists the school in a list of 5 other schools, with no specific information about Wellow. The Romsey Advertiser article only mentions that the school is getting a new name on the library. The Diocese of Winchester article doesn't even mention the school by name, and all it says is that they have a plaque given by the Nightingale family. None of these sources actually talk about the school. In other words, the first source just mentions it as one of a number of schools with no special notability, and the latter two don't talk about it so much as a school as they do a place that happens to have some historical artifacts/connection to a historical subject (and, of course, notability is not inherited). Trivial mentions in a variety of local papers are not sufficient to meet GNG or any other test of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, I just happened to accidently click on this site and In my opinion I think it should be kept because it looks like it has some historical significance, being that it was founded by Florence nightingale and also there are other Primary schools on Wikipedia that have less significance than this, some are even just stubs being described by 1 simple sentence like this one [52] and the next one only includes 2 paragraphs of information with little significance [53]. I think it now meets WP:ORG as it it clearly states that if it's noteworthy and has references that are fully verifiable then it should be on Wikipedia (like it says on the policy), It is noteworthy and it has been cleaned up by TerriersFan. Supersilver10 (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Supersiver34Supersilver10 (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Obvious sock is obvious (look at user's contribution history, including blanking of the talk pages of the previous socks. SPI already opened. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korean players' victories on LPGA Tour[edit]

Korean players' victories on LPGA Tour (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 article is WP:OVERCAT. It is not realistic to have a list for every country that has had winners on the LPGA and a list of each winner, tournament and date of win. There is no reason to do this for Korea and not for USA, England, Sweden, etc. Instead I propose that a new article be created: Winners of LPGA Tour Event by Nation. This would include a list of countries that have had winners on the LPGA, the number of winners, and the winning year span. --Crunch (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 23 October 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. Tone 21:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distillers of alcohol in India[edit]

Distillers of alcohol in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A personal essay full of original research and lacking any sources so unverifiable. Appears to be a copy of a previously deleted article under this or another name - note the tag dates which predate the creation of this article. Prod was removed by the author without explanation. Sparthorse (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 October 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. Tone 21:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DataTune[edit]

DataTune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable computer program. Previously deleted as advertising. No indications or claims of notability. No references. Google search on DataTune "Data Cleansing" shows only 24 unique results, none from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly ask you NOT to delete this article. We will provide additional references as needed. Thanks --212.29.234.47 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)— 212.29.234.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There seems to be no reason to redirect this page to only one of the several pages that use the term fully qualified, and creating a dab page in this case makes no sense. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 11:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fully qualified[edit]

Fully qualified (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:DICTDEF; WP:SYNT. I am fully qualified to nominate it for deletion, should I be mentioned in the article as well? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation page? —Ruud 20:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated, and despite which I think a dab page would be the best way to help our readers. —SMALLJIM  14:35, 31 October 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. I considered userfying but the page creator has been blocked. If anybody else wants to bang on this article just ask me. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assisted fishing[edit]

Assisted fishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD. Concern was "No evidence at all of notability". The article describes a film that has not yet been released. Consequently, reliable third-party sources are triflingly few and distantly far between. Article does not assert notability. Subject fails WP:NF and, currently, WP:NFF. ClaretAsh 12:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a pre-emptive strike against someone coming on here to vote stack, I want to emphasize ahead of time that AfD is not a vote. You can make your argument as to why the article should remain, but in the end an administrator goes over the arguments and decides based upon the strengths of what was said. I also want any potential visitors to visit WP:MOVIE, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Google Chrome#Release history and delete history per CSD G12. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Chrome complete version history[edit]

Google Chrome complete version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Besides the fact that all of this is directly copied from the sources and it is thus a copyright violation it is also a textbook example of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, to be more precise, point 6
"Changelogs or release notes. An article about a product should include a history of its development and major improvements; creating a list of all changes to software or hardware between each minor version violates other precepts of this policy." Yoenit (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a release history table at Google_Chrome#Release_history, which contains more then enough information about the changes between version. Yoenit (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be on the safe side I stuck a ((copyvio)) on the article, the material is after all a copyright violation, rather than let deletion depend on copyright concerns however I would like to focus on the inherent unsuitability of the material. Yoenit (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:05, 23 October 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 please assist to format the sources. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. George El Mozahem[edit]

St. George El Mozahem (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 article is of an assumed person with no verifiable historical fact of existance, at least none shown in the sources listed. It appears to be solely based on a fabled story in church fliers which seems to be copied from each other, week in plot, and ficticious in character and detail. The article can remain if it is made clear that this person is not a historical person and that his existence is just a matter of belief. Ahmed Khalil (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Boy with a Thorn in His Side[edit]

The Boy with a Thorn in His Side (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 reliable sources available to indicate this film's notability. Mattg82 (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please don't relist this again.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Barrow Group[edit]

The Barrow Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems not to be notable. There are no reliable sources and I can find none myself. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The Barrow Group is a NYC theatre company that has been around for 25 years, has won a Drama-Desk award for off-Broadway Excellence[1], and plays that have been workshopped / produced there have been nominated for the Pulitzer Prize (i.e. Old Wicked Songs [2] ) and OBIE award (i.e. The Tricky Part [3]). The Barrow Group School has trained actors who have gone on to great success, Anne Hathaway for instance, and these actors have credited the school as the institution that taught them how to act (Anne Hathaway: "The Barrow Group was the acting institution that taught me how to act" [4].)

At one point, I had entered a much longer description-- noting the awards and the productions that have been done there. However this was deleted by another editor as they stated that it seemed like advertising. The article was changed (with the help of the editor I think) to how it appears now. I agree that there is not much information, but I have not updated the article as I've been afraid that adding any more would get it deleted again. Do you have any suggestions? Thank you!

  1. ^ http://www.nyc-arts.org/organizations/view/id/1930
  2. ^ http://www.playbill.com/news/article/90933-Barrow-Group-Presents-Hillary-Baacks-Autobiographical-Birth-Story-Feb-4-25-in-NYC
  3. ^ http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/Acting-Workshops-New-York-City-Theatre-Group/1262176
  4. ^ http://www.angelfire.com/hi3/getreal/transcript4.html
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic Commons[edit]

Aquatic Commons (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 had previously nominated this article for speedy after not being able to locate significant reliable source coverage. Speedy nomination was removed citing the advice to "First look for sources & if not found, only then nominate for deletion." Since I had already done that prior to the original nomination, I am now bringing it to AfD. Perhaps someone else will have better luck turning up significant reliable source coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Angels for a Smarter Life[edit]

Guardian Angels for a Smarter Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed project. Shortlisted, but not yet selected. If selected, will only start years from now. Only independent coverage in reliable sources is in-passing coverage in FT. Does not meet WP:GNG (nor will it in the foreseeable future and - if not selected- might never do so either). Crusio (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet either of the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Pascual[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Paolo Pascual (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 footballer that does not play in a fully pro league and has yet to make a full international appearance. Banana Fingers (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 23 October 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. Now the copyvio is no longer in the article, consensus is that this is a valid article. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitive skin type[edit]

Sensitive skin type (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 a copy of "Cosmetic dermatology: principles and practice" by Leslie Baumann. All of the previous entries by the article creator all seem to be WP:COPYVIOTokyogirl79 (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Additional: The article would require a complete re-write from head to toe, unfortunately.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material in this Wikipedia submission is widely known in the dermatologic community and is the subject of multiple publications. This material was adapted with permission from publications including The Skin Type Solution (Bantam 2005) and Cosmetic Dermatology (McGraw Hill 2009) written by Dr. Leslie Baumann MD.. Metabeauty Inc, holds the copy right to these publications and agrees to permit Wikipedia to use this adapted content. Metabeauty will accept responsibility for the use of these content on Wikipedia. I can provide a letter of agreement from metabeauty if necessary. Please let me know how to proceed. This material is also excerpted with permission from US patent number US2006/0265244 A1 which was filed by Dr. Leslie Baumann and is owned by Metabeauty Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstpaigeinc (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — Firstpaigeinc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above is an admission that the article is a copyvio and that the author has no authority to grant license for use of the text. See [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baumann_skin_types]. Blanking page and re-tagging for speedy copyvio. EEng (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Already speedy deleted by Fastily as a copyvio. Davewild (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baumann skin types[edit]

Baumann skin types (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating for deletion per WP:COPYVIO. The page was blanked by a previous user, but it was listed that the entire entry is a light copy of a journal paper written by Leslie Baumann. [61] It should be noted that all of the user's entries appear to be violations in this manner. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

By 'user' I mean the article's creator, User:FirstPaigeInc. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Additional: The article would require a complete re-write from head to toe, unfortunately.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; There are so many ways this thing should be deleted it's hard to choose, but let's go with this one. It's a neologism created by Baumann to puff up his image. It appears twice in GScholar -- in papers written by Baumann. Web sources using the phrase all appear to be promotions of products. EEng (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material in this Wikipedia submission is widely known in the dermatologic community and is the subject of multiple publications. This material was adapted with permission from publications including The Skin Type Solution (Bantam 2005) and Cosmetic Dermatology (McGraw Hill 2009) written by Dr. Leslie Baumann MD. Metabeauty Inc, holds the copy right to these publications and agrees to permit Wikipedia to use this adapted content. Metabeauty will accept responsibility for the use of these content on Wikipedia. I can provide a letter of agreement from metabeauty if necessary. Please let me know how to proceed. This material is also excerpted with permission from US patent number US2006/0265244 A1 which was filed by Dr. Leslie Baumann and is owned by Metabeauty Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstpaigeinc (talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — Firstpaigeinc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Unless the copyright holder agrees to the terms of Wikipedia's license i.e. essentially free use, republication, and adaptation of the material by anyone, including for commercial gain, then Wikipedia can't use it. Since you imply that this license hasn't been supplied yet, then as it stands the article is a copyright violation. Therefore I'm blanking the page for now.
Also, from what you say the copyright holder is either Baumann, Bantam, or McGraw (not Metabeauty) so Metabeauty has no authority to license the text for use. "Accepting responsibility" is not enough.
Anyway, that the material is "widely known" isn't enough. It has to be the subject of multiple and substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. All I see is articles by Baumann and puff pieces.
Finally, even if it passes that test, there's no reason to use text that needs licensing. Do what other editors do, and write your own description.
Except you shouldn't do that, because you're connected with the subject and have a conflict of interest. If the Baumann skin types are indeed notable, someone else will write an article on them.
EEng (talk) 19:00, 24 October 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 02:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entrapped Book[edit]

Entrapped Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable book from an author with no article. No indications or claims of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 23 October 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. appears to be the consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick_Hayes-Roth[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rick_Hayes-Roth (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 notability of the subject was called into question with a notability tag and topic on on the entry's discussion page on October 19. As of October 22, no support for removing the notability tag had emerged. The tag was initially added as there was a total absence of substantial references; all references in the biographical entry were papers bylined by the subject of the biography itself. Further, the subject of the biography has been linking to this Wikipedia vanity biography in paid advertisements he's been taking out for his company. CentralError (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Total references provided by entry: 5. Of these, 3 are authored by the subject of the entry himself, 1 is an articles published in an online magazine that makes tangential and passing reference to the subject of the entry, the fifth is an interview of the subject of the entry himself published in aforementioned and same online magazine. CentralError (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also the AAAI citation. But more brqadly, keep in mind WP:BEFORE no.2: it isn't just what is in the article, it is what can be found to verify notability. Hence the importance of the Google Scholar search, for example, AllyD (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • addressed below CentralError (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at this a bit further, I'm baffled by the proposer's suggestion of "a total absence of substantial references" in the article as its exists. This is contradicted by the article's explicit referenced citation of the subject's 1992 election as an AAAI fellow. Because of that alone, I will be removing the Notability tag (whose addition was, I note, the proposer's first contribution to Wikipedia). AllyD (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The hell you are. I have just restored it. Do not make unilateral removals of tags without attempting to build consensus. CentralError (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read any of the citations you googled up? The first page consists almost entirely of articles written by the subject of the article (similar to the so-called "references" used in the entry itself). If I write a letter-to-the-editor to ComputerWorld I don't get a Wikipedia entry. CentralError (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs) per A10, a duplicate of AC power plugs and sockets. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AC power plugs and sockets (organization by US Dept of Commerce standard)[edit]

AC power plugs and sockets (organization by US Dept of Commerce standard) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content fork of AC power plugs and sockets. Violation of WP:POVFORK -- was created in response to a debate at Talk:AC power plugs and sockets#Type A, B, C, ... Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for keep. (Do you even know why?)
Looking through your edit history Zzyzx11, it appears you have not even participated in the article discussion at all and so your delete nomination is simply a knee-jerk reaction to the apparent "fork policy violation", and based on no other reasoning.
It appears you have no involvement in the improvement of this or the alternate version article. Do you even know why this article fork is needed, or doesn't it matter, only the "violation" matters? DMahalko (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment moved from article talk:] There is justification for having different organizational methods for content as global and all-encompassing as articles that attempt to unify widely varying standards which themselves make no attempt at trying to align with any particular standard.

Forking of article content is already wildly different across different language versions of the same content. I don't see people going on a delete rampage of other language wikis because the content differs from what is on the English wiki, or vice-versa.

Also the wikipedia policies are guidelines only, and exceptions may occur (WP:IAR). DMahalko (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Other language versions generally operate differently, with different users, and thus generate different consensus. A content fork is one of the items listed on WP:DEL#REASON. Your content fork currently duplicates word-for-word, almost 2/3rds of the original article, including the lead section, most of the history section, the content about unusual types, and so forth. This material is totally irrelevant to the AC organization issues. How can you guarantee that both articles will remain in sync? It's one thing to split such content into more detailed pages and use the summary style method; quite another to do a content fork that merely just reorganizes all the sections without changing a majority of the content. Also, WP:IAR only works in the long term if there is a sufficient number of users commenting to generate agreeable consensus, which is why I opened it here on AFD to generate a wider discussion, instead of just the two of us argue back and forth. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is more than 2/3rds, it is a near exact duplicate of an older revision. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, the article contains duplication, and I WAS planning to trim it down to just the types section, but need time to think about how to do the trimming. Of course you're so damn triggerhappy with the delete button that there is no time allowed for such copyediting to occur. Sorry but I have to sleep sometime, and I have more to do in my life than sitting on here responding to other editors.
It appears the delete procedures have been violated by yourselves, as a week is supposed to be allowed if there is argument on the subject. Also how is anyone else supposed to participate in improving the fork, if it is removed so hastily without time for it to develop?
I will likely re-create the article as a user-page so there is time to shorten the article to the specific sections in question. DMahalko (talk) 02:14, 24 October 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 squeezed. The Bushranger One ping only 04:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Squeeze[edit]

Global Squeeze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Because it was PROD'd already and it's still here. WP:NEO Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 04:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Rural Management Pakistan[edit]

Institute of Rural Management Pakistan (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 article is written like an advertisement and would need a very big rewrite to get away from that. Eeekster (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can see by the nomination as to what's "wrong" and needs to be corrected within the next few days. You assume you have read WP:FIRSTARTICLE already, as well as WP:5P. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Language of the article has been changed as required by the wikipedia user. Kindly review the article again and indicate what else needs to be done to make it acceptable. There is a similar page Institute of Rural Management Anand on wikipedia which shares similar nature of content but it has been accepted without any objection. Should I follow it as a guideline?? Samar Saeed Akhtar —Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

How many times to you intend to !vote? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the very first time. Samar Saeed Akhtar (talk) 11:57, 15 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation upon charting. The Bushranger One ping only 04:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:enactment[edit]

Re:enactment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, specifically WP:NBAND Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 19:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to say keep because according to the article they had a track on national radio. However references 10 and 11 do not actually support the claim. Notability has not been established. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've added a few refs, expanded a few more. Notability now established via national radio and national tour(s) with at least one support slot for an international artist.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 04:22, 15 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, withdrawn by nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 October 2011‎

Electron bubble[edit]

Electron bubble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fringey coatrack is ill-sourced at best. talk page shows concern over notability from way back. Mangoe (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search for "electron bubble" on ADSABS reveals plenty of publications on this topic], from very respectable journals (PR, PRL, RMP, PSS&T, JPSJ, ...) from a variety of authors. One section read like a plug for someone's pet theory, which I removed, but other than that the article didn't raise any red flags. Any remaining problems of sourcing can be cleaned up, but deletion on grounds of notability seems like a mistake to me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 04:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan national under-17 football team[edit]

Afghanistan national under-17 football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It just says "is controlled by Afghanistan Football Federation and represents Afghanistan in international under-17 football competitions", which is pretty common as a national afghan side will be controlled by the afghan federation only and a "national under-17 football team" will represent the nation in international under-17 football competitions only. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Afghanistan national under-17 football team. I copied it and pasted it directly onto this page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is international football under the FIFA governing body, not high-school athletics. And when it comes to sports, it's common that teams of a certain level are presumed notable - that's a WP:CONSENSUS argument, not WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. As [Category:Under-17 association football] is full of articles, it seems reasonable to assume that international teams at this level is considered notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 16:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning to support this view, actually. The general consensus on Wikipedia does seem to be that an international U-17 football team is notable, by merit of being at an international level. I therefore change my vote to weak keep. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry but the article looks even worse now, having just one reference that too a blog. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to response that this is a national team of a country and instead of deletion it should be expanded. And this national team is under governing body of Fifa. And the reference is from the official blog of Israfeel Kohistani National senior player and current captain of Afghanistan national football team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadfaisalsidiqi (talk • contribs) 09:12, 20 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:56, 23 October 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. - ten vote comments for keep - Since the nomination the article and citations have been largely improved. No delete comments for the last four days. As far as notability goes, comments seem to assert, if he fails WP:PROF after the article improvement he passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Segalstad[edit]

Tom Segalstad (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 article is a four-year-old stub for an academic with no current evidence that he passes notability under WP:PROF. His main claim to notability, as far as I can tell, is that he has chosen to challenge the conventional thinking on climate change. I'm of mixed feelings about whether being an associate professor who promotes unorthodox views is by itself enough of a reason to give someone an article in Wikipedia. I'm launching this AFD to see what other people think on the issue, and perhaps see if other people can expand the article to give a clearer sense of his notability if it exists. Dragons flight (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can Colonel Warden let us know which of Wikipedia:PROF#Criteria he sees Segalstad as meeting, and why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PROF is too narrow. The reason that he and you are here is because he is a climate change sceptic. It is therefore to the general notability guideline that we should look. Warden (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now the only sources for his skepticism are from his own website, which isn't usable for WP:GNG since it requires significant third party coverage. If he is notable for his skepticism, then the article needs to demonstrate that. Dragons flight (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was the head of a museum dedicated to his field of study for 12 years. From Wikipedia:PROF#Criteria
5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
Q Science (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A museum head is definitely not the same as a named chair or distinguished professor. Per WP:PROF, criteria 6 is generally intended for university Presidents, Chancellors, and comparable positions, but does not usually include Provosts / Deans / Department Heads, etc. I would suggest that Museum Head is not a high enough level position to qualify. Dragons flight (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Head of a major independent national museum might count, I think, but in this case the museums he led seem to have been parts of a larger university, so I agree that that's not really what that criterion is aiming at. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he is currently an associate professor does not mean that that is the highest level reached. After all, he is about 62 years old. Q Science (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't follow you. Do you mean that he had a higher position but somehow was demoted? Or that he still might reach a higher position before he retires? --Crusio (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I was contacted [72] to change my opinion based on changes to the article I still think the he fails to meet notability requirements. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kim. Per WP:N, notability is (to a degree) cumulative, and Segastad does have quite a number of (smallish) achievements. For geologists, the IGC is a pretty big deal. I wouldn't be surprised if there were 200+ wiki-notable geologists in attendance. Maybe S. was #199? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the Financial Post is a RS in general may be debatable. However, it has been well established that Solomon's series in particular is not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan, do you have a link to a RS discussion of this series? Or more details of your objection? I was confused by the FP masthead -- apparently this is part of Solomon's series that ran in the National Post, a sister newspaper. I recall something about a couple of scientists disputing their characterizations as "deniers," but the Solomon profiles I've read of scientists I'm familiar with seemed fair and reasonable. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been debated in several places over time. However, going to primary sources, [76], [77], [78], [79] should be plenty of evidence that this series does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Also note that the series originally was published as opinion pieces, not straight reporting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that WP:FAILN says: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying it's unclear. At this point, things are clear enough: "I still don't see enough coverage to satisfy GNG" means: "not notable". --Crusio (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at least two editors have argued for deletion based on WP:GNG. Please note the essay at Wikipedia:Abuse of the General Notability Guideline in Deletion Discussions, which argues that "This is an improper use of the guideline, since it is a guideline for presuming notability, not a guideline for presuming non-notability." -- Pete Tillman (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "essay" referred to is a comparatively recent contribution by a sole editor. It itself is fallacious. Notability only exists if it can be demonstrated to exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It also contradicts WP:FAILN: "Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, although there are alternatives." which is part of the GNG guideline. I've nominated that WP:wikilawyering essay for move to user space, by the way. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"He's notable because he's a climate change denier" is just as much rejected as a cause of notability as "She's notable because she's a woman" always has been. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
He is notable because he is prominent enough in his field to be mentioned by the media in many places. Dream Focus 03:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With only 74,000 articles, I would think there's a number of important Norwegian people that don't yet have articles over there. SilverserenC 16:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaela Humphries[edit]

Kaela Humphries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails even basic criteria of BIO, whole article just talk about that how she's related to other notable personalities, but notability is not inherited. — Bill william comptonTalk 03:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of political parties in Yukon. As always, anything worth keeping can be merged from the history. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Citizens Party of Yukon[edit]

United Citizens Party of Yukon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very fringe territorial party that only lasted one year, and did not contest any elections. Has seen very little coverage in the media despite being started by a former premier. 117Avenue (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of leaving a redirect to Yukon general election, 2011, since it is the election the founder intended to contest. 117Avenue (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I'm using the various "List of characters in..." articles as a guide in that minor characters redirect to the main character list. Mentioning the party at Yukon general election, 2011 seems reasonable, though. This seems one of those situations where the subject lacks sufficient notability to have a separate article but has enough to be mentioned across a few other articles. ClaretAsh 10:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted (G7) by Nyttend. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United concordia building[edit]

United concordia building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails general notability guideline. — Bill william comptonTalk 03:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete . The user has moved the article to User:Erl.ebz.thrpe/Sebastian Anstis, and blanked the page.

Sebastian Anstis[edit]

Sebastian Anstis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Possible hoax, inspired by John Hawkwood/Niccolò di Pitigliano. I failed to find any mention of "Sebastian Anstis" in the cited references (the ones that exist). utcursch | talk 02:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The creator says that the name "Sebastian Anstis" could have been spelled differently in Italian or other languages. I'd be happy if someone can find a verifiable name. utcursch | talk 03:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Abiad[edit]

Celine Abiad (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 does not fulfill WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG notability requirments. No second-party sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. —Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's true. I think he's not lacking in good faith, it's just that until such time as there are reliable sources as to the notability of the film, director and producer, his aim -- to promote their interests, albeit in a manner that as low-key and non-POV as possible -- is fundamentally at odds with our aim, to make sure that our coverage extends only to notable subjects. I have little doubt that if they keep on making films, they will pass the notability line at some point, I'm just not sure it's going to happen in the near future with this particular film -- and they're certainly not there yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hak5[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hak5 (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 real notability shown for this "home-grown" video podcast. notability is not inhereted from notable contributors. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. most current sources are by Hak5. others are not significant coverage. nothing satisfying WP:WEB. last afd closed no consensus due to lack of participation. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At the very least this article is in desperate, dire need of being edited. I don't see where a complete season listing of each and every episode is absolutely required. Even lonelygirl15 doesn't have a listing of every episode and that series was far more noticed than this one is. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Showtime 2008 Eindhoven[edit]

AfDs for this article:
It's Showtime 2008 Eindhoven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

also nominating:

another sprawling series of fighting results that fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. those wanting keep must provide evidence of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus Prime ending speech[edit]

Optimus Prime ending speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Endorsed PROD removed with no reason given. Original deletion rationale by 76.201.156.37 was "There is no indication that these in-universe speeches have been the subject of critical or scholarly interest of the sort required to establish this topic as notable under the general notability guideline." I agree with that. Reach Out to the Truth 01:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Charvet customers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Charvet customers (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-encyclopedic listing of customers of one particular fancy shirtmaker with maximum snob appeal. Prior AfD closed as "no consensus"; has become no more encyclopedic in the meantime, and continues to provide no informational value except to stroke the egos of Charvet and its customers. If Charvet wants to brag about its customers, they can do so on their own website. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PornstarGlobal[edit]

PornstarGlobal (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 company. Its references are trivial and any coverage fails WP:CORP because AVN and XBIZ are of limited interest and circulation. Article was also created by an SPA, likely an employee of a company that has a history of spamming wikipedia.[80][81] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation has been suspended pending the outcome of this AfD. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (MedCab coordinator) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First WP:CORP clearly states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". This guideline is not in WP:BIO which may explain why the biographical articles like Ms. Karter can rely on coverage from these sources as indications of notability. As for the accusation that you are an SPA, the first substantive edits you made (starting June 1, 2011) were to promote pornstarglobal by adding their awards to multiple performer pages. When they were consistently removed from the biographies by other editors for being non-notable, you decided to create a page on pornstarglobal itself. It was only long after you were first accused of being an SPA that you began to diversify your edits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but I cant see any justification in the paragraph above as it only defines the exact concerns I was referring to. I was searching for this page as well: accused of being an SPA, but could not find it so I thank you for posting because it once again displays evidence of your bias in thinking that Article creation = promotion of Article subject, which it most certainly does not. One could dig deeper and assume there is technically no way to avoid promotion completely when creating a public Article. I don't feel I need to explain why I chose this particular subject / site to write an Article about nor do I understand your reasoning in that active participants in the Wikipedia Community should not diversify their edits. It seems to me as if you simply jumped the gun and didn't have time to scan over my contributions before hastily nominating this Article for Deletion and making unwarranted accusations because of your past issues with these people. Aside from the improper course / chain of deletion you displayed, I would say you hadn't done any research at all, because if you had you would know that there have only been 2 award winners, not multiple. I felt that going back and trying to make the Article better the 2nd time around would be beneficial, and again, their URL has never been posted anywhere on the Article nor the 2 award winners pages. I get the impression that no matter what happens, you made a choice to dislike these individuals 3 years ago and will never have an open mind to anything related to their name. Solidcontrib (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That prlog.org link is a press release, not coverage by an independent RS. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 31 October 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. This AfD has to end some time; successive relistings have yielded no additional comments. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Deans List[edit]

The Deans List (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 music group. Creator even said they are "up and coming", which is a red flag to me. No references. Fails WP:Notability (music). EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 20:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:40, 9 October 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, Rcsprinter (rap) 10:41, 15 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 23 October 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.
More