< 21 September	23 September >

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. v/r - T P 01:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buen Chico[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC Jason Quinn (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some RS about. From Glasswerk.co.uk which has an editor and paid reviewers: "Reviews \\ Buen Chico - Killing Somebody" "News \\ Buen Chico, Bon Genre!" "Reviews \\ Buen Chico - Gold From Lead" "Reviews \\ Buen Chico - Giving Your Gifts" Huddersfield Daily Examiner: "Chico, stars in waiting?" Music Week: "Music Upfront - 13.10.07" Sandman (magazine): Buen Chico Our Love's Enormous SoundsXP: Buen Chico Interview JORGENEV 00:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this sounds indicative of notability:

“

Buen Chico will return to the stage to showcase new material from their forthcoming EP due for release in early 2011, before embarking on a national tour. Since forming in 2005, the Leeds based geek-pop outfit have played alongside such acts as The Long Blondes, Nine Black Alps, Eugene McGuinness, Forward Russia, Good Shoes, Pete & the Pirates and The Cribs. Songs from their two critically acclaimed albums; ‘Right to Rearrange’ and ‘Our Love’s Enormous’ have been played on 6 Music, Radio 1 and Radio 2 by the likes of Zane Lowe, Marc Riley, Huw Stephens and Steve Lamacq.
-Leeds College of Music [1]

”

At least, I am impressed by the quantity of blue links. JORGENEV 19:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My conclusions are the same as Jason Quinn Edwardx (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Jorgenev has shown, this article meets WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Jorgenev. Article has significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's one source in that article and it's a myspace link. It's one thing to say an article has "significant coverage". It's another to actually provide links and source the article. I don't know if Glasswerk and examiner are what I call "significant". Jason Quinn (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the links above provided by Jorgenev. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw them already, that's why I mentioned Glasswork and Examiner by name. Why did you think I mentioned them? Jason Quinn (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The band, as I cant tell has yet to do any more than release a few songs. ~~No EP or album~~. The coverage in Glasswerks is of the gee whiz, this band is cool variety. The Huddersfield Examiner essentially covering a band that might be going places. No prejudice to recreation if they do manage something in the future, but right now, they don't meet the inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect - they released a full LP back in 2007, as well as three 7" singles in 2006-07. Giant Snowman 20:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. I still don't see them meeting notability with this additional information. -- Whpq (talk) 21:27, 26 September 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. v/r - T P 01:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Father Sebastiaan[edit]

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

Per recommendation over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fangsmith. Like Fangsmith (which was created at almost the same time, by the same editor) this article suffers from most of the same problems, including lack of notability, reliance on primary sources, and possible conflict of interest or promotional intent. Difluoroethene (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article already has two reliable third party sources. In addtion there are nine google news articles that are unaffiliated with the person. I believe he may meet the general notablility guideline. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In addition to those sources, he may meet the guidelines for notability for entertainers according to the line "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". That's a very general guideline and is difficult to prove. This man certainly might have a cult following, but it would have to be verifiable. Some of the sources we do have seem to be reprints of the same article. Several Times (talk) 20:45, 26 September 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. v/r - T P 01:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pabulo Henrique Rampelotto[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable fringe scientist. Does not meet WP:PROF nor any other notability guidelines. Most references given are articles written by Rampelotto himself in the fringe Journal of Cosmology and other non-reliable sources / self-publications. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible impact on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- ? "GS" ? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scholar, as in link above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

ahh, Google Scholar ... thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — the Journal of Cosmology cannot be characterized as a "fringe journal" considering it is indexed by the NASA Astrophysical Data System and Proquest (according to http://journalofcosmology.com/About.html and, therefore, not independently verified), and inclusion in both the Library of Congress and the University of Chicago Library (per http://www.worldcat.org/title/journal-of-cosmology-astronomy-astrobiology-earth-sciences-life/oclc/651009010&referer=brief_results ) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Cosmology certainly is a fringe journal by every definition of what "fringe" is. Big Bang denialism is rampant, just as you can find anti-Evolution rants, anti-Global Warming rants, attack pages for whomever disagrees with its authors, editors publishing in the same journal, no rigourous peer-review process if any, etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant whether the journal is fringe or not. The fact is that the subject has minimal cites in that or any other journal. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It's half-relevant. You can be notable despite publications in fringe journals. But if the guy had 50 papers in Physical Review, it'd be impressive and definitely evidence of notability, while 50 papers (or however it was) in Journal of Cosmology is hardly impressive and certainly not evidence of notability. It more or less means that if you want to established notability, you need something better than his work in J Cosmology, and should exclude those of h-index calculations, etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the discussions at Talk:Journal of Cosmology, I am under the impression that you are not necessarily mainstream in your opinion of the Journal of Cosmology. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the mainstream suddenly started embracing Big Bang denialism, and anti-Darwinism, or that Physical Review starts publishing things like this or accuse their critics of being terrorists, I think I'm in the clear when it comes to that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was only referring to the participants at the talk page I referenced, "mainstream" relating to the majority of participants in that discussion page, not the world at large. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article revised — Citations updated and enriched to afford better evaluation. Reformatted quoted passages. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost zero citability in GoogleScholar and WebOfScience, nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF. Plus appears to be a WP:FRINGE case. Nsk92 (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion raised here by Headbomb is clearly moved by his personal feelings about the Journal of Cosmology and related authors. In fact, the discussion just turn around if the journal is scientific or not. The same discussion was raised by Headbomb in the Journal Page. As expected, Headbomb` personal and vulgar comments have been denied by wiki community, and now, the page remains as an encyclopedic paper must be. But even today, this guy insists with his ignorant attacks (See Journal of Cosmology Page Discussion). I just hope this kind of personal feelings do not happen again here and in others pages. The Page, which is on by a long time, has been improved and updated by different authors in the last days fitting as an encyclopedic paper must be: with clear, formal, and coherent information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.vonNeumann (talk • contribs) 21:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — H.vonNeumann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The only reliable source currently listed in the article is the Hannoversche Allgemeine article, but it only quotes him and doesn't really say anything substantive about him. It certainly isn't enough to provide verification for the contents of the article nor to pass WP:GNG. The other 15 sources are all either due to the subject himself or unreliable blogs. And he seems very far from passing WP:PROF as well (not so much because of the fringiness of the journals he publishes in, but rather because his publications have very few citations). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Russellml (talk · contribs) removed my delete !vote. Possibly it was an edit conflict even though it happened some 12 minutes later. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Indeed, the page is online and continuously visited by a long time, and never questioned before, even in the own Article Discussion Page. I saw the attack of Headbomb to Journal of Cosmology (Discussion Page), and is the same one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russellml (talk • contribs) — Russellml (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. The page seems well written and present different contributions (Users). The text presents a neutral descriptions about the main points related to the reffered scientist. The issues, are hot topics today in Space Science, like the human exploration of Mars, and a new concept for Europa and Titan. An his contributions seem quite relevant in such discussions. The book of his authorship and other important scientist, began a world wide discussion about the possibility to Humans explore Mars in a One Way Mission, with considerable attention from the media. He was the first one to advocate for alternative mission concepts for Europa. Today, after the release of the Decadal Survey, Nasa abandoned the previous design and is working on a new mission concept for EJSM (quite similar as proposed by him). This also means he is far from been a fringe scientist. He is also author and co-author of diferent books, some of them availiable in Amazon. It seems reasonable to keep a page which has been online for a considerable time, and not questioned so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.18.33.234 (talk • contribs) — 200.18.33.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note to the closing admin, those were confirmed to be sockpuppets. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS shows 4 papers having a cumulative total of 1 citation - quite literally next to 0 impact. I think the "Journal of Cosmology issue" discussed above is somewhat relevant. For example, this journal is not indexed by WoS, the definitive source for physics-related archival journals, because it has not satisfied WoS' acceptance criteria (which include "impact"). It is not considered to be a mainstream physics journal. Conversely, there are mainstream journals that do cover similar topics, e.g. Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. and Astrobiol. and it's plausible that had more of his work been in these journals, the citation numbers would be more favorable. I don't think the issue here is WP:FRINGE. We have lots of bios on fringy people. Rather, there's simply a glaring lack of sources/coverage that demonstrate notability of this person. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
+1 I think that was put quite well. Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. He is only a "researcher" at a university, apparently not a professor or any similar title, and has a "background" in biology without specifying what (if any) degrees he has. Contributing a chapter to a book or two is not evidence of notability, nor is publishing articles that receive almost no citations from others. The article appears to be mostly a WP:coatrack for his opinions, rather than being about him or his career. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 29 September 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. Speedy Deleted by Toddst1 (A7) (non-admin closure) Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 02:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Figures[edit]

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

Supposedly a YouTube cartoon. I don't see the importance, nor need, for something like this here. Twently one episodes composed of "dick figures" for three minutes does not qualify for wiki. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:35, 22 September 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} 00:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centraview[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I found nothing that establishes this company's notability and the last two AfDs in 2005 and 2006 didn't show notability either. There is also an unsourced statement that it is a competitor of a notable software company which has no way of possibly showing notability since it seems to be original research - "Initial entry: I think this company is a serious contender to NetSuite, as Wikipedia is to the Brittanica, or Linux is to Windows." Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks reliable third party sources and is mainly comprised of origional research. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only substantial coverage I could find was this article covering the product going open source. Insufficient coverage to establish nottability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply being open source is not an exemption from notability requirements, however much you might favor it as a cause. This remains yet another software suite that includes a combination of Contact Management, Sales Force Automation (SFA), and Customer Relationship Management (CRM) functionality. Making such a thing is apparently such a mighty achievement that every single package ever made imagines itself worthy of an encyclopedia entry. The only thing I found that did not look like a PR entry was this incidental mention. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:53, 27 September 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. Consensus for keeping article based on notability of topic of one-way manned missions to Mars, independent of editing or naming concerns. (non-admin closure) Moogwrench (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mars to Stay[edit]

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

This is a textbook case of WP:COATRACK and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Mars to Stay is indeed a project aimed to send astronaut to mars. However this article is one covering generic colonization of Mars rather than the Mars to Stay project itself. A quick google search reveal very little sources about the Mars to Stay project, and whatever sources cover it seems mostly to say "look, Mars to Stay is a cool project, it has a Wikipedia page and therefore is notable!" (example), forum posts, or blog posts.

I don't see how this project passes the WP:GNG, or any other notability guidelines out there. Hence, delete, then redirect to Colonization of Mars or Manned missions to Mars. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim—this appears to be a main article link from Manned mission to Mars#Mars to Stay (2006), which is too large an article to support a merge. One-way mission proposals have received coverage in the press and elsewhere, so it appears notable in general;[2][3] perhaps a rename is needed? Generic manned mission to Mars material should be aggressively trimmed. Neutrality issues can be dealt with by suitable tagging and presenting a better balance in the Risks section. (For example, it needs to mention the enormous political liability inherent in this proposal.) Regards, RJH (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but there's really nothing to merge. It's one amongst many proposed manned missions to Mars, and one that didn't get much attention. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recent coverage of Mars to Stay initiatives will be added to the article (Keith Obermann interview MSNBC, Paul Davies Mars Society Presentation, 380 page book "A One Way Mission to Mars: Colonizing the Red Planet" published in March 2011...); actually quite a bit has been said about Mars to Stay initiatives for over two decades, as noted in the 'Public reception' and 'New York Times op-eds' sections. The blog post mentioned as an "example" of cheerleading was created only a month ago and is not the rationale for this article. "Mars to Stay" is not a particular "project" rather it is a phrase used to refer to one way to stay human mission proposals in general. Within the space community 'Mars to Stay' proposals have been around for two decades. Many different one-way-to-stay human settlement missions have been proposed under 'Mars to Stay' headings; the phrase does not refer to one particular mission or proposal, as evidenced by the various architectures reviewed in the article. Since 'Mars to Stay' has been used widely by space exploration advocates for two decades it is a more appropriate title than more wordy, less clear "One Way Human Missions to Settle Mars" or whatever alternatives one might imagine...which, is probably why "Mars to Stay" has evolved to be the most common idiom popular among Mars settlement advocates when referring to an umbrella of various one way human settlement proposals. Many different "projects" and proposals are mentioned. 'Mars to Stay' is not a single "project," it is a common phrase within the space exploration community used to refer to human Mars settlement missions which do not include robust return trip options, if at all. Mars to Stay is not a particular project, it is a type of humans to Mars mission architecture for settlement without return.Ericmachmer (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic of one-way missions to mars is highly notable. For example, see the book A One Way Mission to Mars: Colonizing the Red Planet. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except this is not an article about one-way missions to Mars, it's one about the Mars to Stay project. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is about the general concept of one-way missions to Mars. If the title of the article seems inappropriate or gives undue weight to a particular slogan then this is remedied by an ordinary editing move, not by deletion. Warden (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Warden is correct. This article is about one way missions to Mars. The website you are referring to was apparently created within the last year. It cribbed much of its material directly from this article. In itself of course a website is not even a project, so I'm not even clear as to why it is even mentioned as a rationale for the existence of this article. The point of this article is to summarize one way to Mars proposals in the space exploration community. If the article should be retitled 'One Way to Mars' or 'One Way Missions to Mars' or whatever it is really half a dozen of one and half a dozen of the other -- doesn't seem to matter. The point is, if you think a poorly maintained website like "MarstoStay.com" is for some reason even a legitimate representative of two decades of Mars to Stay thought and that it is the rationale behind this page you are completely mistaken. Please read this article more thoroughly. "MarstoStay.com" is not even mentioned. It is not even referenced in external links because basically it was created, according to WhoIs, less than a year ago. Whether or not someone might want to include a link to it is actually worthwhile to question -- but to think this article is in some way promoting that website, its creators, or whatever specific agenda they may have is just misinformed. In fact, quite the opposite. The website appears to have been created with knowledge of this article and of course advocates a one way mission. Perhaps the site should be mentioned in this article's external links section but in no way was the article 'Mars to Stay' created to promote that website.Ericmachmer (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Mars to Stay 'Mars to Stay' has been up for over two years without ever eliciting a deletion suggestion. It contains unique, in-depth information on one-way missions to Mars; mentions in public media from NY Times op-eds to Mars Society Conference presentations, television interviews and mainstream books. Most importantly this article does not "cover generic colonization of Mars," which was the original complaint. That is the point of an article devoted to one way missions. It uniquely focuses upon missions for which return is not a goal, with reviews of several specific proposals by noted persons in space exploration from Aldrin to Zubrin to our current NASA admin. Initially a Mars to Stay subsection was proposed for inclusion in the Colonization of Mars article mentioned above, but it quickly became apparent among maintainers of that page the depth and variety of proposals related uniquely to one way missions warranted an independent article. Rather than suggest this article now be collapsed back into an already convoluted general colonization article please present your ideas on how the WP:COATRACK "we've got a wikipedia page" nature of any "proposal" can be "trimmed" as other readers suggest. One way missions are going to be "proposals" by their very nature. It is important though that their public mention and resources for further study be noted here. Again, this is the first time 'Mars to Stay' has ever been suggested for deletion since its inception over two years ago. That should bare some consideration given the tens of thousands of people who have viewed its page without complaint.Ericmachmer (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Ryuku 22:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mars to Stay is a generic term used to describe a variety of specific proposals to send humans to Mars to begin colonizing it. There is too much information on this to merge it with a general page about colonizing Mars. I created the Mars to Stay website purely to help assist in promoting this idea, not as a specific, seperate project. This article correctly details what 'Mars to Stay' is all about - The variety of proposals to colonize Mars. However, I would appreciate Ericmachmer to reference exactly what information was 'cribbed' from this article, and how the site is 'poorly maintained' as both of those statements are false. The Mars to Stay website does not list the unique content and specific plans that is listed in this article, but instead offers opinion/further reading and a platform to comment and discuss, as a Wikipedia article does not allow for that. The idea that this article could be removed due to the Mars to Stay website is completely contrary to the purpose of that website. Hutchski 01:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Hutchski MarsToStay.com is great…my first impression several months ago was that it used similar language to this article; word-for-word "cribbed" was an incorrect description. Similar terms should be expected and the site does have a tremendous amount of original thought and motivation. It is very valuable -- I overreacted to the suggestion by Headbomb that the purpose of this article was to promote your site. My second impression when revisiting it to respond to Headbomb was much more positive -- I am unsure if this is because the site has been revised since or I'm just no longer surprised to see it. In any case, after more carefully reading MarsToStay.com seems like a very noble endeavor. I hope someone writes up a review of MarsToStay.com for entry in the 'Public mentions' section of this article (a section which is becoming a bit lengthy and perhaps ought to be divided again into separate media/sources, as was the case when NY Times Op-Eds were placed under their own heading).

General criticisms of MarsToStay are common to most enthusiast/promotional websites passing through healthy evolution…this is a quick critique and meant to be constructive: wordiness…run on sentences…colloquial phrases…for example, "it seems"…"we feel"…"enthuse"(?)…"just a few"…"the best we've got"…"to look into"…the 'Why Bother Page' displays overwhelming excessive text, some bold & underlined for unclear reasons…these are minor suggestions for improvement of an already valuable site.

Technical/Design issues: load time ("…loading" displayed for what should be a simple html page? why is this static text site made in Flash????; white text on black background -- difficult to read, dated look; advertisement banner at page bottom (probably not making more than a few pennies per year, if that...why display tacky distractions advertising Capella University, National Car Rental, and Google links?; background image of a blue sky (confusing choice, also makes reading white text difficult over clouds); since pages are in Flash it isn't easy to check if images have been web optimized…that may be why page loads are delayed…?; use of seven different font sizes: menu (tiny), banner (slightly rasterized), subheading, body text, image title (some of which are in bold and underlined even though not hyperlinks); larger than necessary grey menu location banner; cumbersome confusing previous/next buttons at page bottoms; finally…no link to this 'Mars to Stay' wiki article : ) Overall MarstoStay.com is a good site with great spirit and potential -- ought to be mentioned in this article. Ericmachmer (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and feedback. I've taken action on some of your points regarding the clouds on the background, as well as the previous/next buttons and a few other things. I'll consider some of the others for the future. But regarding the load time and flash, the site was built using a web building website (I'm not a web developer). This is also a reason for the design as a template was used.. I really only built the site because I was shocked that it didn't already exist, and doing so could only help promote the idea as I am a big fan of this sort of thing.

I've also now linked this Wikipedia article at the end of the last page on Mars to Stay. Hopefully this should clear up any confusion and ensure that this article does not get removed as both the site and the article are talking about the same thing. Hutchski 19:20, 29 September 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 Snow Keep - I really can't imagine an article about such a well-known scientific topic being deleted (non-admin closure). Super Mario Man 23:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of relativity[edit]

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

Appears to be no longer valid. Herp Derp (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep— i won't bother to argue notability; this is the actual theory of relativity nominator wants to delete. nominator seems to be trying to make some kind of point about neutrinos. see e.g. this diff (esp the last part of it). — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I've heard rumors the topic may be notable, at least for historical reasons. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
snow keep not a valid reason to delete. Heck, even if relativity were disproved it would still be notable, probably more so. But no, it's not been disproved, just some Italians got overexcited and leaked news of some dubious results.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per fucking duh. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
snow keep per Headbomb. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? It's 22 September, not 1 April. Come back when you've succeeded in getting Geocentric model deleted at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Silly. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 22 September 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 policy based argument is the one aboutr sourcing tomeet N and the keep side have provided only assertions or arguments to avoid. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YS Flight Simulation System 2000[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to verify content and notability, despite thorough attempts over several years. Previous AfD resulted in non-consensus. Only article that can be found is a single review at Flightsim.com, which does not in itself constitute notability. Due to the inability to confirm notability, and the lack of verifiable, third-party sources - the quality of the article is very poor. I have even canvased Japanese sites without identifying any. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a tough one. There are dozens of fansites set up, but not many articles on video game sites related to this. I did find the following:

"The Effect of Positive Music and Dispositional Hope on State Hope and Affect" they used the flight sim to test their psychological hypothesis.
mentioned in PC Gamer, but I am not sure to what extent.

I am going with delete. It should be notable based on the mass of the fanbase, but I can't seem to find enough information on it. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- A few weeks ago, I was looking for a light-wieght and open source flight simulator for a project which involved low-powered computers. I found YS Flight by using this wikipedia page. According to the guidelines for deletion, pages should be kept if they are helpful. This page has clearly been helpful to me, and very recently. I would also note that there are several active fan sites on-going, quite an acheivement for a game this old. http://www.ysflight.ca/ has been updated as recently as March of this year. http://flightsimhq.org/ was updated February of this year. This is an old game, and not one frequently discussed in the press. It neverthless has remarkable staying-power, is still activelly supported by a modding community and continues to fill a niche for those who need low-powerd flight simulators for research and art projects, as well as today's growing range of very small portable computers. Dreadnought1906 (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it is good that you found information about YS FlightSim through the article, this article doesn't have any verifiable assertion of notability. It won a code award once, but the award itself was very local and neither the award or any of the other recipients are listed on this Wikipedia or the Japanese one. The article cannot be improved and pretty much all the content needs to be deleted as it is either original research or sourced entirely from the YS FlightSim website. As it says in the comment below this box... "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." As it stands this article isn't an encyclopedia article, it reads like a game guide as you noted yourself. Over the past several years I have tried rescuing the article along with several other flightsim ones. I have succeeded with those, but not with this. If we could find something, we can bring the article back - but I really just can't find anything that even asserts notability. Even flightsim sites such as Flightsim.com and Avsim.com have next to nothing on it. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is one of those things which is very much in the eye of the beholder. For example, when you see a 'local' award, I see an award which is now defunct, but which nevertheless came from the Todai, one of the most important universities in the world, and was 'local' only insofar as it was local to a major first world country with a thriving video game industry.

At any rate, notability is only one of the criteria by which an article can be evaluated. If an article is deemed to be 'helpful', then the notability requirement is moot. There seems no competition for this namespace on Wikipedia and the article continues to help people. Furthermore, wikipedia, as if often noted, is not a paper book, and as such has virtually infinite space so long as that space is filled with high quality and useful information.

The source of most of the information in the article comes from legitimate primary and secondary sources which can be readily checked by readers for their fidelity to information on the internet. The credibility of the YS Flight website itself is hardly in question (all the information on it seems accurate insofar as it describes the content and legal licensing of the programme) so it seems odd to consider it an illegitimate source when many other wikipedia articles are sourced to official websites, press releases and the like. Indeed, the prohibition on 'original research' is generally taken to be a prohibition against information which cannot be found in written records and, consequently, double checked by other editors. I'm not sure how sourcing information to the official website of the author violates this principle.

I understand that you have done sterling work maintaining this article and making sure that it is as accurate and complete as it can be, given the relative obscurity of the subject. I would deem it a pity to discard that work given that I myself have found it helpful in the recent past.

Dreadnought1906 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your points are fair and well made, but outside of the wikipedia consensus regarding notability (see WP:NOTE). My opinion is that there is a base level of notability/verifability that needs to be met before one can make a serious attempt at getting a decent article up. Without that, it is too difficult to correctly balance the article and ensure the record of information can be maintained. I can't see anywhere that consensus has been achieved on wikipedia that an article being "helpful" suddenly makes notability a moot point. While I can appreciate your argument that there is no competition on namespace at wikipedia, the consensus has always been that an article must be notable, and notability is presumed when significant third party coverage exists. What is notable about YS Flight simulation? The award was not covered in any local press, nor international press, at the time. Flight simulation has been covered significantly in nearly all over areas. The best argument that I can find for keeping it, is that it ought to be notable because its free, and its cool. I think that's a real stretch. Nobody has yet made an assertion of notability, and that is needed to have the article in the first place let alone develop it into something meaningful. Icemotoboy (talk) 02:41, 14 September 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, BusterD (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Since the first discussion was sparse and ended as no consensus, it's reasonable to relist this somewhat narrow discussion for more comment. BusterD (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does have importance, but I agree that it may need a complete rewrite, due to the many errors and weasel words. Shakinglord:Kudos, Mailbox, ??? 17:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I raised, and the reason I raised the AfD is because there is no established notability, through verifiable sources (or otherwise). If you can provide any examples, sources, or other rational for why the article is important/notable - I am sure we would all agree that the article should be kept. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone can point to some significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. I'm just not seeing any evidence that the software is notable in the sense that WP defines the term. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:23, 17 September 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, Courcelles 21:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge — I can sympathize with someone finding the article useful, but utility is not a primary criterion for retaining an article; if it were, half of the WP:NOT would be rendered immediately invalid. Verifiability is not an issue here, but notability certainly is; this is the basis of my 'keep but merge' recommendation. I am thinking the proper merge target would be Amateur flight simulation; the content should be pared down to a descriptive paragraph suitable for inclusion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What content are you actually thinking should be merged? None of it is verifiable, and the only sources are primary so merging would be original research. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content which is sourced is verifiable (there are swaths which are not sourced) but does not meet the notability requirements. Do you not agree that there is sufficient verifiable content for inclusion of a short paragraph, or even a single line, on this product at the Amateur flight simulation article? (maybe I should answer that myself on your behalf and say "of course not"?) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole problem is that the sources used are unreliable. Based on the sources in the article, no, not even a single line should be added to the other article. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does marginally meet notability, it's a known flight simulation out on the internet. It does, however, have severe writing problems, but those can be fixed. I say keep, notability is reached. Shakinglord:Kudos, Mailbox, ??? 17:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how it marginally meets notability? Please read the guideline on Notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial third party coverage, as required by WP:V#Notability, is in evidence. The "keep" arguments above about how popular or useful this article or software is are beside the point. Sandstein 07:56, 30 September 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} 00:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara de Baalbek[edit]

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

Yet another book by Lina Murr Nehme described with no attempt to establish notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reviews per Google book search. No news items. Not offered for sale by Amazon or Amazon.fr. Not notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability in the article, and none that I could find in my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sign of meeting WP:Notability (books). Some previous book titles have been redirected to the author's article, but the continued flood of book articles by an SPA author amounts to spamming: I think redirects should be allowed only for titles which, though they may not meet WP:BK, show some sort of indication of notability such as independent reviews, or presence in a significant number of libraries. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The author is a summit in the field. For example see her article in Archeologia (455) ("LIBAN : LES TEMPLES DE BAALBEK - Qui a financé la construction de ces géants absolus de l'architecture antique ? L'examen attentif de la documentation apporte des réponses surprenantes.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.91.138 (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - But this article is about a specific book. The notability of the author is not what is being discussed here. -- Whpq (talk) 11:17, 27 September 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. v/r - T P 01:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK SWEETHEART[edit]

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

An indie folk band from Oklahoma and Texas. Has one self-released album. Editor put about every reference on the web into the article. Unfortunately, almost all are not significant, reliable references. A couple of semi-reliable references in the article are: the Denton Texas newspaper has an interview with the lead singer and mentions two members of the band are from Denton. Bestnewbands.com is a semi-blog site that has them as their artist of the week in July. Bestnewbands officially launched in June of this year. The rest of the references are blogs, mention the band in passing or is not significant coverage. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere are links calling them a hot pick and singling them out for their participation in major music festival CMJ Music Marathon in The NY Post and others. I am counting 5 or more real newspapers in 5 different cities covering the band. I also think that the band having won the annual John Lennon Songwriting Award for Pop should give them some notablity. Furthermore, they are clearly a band with very real credentials considering their Management Group (Enrique Iglesias, Counting Crows, etc) and their tv licensing deals--songs on four different tv shows on four different major networks. --Waytagojoe (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPlease note WP:MUSIC where it says a topic is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". "Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." The NY Post contains two sentences about the band, CMJ is eight sentences. I'm not sure if the John Lennon Songwriting Award is notable or not, but the band didn't win the award, a member did before the band had formed. Bgwhite (talk) 23:42, 5 September 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) 00:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because something is called a "blog" doesn't necessarily disqualify it (see WP:NEWSBLOG): for example, Steve Lackmeyer is a professional staffer for The Oklahoman, and his writeup on the band on the paper's website [4] is a legitimate indicator of notability. Taking all the sources together, I think there's enough here to get this group over the hump.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:38, 8 September 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, BusterD (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Denton Texas interview seems like one independent reliable source focused on the band, but WP:MUSIC requires multiple sources. If no other sources appear, then I say delete. The blog which User:Arxiloxos references just reprints a blurb from their presskit; it seems not to be independent coverage. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:06, 15 September 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, Courcelles 21:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced from reliable sources including newspaper and music magazine reviews which suggests it satisfies point 1 of WP:BAND. They also satisfy point 10 of WP:BAND in that their songs have featured on several notable works of major network television media. It's a borderline case but I think such cases deserve the benefit of the doubt. Polyamorph (talk) 21:56, 26 September 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. v/r - T P 01:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santino Marella & Vladimir Kozlov[edit]

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

Non notable tag team. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:46, 4 September 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-Pope (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established through championship win, precedent (recent AfD for Air Boom), and, most importantly, coverage in reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The team in itself lacks the notability for an independent article. The sources provide solely incidental mentions of the team. There is no information that could not be contained on the bios of the individuals involved. With all due respect to GaryColemanFan, the AFD result for Air Boom does not have a bearing here due to WP:OTHERSTUFF and the fact the teams are markedly different in their prominence (and employment status). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Subsequent to the above vote, I have added more references that discuss the team in greater detail. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To meet WP:GNG, the team itself should have received coverage which "address[es] the subject directly in detail ... more than a trivial mention" (we're talking secondary sources here, so WWE's brief bio on them isn't enough). My interpretation remains that notability, which cannot be inherited from the individual wrestlers, is insufficient for this team to have an independent article. The citations provided could be useful for sourcing Santino Marella and Vladimir Kozlov's articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:52, 17 September 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, Courcelles 21:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not enough coverage to have a standalone article. A stable should receive strong coverage to have its own article, for example MNM or Evolution, both notable tag-teams which have cemented their place in the history of tag-teams in World Wrestling Entertainment. Simply being a tag-team doesn't cut it. 11coolguy12 (talk) 10:35, 29 September 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} 00:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phish bootlegs[edit]

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

A detailed, referenced page now exists for The Victor Disc, which is the only entry on this "Phish bootlegs" page. Few articles link to this page, and it now appears to be obsolete.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as totally redundant to The Victor Disc. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:35, 28 September 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. Last merge !vote rationale was that they use Wikipedia as a source for legal advice. Wikipedia, and the editors editting it, are not licensed law practitioners (for the most part) and are not a source for legal advice and do not replace real lawyers. Using that rationale for keeping this article is unfathomable. I have no bias against school projects, but they need to conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Per the delete arguments below, this is essntially WP:SYNTHESIS. I cannot in good faith userfy this article because sources have not been provided proving this is not synthesis and I fear moving into userspace will essentially become a web host. The article creator can email me for a copy of the article. v/r - T P 01:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limitations on copyrightability: Ideas and facts vs. expression; merger doctrine; scènes à faire in IP law in Canada[edit]

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

This is an essay, an exercise in original research and synthesis that is not appropriate as a WP article. I do not believe this can be salvaged into something workable, even with a complete rewrite and a move to a more appropriate title. RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 19:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author has claimed on his talk page that
This article is for a class at the U of T law school as part of some wiki project at the university it is by its nature more academic than a real wiki.

Clearly they have misunderstood the use of Wikipedia as part of a school project. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought the whole idea of student projects here was to teach students about Wikipedia; not simply to provide free hosting. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 3 reasons. One, it has a crap title. Two, it looks like a copyvio or student project. Three, It lacks notability. Therefore, deletion is recommended. James1011R (talk, contribs - Visit The Forge) - That's ridiculous. It's not even funny. 21:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Potentially a decent article topic, but a rewrite would have to start by erasing everything here, so we don't help a future writer by keeping this content. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, thank you for your responses. This student is a participant in the Canadian arm of the Global Education Program. We will be encouraging students learning about WP to work in their sandboxes first. This material will likely be moved in the next day or so, or perhaps the student will revise. Let's give them a day or so to figure this out. In any event, thank you for your quick responses to this issue. Jaobar (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been vastly cleaned up from its original nominated version. Unfortunately, it still relies directly on case law for references, and thus any conclusions about the applicability of those cases to any other case has to be considered synthesis. Again, while such synthesis is appropriate, even encouraged, in academic writing, it has no place in Wikipedia. Should the author get this article published in a peer-reviewed law journal, than that peer-reviewed article could serve as a reliable source for an article on Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to a standard commercial legal text which repeats the boiler plate assertions I made regarding the doctrines in question. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. The text is partially online at google books: http://books.google.com/books?id=_cvrqbjUckIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. User:Gloominary —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep The fact that this was written as part a law school project is not a sufficient excuse for deleting it. Despite WikiDan61's entirely personal POV that this is original research. Case law is entirely appropriate for this kind of article. If inappropriate conclusions are drawn from that fact they can be handled by editing and not by heavy-handed deletion. We in Wikimedia Canada would certainly encourage more of this kind of activity, and would prefer that such new editors not be cut off at the knees. Doing so only serves to keep the number of Wikipedia editors down. I will bring this to the attention of other Canadians for comment. Eclecticology (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Copyright law of Canada. There's no reason for splitting this subject matter off from its base article, which would benefit from the added content and case law references. While it still reads like an essay, it has some references (more are needed), so IMO it's salvageable. PK T(alk) 12:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Copyright law of Canada. I come to Wikipedia for legal advice. Would do well merged into the mentioned article. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not opposed to a merger at this stage. In the longer term, there would be great benefit to developing this entire topic area to the same extent as it is now developed for US law. Eclecticology (talk) 19:02, 27 September 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. A worthy organisation but the consensus is that it fails to meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Fund[edit]

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

This article covers a real medical organization that does not appear to meet notability requirements. A general search turned up absolutely no mention in the media, and very little reference anywhere else (there is the official site, a few member/support pages, and various charity information sites that provide our only evidence that this is a real organization). The article was nominated for deletion shortly after creation, but was spared after the creator (who has worked on no other article, possibly due to a conflict of interest) introduced most of the present content. That content, it turns out, is copied directly from opusfund.org's Our Mission and About Us sections. It is possible that there exist some non-internet media that have documented this organization, though I find it doubtful, since no references (or content from anyone besides the creator) have been provided over the two-and-a-half years of the article's existence. The doctor to whom the second section is dedicated does have a significant history of scholarly papers, but that does not defend the existence of an organization presumably started by him. Martin Berka (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have removed the sections on the org's mission, and the bio on the doctor as they are word for word copies of material from the organisation that are explicitly copyrighted. As for the organisation, I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tidied up the article, which consisted of one-and-a-half sentences so it was not comprehensible. However, the organization seems to be completely non-notable. Google News finds nothing. Google (after eliminating the much better known Opus Fund Services, a hedge fund manager) finds only self-referential material. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 27 September 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. v/r - T P 01:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigtuna Cricket Club[edit]

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

Article about a cricket club which fails the WP:CRIN notability guidelines, as well as WP:CLUB/WP:GNG. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:CLUB. Mt king ^(edits) 11:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Because of a lack of argument above, I fail to see how the WP:CRIN notability guidelines have been applied here to arrive at non-notability. There are only specified criteria for Great Britian and Australia, plus a statement "It is necessary to take an individual view about each country in terms of its own grassroots structure". How has that been done in this case? Since Sigtuna CC as far as I can tell plays in the highest Swedish division, does that mean that the nominator interprets WP:CRIN to mean that no Swedish cricket teams can be notable? Tomas e (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's not enough reliable coverage in secondary sources to cover notability. It's similar to Irish club teams which led to WP:CRIN being amended, with many being found to be non-notable (little independent coverage, didn't play in the respective Irish cricket unions top division ect). There's plenty of cricket clubs in Ireland, while this club may play in a top national division, that isn't a particularly notable feat in a country where according to an article only 16 cricket clubs exist. Club sides have always required significant coverage, unfortunately this one falls well short. A full breakdown of the debate regarding the notability of Irish cricket clubs and the decisions reached about notability can be found here. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swedish Cricket Federation where a short mention (in a currently non-existent list of clubs?) would, I feel, be appropriate. PWilkinson (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Cricket in Sweden or something like that would be a good idea. /Julle (talk) 13:14, 24 September 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 19:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per single source that provides enough to establish that the club exists. I think it is enough for not to justify inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you really have no intention to improve your incredibly flimsy !voting, do you?--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link on the article simply links to a page where it and other Swedish cricket clubs are listed, this does not indicate how the club is notable, nor does it provide enough coverage to imply notability. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:06, 24 September 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} 00:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lekshmy Rajeev[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (non-notable) -- two refs listed in the article are newspaper articles written by him/her but not about him/her. The in-line external link is dead. Google searches have only yielded social contacts. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of subject's notability in article, nor uncovered in searches. Nor even in her self-penned bio here. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 10:46, 16 September 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, v/r - T P 19:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 23 September 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} 00:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vorony Sumy[edit]

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

not notable, no sources, info is wrong and not worth cleaning up... Львівське (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The article states them to have played in the Ukraine's professional hockey league. Does this not mean they're notable? This would seem to fulfil part 1 of WP:CLUB "The scope of their activities is national ... in scale.". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added sources that confirm the club plays in the Ukrainian top hockey league. Info indeed was wrong: sources say the club was founded in 2002, not 2008, which is now fixed. GregorB (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To the best of my knowledge, the teams in a country's top professional sports league are always considered notable on Wikipedia. (I consider that argument to be WP:COMMONSENSE, not WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:28, 17 September 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, v/r - T P 19:18, 22 September 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. v/r - T P 01:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Kopp[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion can find nothing to support WP:NOTABILITY on Google or in article. Has been tagged as of unclear notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added the one decent reference that I could find (on his Dublin commission) but it seems too light to meet the criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the list of his exhibitions in the German Wikipedia article, he just might meet ARTIST#4. However, the best sources that that article provides are [5] and [6] - which are a bit better than nothing, but probably not enough. PWilkinson (talk) 21:24, 11 September 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, v/r - T P 01:37, 15 September 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, v/r - T P 19:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability...Modernist (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete insufficient sources to meet WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 29 September 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. v/r - T P 01:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha (Kaela Kimura song)[edit]

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

No evidence is given of this being a notable single. The only information in here is that it is, in fact, a single. Nothing is provided to show it meets the standards of WP:NSONGS. Myself and User:212.159.45.2 had redirected this to the album page, but were both reverted by TJRC (talk · contribs), so I bring this here. Unless WP:RS can be found to prove its notability, it should be deleted and redirected to the album's page. either way (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Considering it made #8 on a notable chart, you'd think there'd be more to say but there isn't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One reason for the brevity is that it's a song in a foreign country and foreign language. Redirection would lose the track listing, which is information work keeping. I would not object to a redirect if the information in the article was actually merged so that it is not lost. But is being a stub of an otherwise notable article a good reason to delete it ? TJRC (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charted single, reached #8 on the Oricon chart. The IP editor in question redirected several dozen of articles, obviously with no knowledge of their subject matter. Obviously, neither the IP editor nor the nom bothered with WP:BEFORE. TJRC (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And you didn't bother with WP:ONUS after our redirects. You instead told us the onus was on us, which it is not. either way (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You misunderstand WP:ONUS. This was not challenged material, which is what that policy is addressing. What parts of the article did you believe were not true? TJRC (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the whole idea of it being notable, for one. If others are coming in and saying "there's nothing here that shows it is notable," you need to prove it is notable with sources, not just revert and say "nope, you're wrong, you don't know what you're talking about." either way (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:ONUS is about challenged material. Please quote the material you challenged. TJRC (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The article itself is the challenged material. Additionally, the source provided right now is unreliable as it is a wiki. either way (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 15 September 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, v/r - T P 19:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSONGS as it charted on Oricon. I have edited it to provide a reliable source for its chart position. Ibanez100 (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The chart position may give it some notability, but the article (which consists of one sentence of prose after almost a year) is rather pointless. As per WP:Songs, articles shouldn't be created unless there is enough information to make a separate article worthwhile. The song in question is now four years old and it seems there is little interest in expanding this.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:11, 29 September 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. v/r - T P 01:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Osorio[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Can find nothing on Google or in article to support WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged as of dubious notability for 4 years without improvement. Boleyn (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? My guess after reading is that the subject notable, but it looks like to article has no editors, i.e. nobody working on showing that. Question mark is because I have no knowledge on this. Article looks encyclopedic. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 9 September 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) 00:50, 15 September 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, v/r - T P 19:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reference available is fairly detailed, and together with the dimension of his work is enough to meet notability already. Additionally, I was able to find a biographical article [7] and a book review [8]. There are several articles about him being part of a jury or similar events, as a recognized writer, and lastly these pages [9] [10] [11] seemed kind of promising from the Google snippet, but I cannot open them from work, I'll check them tonight if the AfD is still open. It is also stated in the current reference that he was awarded the Premio Nacional de Novela Ignacio Manuel Altamirano (a national award) in 1989, and also a state-wide journalism award for Chihuahua. These awards are also mentioned by the other articles, but I couldn't find an "official" source to support it — frankie (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the three links now. The first two are primary, so while they might be useful for verification they do little in terms of notability. The last one has the same content as the biography published in Milenio, with some minor grammar changes. I still believe that the recognition as a writer provided by the other results is sufficient to warrant inclusion — frankie (talk) 22:26, 29 September 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} 00:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Policy Management[edit]

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

Non-notable organization; no real sources other than their website or reports produced by them. They are a global consultancy group - big deal, there's a bunch of them. Is this one particularly notable? Brianyoumans (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the article is fairly obviously written by someone who works there and reads like a promo.Brianyoumans (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wrote it and I don't work there. Absence of sources is my fault as someone who is just trying to figure out how to use wiki. That said, if you google "Oxford Policy Management" reports you come up with 58,000 results including citations by other major players in this field (economic analysis, research etc etc), including several research bodies that are on Wikipedia, including Institute of Development Studies and Overseas Development Institute (ODI), as well as DFID etc. So maybe it needs more external links (actually, I took ODI as an example of a way to do references and nearly all of theirs - 11 out of the 13 - are self-referential...I obviously chose the wrong example!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithConlon (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Keith: Looking at your bio here at Gaught/Conlon and Gaught/Conlon's client list, it is perhaps a little disingenuous for you to say you aren't an employee of OPM; you aren't, but on the other hand you are clearly doing what would be called in the old days "PR" for them, and every single edit of the account "KeithConlon" has related to OPM - it is what we call here on Wikipedia a Single Purpose Account.Brianyoumans (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current text is unambiguous advertising, rosily slanted but too vague to improve by editing: an international development consultancy that helps organisations find and implement sustainable solutions for reducing social and economic disadvantage in low- and middle-income countries.... the company addresses complex issues in fields such as health, education and public financial management through a combination of high-quality analysis and 30 years’ practical experience of facilitating change in more than 90 countries worldwide. Its analytical expertise is reinforced through links with a wide range of leading academic institutions and international research and consulting organisations. Its practical experience, in turn, is bolstered by a network of 30 internationally renowned associates. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:09, 12 September 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) 00:41, 15 September 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, v/r - T P 19:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references used at present show that WP:CORP is met and although I can find plenty of mentions of reports that OPM have authored in google news, I can't find any information specifically about the company. SmartSE (talk) 22:43, 23 September 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. v/r - T P 01:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compensation Solutions, Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Claims of notability amount to little:

"Best Place to work in NJ" is, according to the published press release, based on a sample of 30 medium-size companies, rather than the entire population of medium-size companies in the state. (30 are selected to win; countless more enter [12]
Most references are from the company's own press releases.
External references verify only that the company has received this or that certification.

Note the conflict of interest based on similarity of the author's name to the company's CEO. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article may not have complied with WP:NPOV. Half of the refs aren't independent of the org, while the others (except for allbusiness.com) are borderline regarding reliable sources. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Florid neutrality issues, and the article is about a payroll administration outsourcing business. After years in the Human Resource administration and salary survey fields, Mr. Cioffe started CSI with the aid of two financial experts, Joseph Occhiogrosso and Stuart Yannalfo. An entrepeneur himself, Mr. Cioffe sought to enable other small business owners to focus on their core business competencies and outsource their cost centers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article meets notability guidelines. It could def. add more sources. But I would keep it. 68.192.0.90 (talk) 19:53, 24 September 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} 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Catholic Church in the United States[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for non-primary sources for two years, and notability for a year and a half. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This denomination has had a bit of news coverage[13], including coverage for its ordination of a female priest--not a lot, but it comes from multiple sources and locations, so I think it's enough to support an article. See e.g. [14][15][16][17][18][19] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An entry in a print encyclopedia from a major educational publisher shows that this is an encyclopedic topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve article. St Anselm (talk) 23:22, 23 September 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} 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Chanos[edit]

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

This biography is effectively a resume for a political pundit. Fails the general notability guideline: while reliable sources establish the basic facts, most of the article is original research synthesizing unreferenced information (possibly introduced by the subject), and that situation is unlikely to improve. causa sui (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm surprised I'm saying this, especially I'm usually a deletionist and this article, as presently written, is completely dreadful. The whole thing is written as shameless WP:PROMOTION. But anything that can be fixed by editing is off the table in an AfD. Here, the question is notability. From WP:DEL#CONTENT: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Clicking the Google books link instantly turns up a lot of hits that actually do talk about this guy, e.g., "His face gaunt and mournful, James Chanos is not an upbeat guy. He certainly is not a popular man in Corporate America. If Chanos is poking around a stock, it usually indicates he sees ..." I'm satisfied the guy is notable and even though this article isn't it, that an acceptable article is possible. Msnicki (talk)
Keep. The GNG pertains to the topics of articles, not the articles themselves. Chanos passes, given the NYT article and interviews with FT and Charlie Rose. I agree it's badly written. Lagrange613 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the first bulleted point, which reads: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." That is definitely not the case here. causa sui (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. That portion of the explanation of significance would apply if, for example, the NYT article talked about China-bearish investors generally, and the Wikipedia article claimed it said something about Chanos. Instead, the first three words of the NYT article are "James S. Chanos". His name or pronouns referring to him appear in most of the paragraphs. OR is not "needed to extract the content" from the NYT article. The case is even clearer with the interviews. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trivially easy decision. Wikify it, clean it up to proper form but there's no question whatsoever that Chanos is a notable figure- pursuant to all wp:notability precepts- and warrants an entry. FactsAndHonesty (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable figure, as evidenced by multiple RS. Have just added a few more to the article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did some further cleanup, including making more neutral-toned, but does need more work. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:12, 27 September 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 sent to sleep with the fishes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Testa[edit]

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

He does not pass WP:CRIME. He is only known for being the brother of Joseph Testa and his own murder. This information can be found in the Lucchese crime family#Former members section. Vic49 (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:CRIME, insignificant minor gangster. - DonCalo (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that Testa does not meet notability criteria Rogermx (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have to concur, doesn't assert notability. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:14, 28 September 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. v/r - T P 01:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Napolitania[edit]

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

The term is mainly an invention of minority independentist movement to indicate Southern Italy or, more precisely, the territory corresponding to the former Kingdom of Naples. However, the historical usage of such a term appears almost non-existing, in the few listed Google Books searches it is unclear whether the term is really used for the whole region rather than for the Naples area Cruccone (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your political colored opinion, Napolitania indicates the territory where the neapolitan people leaves and has leaved the last 800 years. In ancient books or maps the whole area of the Kingdom of Naples is called Naples so it's clear that Napolitania is newer name for this area. Napule (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not an invention of independentists or autonomists whatsoever. The term Napolitania is the ultimate development of the substantivation of the adjective Napoletano (or Napolitano, according to the more ancient spelling of the term). The substantivation of Napoletano is widely used in literature prior to the 20th century as historical-geographical term to refer to the neapolitan provinces, as they were still called for long time after the political unification of the peninsula on the 17th of March 1861. The term Napolitania develops at early 20th century as expedient to quickly refer to the land historically inhabited by the Neapolitan people, now that the term Napoli was increasingly getting associated with the city only, unlike in the past. Some of the references already cited in the Napolitania page demonstrates that it has been used by foreign authors exactly to indicate that land. At the best of my knowledge, the first appearance of the term Napolitania dates back to 1911, Società Africana d'Italia Anno XIX, fasc. IX-X, XI-XII, 1911 e Anno XXXI, fasc. V-VI.
Going back to my initial point, Napolitania is the ultimate development of the substantivation of the adjective Napoletano, which was used in a geographic meaning too. It is composed of Napoli, the Italian name of the city Naples, and the suffix -tania, developed during the Roman times, and which stands for "land", "country". Napolitania is then the land or country of Napoli (or, by extension, of Napolitani). Napolitani (Neapolitans) is indeed the historical name of the people who lived in the Kingdom of Naples (and in the continental part of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies from 1816 to 1861) and the appellation survived long after the fall of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.
Napolitania is then just a linguistic expedient to refer to the country of Naples, which is an entity officially existed from 1285 and 1815 and officially recognised within the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies from 1816 to 1860. The same linguistic development has occurred throughout history to name other lands/nations, like Occitania, Mauritania, Aquitania, etc. The geographical use of the term Napolitania develops pretty much at the same time with the other geographical terms, like Padania and Appenninia.
I'd also like to point out that the asteroid 1876 Napolitania is named after Naples, by following the same pattern. --Neminis (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Kingdom of Naples is sufficient for the past, WP:NOTADVOCATE applies to the present. Racconish^Tk 19:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Racconish^Tk 03:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope further commenting is allowed: just to make sure that we are clear, Napolitania has got a geographical and cultural meaning. Kingdom of Naples refers to a once existed state. It no longer exists, so it cannot apply to the present and it does not refer to the Neapolitan territories in a geographic and/or cultural way. Nowadays those territories still share the same cultural inheritance, hence the term Napolitania was invented early 20th century; but this I already said. --Neminis (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The issue here is the notability of the notion. The criterion, as indicated by Stuartyeates and myself, significant coverage in reliable sources. Racconish^Tk 19:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence that this is an accepted name for this region. If the political movement to establish this as a separate entity is notable, which it may be per [20][21][22], then we can have an article on that movement, but not one that presents the region as already being established. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 23 September 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 Titanic (1997 film). v/r - T P 01:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Dawson Calvert[edit]

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

I can't see any evidence either in the article, or in searches I've done, that this character meets the notability guidelines for inclusion. I can't find any significant coverage of the character in reliable sources. I suspect there isn't anything more than is already included in Titanic (1997 film) and, as a fairly uncomplicated character that appears in only one film, I see no reason for a separate article. Beloved Freak 16:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything of value back to the film article, retain as a redirect even if there's nothing worth merging. It's a rare character that has only appeared in one film that merits his or her own article, and I don't see this fictional female being an exception. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this article should be kept and not deleted or merged. The character is the main character of one of the most noted films in history and it seems like alot of history about the character has been established in the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All that has been established in the article is a mixture of original research ("Rose appears to be severely depressed"; "It can be assumed that Rose led a free life after the Titanic, and the bedside photographs in 1996 suggest that she made "every day count"") and a reguritation of the plot. Nothing is backed up by any critical discussion in scholarly sources, and having searched for such sources, I am doubtful they exist. The character is mentioned in reliable sources, but I can find no significant coverage. If you are aware of some, please add them to the article. Notability is not inherited. A main character of a notable film does not necesarily have independent notability. We don't decide whether or not they're worth talking about - the sources do.--Beloved Freak 20:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Belovedfreak - there are simply no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for Wikipedia. —Mike Allen 06:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MikeAllen. Not a reasonable search term, maybe Rose Dawson but not Rose Daweson Calvert, and even then Rose Dawson should redirect to the film article. She is not Ellen Ripley, she is not notable enough to warrant her own article nor does the information exist to support such an article.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm merging, Jack! Seems an obvious case. It may not be a likely search term, but it's a possible one, and I see no problem with a redirect, along with a merge of anything verifiable. Powers ^T 13:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would you merge? Just curious. Is there anything worth keeping in this article that's not already in Titanic (1997 film)?--BelovedFreak 14:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't had a chance to pore over it in detail; I'm fine with a simple redirect if there's nothing to merge, but it seems like a needless distinction in the case of an AfD. Powers ^T 15:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject and the article is an unreferenced summary-only description of a fictional work. As nothing is referenced, I do not believe that a merge is appropriate. Jfgslo (talk) 00:45, 30 September 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 (G5) by Ironholds - (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Noorbergen[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Earthisalive, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers, and other unorthodox theories. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, topic could be notable or or could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've done a quick scan of these Google Books results and these books are from reliable publishers: [23][24][25]. I can't see enough of the content to determine how significant the coverage is, and, that being a quick scan, there may be more there. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup and articles should not be nominated because you don't like the author. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep or Procedural closure Invalid nomination. After a speedy closure, article can then be speedily and properly nominated, if that is actually warranted. Being a sockpuppet makes no difference to AfD, if the article can be G5'ed, it should be speedy deleted, even if the topic is notable and sourced. Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly would be the point of closing the debate and then immediatly re-opening a new one? We are not a bureaucracy. If the subject is notable, keep it, else delete it. This is not rocket science. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to this question several times already, a proper nomination respects the time of those who participate at an AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article created by User:Earthisalive, a confirmed sockpuppet. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Article created by a banned user. So tagged. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:30, 26 September 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 (G5) by Ironholds - (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European origin of modern humans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/European origin of modern humans

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

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Earthisalive, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers, and other unorthodox theories. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, topic could be notable or or could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article appears to require limited cleanup, mostly in terms of reference formatting and the amount of bibliographic information provided. I don't see anything that can't be repaired. Several Times (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Attention also needed to spelling and grammar. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability (WP:N ) and smacks of original research (WP:NOR). Glad to see it was redirected to "Science related deletion discussions", as per the above recommendation.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup and articles should not be nominated because you don't like the author. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot be a speedy keep regardless of any problems in the original nom, because someone independent has advanced a delete vote. Kevin (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep or Procedural closure Invalid nomination. After a speedy closure, article can then be speedily and properly nominated, if that is actually warranted. A proper nomination respects the time of the editors being asked to participate at the AfD. Being a sockpuppet makes no difference to AfD, if the article can be G5'ed, it should be speedy deleted, even if the topic is notable and sourced. Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SK. As someone other than the nominator has advanced a delete vote, this is not something that can be speedy kept. Kevin (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two other cases, the delete vote can be redacted, or WP:IAR can be invoked over the exception. Procedural closure is appropriate in any case. Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly would be the point of closing the debate and then immediatly re-opening a new one? We are not a bureaucracy. If the subject is notable, keep it, else delete it. This is not rocket science. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already responded above, except to note that a bureaucratic nomination is not rationalized by objecting to bureaucracy. Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Article created by a banned user. So tagged. If a legitimate editor believes the subject is notable and would like to recreate the article, they certainly may do so. Until then, the banned user's work should go. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:38, 26 September 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 (G5) by Ironholds - (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herotheism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Herotheism

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

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Earthisalive, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers, and other unorthodox theories. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, topic could be notable or or could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The word and concept comes up in various books, seems to be substantial enough. The article needs to go beyond just defining the term. Borock (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#DICDEF, though. And I'm not sure it's really good enough for Wiktionary. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This theory has been advanced in multiple books that themselves have gotten significant coverage; for example, the first portion of the classic Prose Edda, a thirteenth-century book that has been heavily studied by scholars of Nordic culture. Because scholars have devoted significant attention to this book's coverage of the theory advanced in this book, the theory has received extensive coverage. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the word seems to describe quite well parts of Snorri, and would describe 100% Saxo in the Gesta Danorum. I've read almost all of the english language literature dealing with Snorri and Saxo since it touches on my academic field.. but I've never actually heard this word used to describe them before, or heard it at all. The issue in this AfD isn't whether or not the concept is notable or the word could be useful or whether it could be applied to stuff - it's whether or not the word itself has established it's notability through coverage in secondary sources. I cannot turn up very many sources that explicitly use the word herotheism in them. None of the sources in the article currently go beyond minimal dictionary definitions, and I can't find any sources not in the article with extensive coverage. Have you run across any sources with real coverage of the word? It's a really cool word. Kevin (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Euhemerus#Euhemerism, a much more common term for a concept that subsumes this one (perhaps a brief mention of this term could be introduced into the discussion there). I've seen Snorri's approach described as euhemeristic (many times) but never as herotheistic, and Google Books and Scholar searches show no such usage. I'm not seeing any sources that could be used to expand this beyond a dicdef for an apparently somewhat obsolete term. Deor (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup and articles should not be nominated because you don't like the author. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since more than one person besides the nominator has expressed the opinion that the article should be deleted or redirected, it is irrelevant even if the nomination was not in form. Speedy keep cannot apply here. Kevin (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep or Procedural closure Invalid nomination. After a speedy closure, article can then be speedily and properly nominated, if that is actually warranted. Being a sockpuppet makes no difference to AfD. If the article can be G5'ed, it should be speedily deleted, even if the topic is notable and sourced. Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please go actually read WP:SK. As someone other than the nominator has advanced a delete vote, this is not something that can be speedy kept. Kevin (talk)

I have responded to this point several times now, and I see that you've contacted Warden and he has explained it also. However, the delete vote can be redacted, and the delete vote can be overridden with WP:IAR. Finally, "Procedural closure" is not affected by the delete vote in any case, as per WP:Deletion process. Unscintillating (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly would be the point of closing the debate and then immediatly re-opening a new one? We are not a bureaucracy. If the subject is notable, keep it, else delete it. This is not rocket science. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to this question several times already, a proper nomination respects the time of those who participate at an AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know what really seems to me to not respect the time of those who participate at an AfD? Trying to shut an AfD early because you're annoyed at the nominator even though multiple good faith users have suggested deletion based off of examining the sources available (and in some causes extensively doing so.) There's nothing in any policy or guideline page that suggests that such an action would be appropriate, and it fails the common sense test. Yes, we could IAR and do it anyway - but IAR isn't something to shout whenever you want to do something that disagrees with policy. In no way does adding an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy help you improve the encyclopedia. Kevin (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was this why you and the nominator kept asking and asking the same questions over and over again, to find some way to take umbrage? Sorry, but I'm not going to respond in kind. Unscintillating (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Article created by a banned user. So tagged. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:32, 26 September 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 by Ironholds (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G5, article created by a banned user. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Reid Moir[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James Reid Moir

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

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Earthisalive, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers, and other unorthodox theories. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, topic could be notable or or could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not a bad article, and seems to pass WP:BIO. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C3 as FRS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Fellow of the Royal Society - sufficient to pass WP:Prof#C3. Nsk92 (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup and articles should not be nominated because you don't like the author. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep or Procedural closure Invalid nomination. After a speedy closure, article can then be speedily and properly nominated, if that is actually warranted. Being a sockpuppet makes no difference to AfD. If the article can be G5'ed, it should be speedy deleted, even if the topic is notable and sourced. Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Article created by a banned user. So tagged. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:34, 26 September 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- non-admin closure. Reyk _YO! 03:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asian origin of modern humans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Asian origin of modern humans

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

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Earthisalive, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers, and other unorthodox theories. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, topic could be notable or or could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup and articles should not be nominated because you don't like the author. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep or Procedural closure Invalid nomination. After a speedy closure, article can then be speedily and properly nominated, if that is actually warranted. Being a sockpuppet makes no difference to AfD. If the article can be G5'ed, it should be speedily deleted, even if the topic is notable and sourced. Unscintillating (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Article created by a banned user. So tagged. No need to close the AfD first. Geeze. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:36, 26 September 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. G5 speedy, only edits are by a sockpuppet. Should have been filed as such, and not at AFD. Courcelles 20:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Bipedalism[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Chemistryfan, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, the topic could be notable or or could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup and articles should not be nominated because you don't like the author. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep or Procedural closure Invalid nomination. After a speedy closure, article can then be speedily and properly nominated, if that is actually warranted. A proper nomination respects the time of the editors being asked to participate at the AfD. Being a sockpuppet makes no difference to AfD. If the article can be G5'ed, it should be speedy deleted, even if the topic is notable and sourced. Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a reason for deletion, agree with Colonel Warden. Biophys (talk) 20:46, 27 September 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. WP:SNOW joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Le Fanu[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Chemistryfan, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, and this guy could be notable or or he could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Columnist in mainstream newspaper, notable for his unusual viewpoint, and there are some third party sources. I understand the rationale for deletion, but this particular one can stay and be improved. By the way, I think the surname is Le Fanu, not Fanu. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He has gotten some significant coverage in major sources like the BBC and New Scientist. Article needs copy-editing. --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some WP:GNG in news and a well cited book. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep or Procedural closure Invalid nomination. A proper nomination respects the time of the editors being asked to participate at the AfD. Being a sockpuppet makes no difference to AfD. If the article can be G5'ed, it should be speedy deleted, even if the topic is notable and sourced. Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 25 September 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 by Ironholds (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G5, article created by a banned user. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Schwabe[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Chemistryfan, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, and this guy could be notable or or he could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Fringe#Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. Probably a POV piece, used to impart more credibility to the dozens of non-RS creationist websites hailing his work as that of a scientist disproving evolution. Only one source in the article is RS and independent (and it pretty much labels his views as very extreme). The rest are primary sources.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A GS h-index of 26 in the bio-med field is enough for a keep whatever his views on evolution. Nominator is urged to carry out WP:Before before making further AfD nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup and articles should not be nominated because you don't like the author. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot be a speedy keep regardless of any problems in the original nom, because someone independent has advanced a delete vote. Kevin (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural closure Wikipedia:Deletion process states, "In certain situations, a deletion discussion may require a "procedural closure"—a null outcome based on the circumstances of the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page being discussed." There is no recognized deletion nomination here, so this is such a case. If this article can be G5'ed, there is no need for AfD, and the article should be deleted even if it is notable and sourced. Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at WP:SK which outlines the application of that idea to speedy keep closures. Someone other than the nominator has advanced a rationale for deletion, so it doesn't matter if you think the nomination was flawed. Procedural closures (aka speedy keeps) are only appropriate when no one else has said delete. Kevin (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Procedural closure is part of WP:Deletion process which is a deletion guideline, and WP:Deletion process is not the same as WP:Speedy keep. Unscintillating (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the section on procedural closures suggesting that a procedural closure applies in this case. If you missed it, speedy keeps are talked about on the same page, like three paragraphs down, under early closures. The section of WP:Deletion process dealing with speedy keeps explicitly specifies that they are inappropriate when further good faith contributors have said delete. Kevin (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already quoted applicable text from WP:Deletion process. Here it is again: Wikipedia:Deletion process states, "In certain situations, a deletion discussion may require a "procedural closure"—a null outcome based on the circumstances of the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page being discussed." The presence of a delete vote is inconsequential to a procedural closure. My !vote here did not say "speedy keep", so it is not helpful that you keep talking about "speedy keep". Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creator was not blocked at the time he created the BLP and other editors have contributed to it. There is no case for a G5. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

BLP might be a reason to allow a bad nomination to go forward. See Ron Ritzman's definition of a "high-risk" article here. Unscintillating (talk) 03:39, 25 September 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. Exactly why this became a magnet for IP sockpuppets, I have no idea. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WordswithMeaning![edit]

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

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

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

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

Superficial impressive article - actually relies on primary sources. An examination of google and other research tools indicates to me that there is no significant coverage for this site. Cameron Scott (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Plenty of coverage in Australia, used as source by newspapers, you cannot base your accusation on Google ranks, a simple search of people like Bill Cooper reveals the site within first page --John25477 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— John25477 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

do you have any connection with the article subject? LibStar (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Plenty of offline coverage, as mentioned in articl site had forums of 400,000+ and yes more online sources needed, but site is reliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.242.80 (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete WP:ADVERT. fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Come on it is a notable Australian site alongside Whirlpool and others, I visited the page to find out about it, Wikipedia always insists on taking these sites down just because the dickwad Americans don't know of it, then it mustn't be relevant far out!!! --58.106.203.179 (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

KEEP : I would suggest we keep it, Notable, featured on local papers in Georgia, had plenty of controversy when it came to the 9/11 stuff and overall I think that yes, we should add better sources to the article but I wouldn't say that this article looks like an advertisement and I wouldn't consider this a site that isn't known by many -- oh and yes I am American you racist (above)
KEEP IT - Looks fine the way it is, it's definitely not against WP:GNG in any way, because it has had coverage in the past and it's definitely up there in the independent news sites, leave it--110.33.235.193 (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Article lacks reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I think in terms of media coverage, popularity and site rank that it reaches the minimums required to reachnotability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.202.23 (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

KEEP - definitely suitable, all sources are inbound but many offline sources can be added, like the other users, I was searching Wikipedia for the site and found the info on it here so yeah --110.33.227.161 (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

And you all edit from the same IP range! What a concidence! --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by your silliness here you are destroying any credibility that WordswithMeaning! might have had (although, for me, the exclamation mark already precludes any credibility for a site that claims to be a reaction to the trivialisation of news media). Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no relation to the site, that page doesn't actually have any content on it, There is no conflict of interest, I was searching the site on wikipedia and found that the page had not been created, pretty sure a site having an exclamation mark in its title is not a debatable issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.224.250 (talk • contribs) .

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Lamb Chop would not be amused by the !voting in this AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so that reliable sources can be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.226.44 (talk)
Note disruptive IPs have been blocked. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable organization

Note: I have not provided notice to the two principal editors, User:Comm Department (blocked), and User:Microwaveontable (COI); they are likely the same editor anyway. User:Comm Department has also repeatedly uploaded copyvio images on Wikimedia Commons. JFHJr (㊟) 03:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The images aren't copyright violations. The user is an ICMPD representative; see ticket 2011091210011893. I'm going to have a hard time explaining to them why they can't edit Wikipedia but yet can still upload images. – Adrignola talk 15:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is Commons; the English-language Wikikpedia is the English-language Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was obviously revised. The information given in the article is based on a source of the UN Refugee Agency which seems to be a reliable source. According to a handbook given an overview of the international organizations in Vienna provided by the City of Vienna (see http://www.wien.gv.at/politik/international/publikationen/pdf/handbuch.pdf, page 40), the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) is an official non-intergovernmental international organization and is non-profit oriented. Therefore I would suggest leaving the article online. (Loestr (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Having used lots of information gleaned from the ICMPD's website and archives for my Master's thesis, I was surprised not to find an entry for the Organization on Wikipedia. Please allow this article to remain online. It's content is correct and informative. It would be amiss for an online encyclopedia such as this one not to feature some sort of information on the well-known and well-respected ICMPD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeninwien (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there secondary sources? That is, sources not published by the company itself and not press releases? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Above content transcluded from talk page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment regarding the masters thesis is irrelevant. A third party reproduction of the org's own self-description within a large list does not justify notability for a stand-alone article. So far, the only keep proponents have edited exclusively here and on the ICMPD page in question. JFHJr (㊟) 01:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of secondary sources underlining the notability of the organization. Maybe these could be also include in the respective article. Most sources include the same information as in the respective ICMPD article anyway. See for instance,

The organization has UN observer status (see http://www.un.org/en/members/intergovorg.shtml) (Loestr (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

These are not valid secondary sources. 1) first non-notable article on ICMPD platform; 2) ICMPD source/statement; 3) ICMPD source/statement; 4) profile sources the ICMPD website; 5) duplicate/mirror of first non-notable article on ICMPD platform; 6) second short non-notable article; 7) ICMPD source/statement. If this org were notable, it would have many more secondary sources readily available, third parties that present more than a forum ICMPD-sourced information. JFHJr (㊟) 14:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'd like to point out the slew of recent edits by Jeninwien, Boggess11, Valerie.w, and Loestr since the ICMPD Communications Department account was blocked. These all appear to be single purpose accounts, and if affiliates of the ICMPD, they are operating under a massive conflict of interest. JFHJr (㊟) 14:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clearly reject that I am affiliated with ICMPD. I just want to point out that the organization seems to be a notable one, and is also working together with other international organizations, such as UNHCR, UN, IOM, etc. (see for instance, http://www.escwa.un.org/divisions/scu/migration/Mig06e.pdf). The secondary sources given seem to be reliable - they were found on trustful third party websites, such as the OSCE, UN websites, among others. In addition, the information given is quite descriptive. (Loestr (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I would like to point out that I am not affiliated with the ICMPD. I was looking at the Wiki articles of the various international organisations in Vienna for a presentation for a class at the University of Vienna and was shocked to see there was nothing on ICMPD even though there seems to be lengthy articles for similar organisations like the IOM and OSCE. (Boggess11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Boggess11 began editing the article after it was created; there was more than "nothing" at the time. The only edits began after Comm Department was blocked, and only to this discussion and the article. The coincidence is rather incredible, especially given the number of new accounts involved. A look at the history shows identical editing styles on the same single topic (strings of small edits generally without edit summary). The position Boggess11 has put forward is identical to that of Comm Department in requesting unblock. The fact that other orgs have pages here is irrelevant. Despite Loestr's claim that the sources are "trustful" there is no indication they are valid third party references for the individual reasons listed above. Even assuming they are trustworthy (as opposed to trusting, which they very much seem), the references do not garner notability. JFHJr (㊟) 16:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just google and/or use google scholar, e.g., http://www.eui.eu/Projects/TransatlanticProject/Documents/BackgroundPapers/EU-CooperationChallengesExternalMigrationPolicy.pdf and search for "ICMPD" in this pdf for more third-party references.(Loestr (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This is a passing mention in a paper by a visiting fellow at the European University Institute. The passing description cites, inter alia, her own "calculation of non-public financial audits;" one supporting paper/article (“‘We are facilitating states!’ An ethnographic analysis of ICMPD,”) appears mentioned only within the visiting fellow's paper. Taken as a whole, this publication serves to show the organization exists, but little more. Even if this were from a reliable source, this mention does not show notability. JFHJr (㊟) 16:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the UN General Assembly finds the organization notable enough to grant it Observer Status (http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/RES/57/31) (Loestr (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Too bad that's not the criteria here. JFHJr (㊟) 17:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organization is obviously notable, although the Wikipedia article might benefit from being stubbed. Google Scholar is the appropriate search tool for this sort of entity. They are often cited, and demonstrably influential in their area of research. Taking at a glance a couple of examples from the first two pages of search results, I can see their research is important to the thesis of http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2435.00114 and they are a common go-to for various estimates, as in http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011259422222 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2435.00023 -DeliciousBits (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than UN observer status, by the way. The UN relies on them. -DeliciousBits (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced this makes the ICMPD individually notable for an article in its own right. They are referenced extensively, however as opposed to information from the org (statements and statistics), there is little reliable or notable information about the org from secondary sources. The same PDF that Delicious says shows the UN relies on the ICMPD equally indicates the same or greater level of reliance on other orgs. Nothing in the PDF says the UN relies on the IMCPD in particular, or even specifically; characterizing the relationship as reliant is novel, since the characterization doesn't actually appear in the text given. ICMPD clearly exists, has experts, opinions, and statistics, but it's not notable enough to have a secondary source about them. JFHJr (㊟) 20:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4.570.000 seconday hits on google for ICMPD (not including ICMPD websites - I just put <international center for migration policy development" -site:*icmpd.org> into google). (Loestr (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

JFHJr:

"characterizing the relationship as reliant is novel" — This is a remarkably stupid objection, since I didn't characterize the relationship as reliant in the article, where WP:OR applies. By your own reasoning, then, your characterization of the ICMPD as a "non-notable organization" is novel, since you don't have a reliable source which explicitly says they're non-notable. Case closed; I look forward to your withdrawal of this nomination.

"equally indicates the same or greater level of reliance on other orgs" — And which part of this statement is supposed to be relevant? Notability is not a competition. Let's see which other orgs you're talking about:

“

The Expert Group Meeting on International Migration Statistics (Cairo, 14-16 November 2005) was organized by the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) with the support of the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) and partnership with the following six regional and international organizations: the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE); the International Labour Organization (ILO); the Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for the Islamic Countries (SESRTCIC); the International Organization for Migration (IOM); the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); and the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD).[26]

”

Oh no! It is a grave insult that the UN is only similarly reliant on these other orgs!

You will similarly find that our article on the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has no significant coverage from third-party sources independent of the UN (there is exactly one third-party source, a passing mention in the UK parliamentary proceedings). I think you'd better go nominate that article for deletion too. It is clearly non-notable. DeliciousBits (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship with the UN isn't the test for organization notability. If secondary sources don't indicate notability, there shouldn't be a stand-alone article on the subject. Even an international NGO is required to have information about it and its activities that can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. This article doesn't pass. JFHJr (㊟) 22:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@JFHJr: Please explain the community why, e.g., International Center for Tropical Agriculture, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Portsmouth Northsea Swimming Club, North Ridge Country Club are obviously notable and why ICMPD is not. Thank you very much.(Loestr (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This AfD is not about the other articles. This AfD is about the ICMPD. It needs to be notable in its own right to have a stand-alone article per Wikipedia:NGO. JFHJr (㊟) 01:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the United Nations believes they are notable, then they are notable. Dream Focus 10:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the policy at Wikipedia:NGO. The ICMPD needs to be notable in its own right under Wiki guidelines to have a stand-alone article. JFHJr (㊟) 01:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR apply here. Common sense, the United Nations saying its notable, is far more convincing than two random newspapers or magazines somewhere mentioning it. They were seen as experts in their field, obviously. Dream Focus 01:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the guideline speaks directly to this situation, and following it would follow Wiki principles. I don't think it would be overly bureaucratic to look to whether an NGO has multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources on which to base an article. A stand-alone article on a non-notable subject just isn't encyclopedic. JFHJr (㊟) 02:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable org as per nominator - sock draw of conflicted contributors is overflowing. Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a really shitty thing to say about people. Jeninwien, Boggess11, and Loestr have all declared just why they're participating in the discussion, and two of them did not even !vote. You have no basis for making that insult. If you think better of your final clause and decide to delete it, feel free to delete this response as well. By the way, the word is drawer. DeliciousBits (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above accounts are pretty conclusively Wikipedia:SPA, and easily fit the definition of meatpuppets. An admin has apparently agreed. JFHJr (㊟) 18:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are such a petty belligerent, JFHJr. Let it go, man. Your vendetta is getting ugly. They each declared their reason for participating here, and HelloAnnyong may well not have seen those comments. In any case, one admin's opinion is just that; it is not license for ongoing torment. Let's take them each at their word, given their explanations of their participation. Again, only one of them !voted, so there's really nothing to discuss here at AFD. DeliciousBits (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JFHJr: What do you pretend to aim with your accusations or it is just paranoia? I don't know and have nothing to do with the other users in this article. (Loestr (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Nope, not paranoia. Just a spate of Wikipedia:SPA fresh off a block and AfD. It's a perfectly legit concern. Regardless of the SPI result, this article's subject still needs notability demonstrated. JFHJr (㊟) 02:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a legit concern in this AFD. It is quite irrelevant here. Go find somewhere else to blow your smoke. DeliciousBits (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the SPA, COI, and meatpuppet issues, I think this might be a weak keep, based on its observer status at UN/UNESCO. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I found that the ICMPD has been quoted as experts in multiple articles published in The Economist about human migration. Furthermore, I found a recent article quoting them in the German publication Das Parlament and in a couple of BBC articles. The backbone of any wiki article is the quality of the sources. Economist, BBC and Das Parlament are not too bad. --Ryan.germany (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Beeblebrox (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding comments by Ryan, I haven't found any good references about the organization (are there any? I looked at some but not all results from those links). As an expert, the org gives figures and analysis on human migration. But that just means the topic is notable. The quotes are in passing; not every expert on a notable issue is notable itself. The expert needs to be notable with its own coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 05:57, 29 September 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} 00:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin College Chimes[edit]

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

College student newspaper with no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. The references are the college's own web site and a page which briefly refers to the newspaper. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability. Non notable student newspaper. Safiel (talk) 16:12, 22 September 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 Two Door Cinema Club. v/r - T P 01:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Trimble & Kevin Stephen Baird[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability independent of their contributions to Two Door Cinema Club. WP:MUSIC states that 'members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases.'

Delete and redirect to Two Door Cinema Club—Jeremy (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Jeremy (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both, per nom. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. CSD A7 nomination upheld, Snowball's chance of this being notable. Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Turnbull[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

For some reason this doesn't meet speedy deletion (or so some editor who seems to remove the tag, but doesn't give a reason for removing it seems to think). I could PROD, but I'll make a point on AfD. Quite why we need to wait 7 days for this to get deleted is beyond me. One would hope when someone who edits cricket articles all the time puts up an article for speedy deletion that they're doing it for a reason and know what they're on about. Fails just about every inclusion guideline you can think of, but I'll go with WP:CRIN, WP:ATH and WP:GNG. Really.... AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't a second nomination as the previous one relates to an ice hockey player. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete makes assertions of notability, but not only is the cricket team he plays for not notable, he's playing for their B team (which the sources make clear, but the article didn't, until I edited it just now). --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not in any way notable, should be a speedy delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 22 September 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} 00:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INGLEPARK[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation. Non-notable graphic novel. Not sold through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Baker & Taylor, Blackwell's, Gardner's, Bertram's or any of the other retailers I checked. Not listed at Neilsen Bookdata. Only sources appear to be the product's website and their YouTube channel. Fails WP:NBOOK on all counts. Yunshui (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with all the above. The only defence is that it's very new and might improve, but I can't see it happening.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 22 September 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} 00:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Razzaq al-Halabi[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which note the existence of this scholar, although language issues are in play. The parallel French WP stub is also unsourced, as this BLP has been for over four years. Additional sources gratefully welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 12:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Unable to find reliable sources for this person. Tooga - BØRK! 01:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the above search links, there seems to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and in this context, it appears this subject topic doesn't comply with the General Notability Guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per PhilKnight. Bazj (talk) 18:48, 25 September 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} 00:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elsecar Cricket Club[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable cricket club, which fails WP:CLUB, WP:GNG and WP:CRIN as it doesn't play in an ECB Premier League. It is also unsourced so fails WP:V. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The captain links to Pingu! Generally non-notable club, no problems with its removal. Harrias ^talk 21:08, 24 September 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). Secret ^account 00:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1978 Agoura-Malibu Firestorm[edit]

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

Google search for Agoura Malibu Firestorm 1978 finds only one book (Environmental history review: EHR : a publication of the American ...: Volume 19) - only snippet view available; can't see whether this was arson or not, can't find other references anywhere for this. The arson claim could be a hoax. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a Google Books search with terms 1978 Agoura Malibu fire without quotes. Many books and magazines discuss this devastating fire though not using the exact wording of the title. Though my time is limited at the moment, I will search for the best sources later and add them to the article. Brownie points for for any editor who beats me to it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added four sources to the article, expanded it and trimmed POV material. The arson claim is not a hoax, but I removed details about the arsonist that I couldn't verify. This was a really big and dangerous fire and there were many burning in the region at the same time. It was discussed in the Los Angeles Times several times over the fifteen years that followed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per added sources from cullen328,expansion.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom - if that's OK? and woo-hooo - what a great job on source-hunting and revamping :D (>**)> (hugz to Cullen) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:18, 24 September 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 Keep per everyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright symbol[edit]

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

Strange as it may seem, I actually can't find any detailed, direct, significant coverage of this symbol itself. Sure, there are a lot of sources that say, "Type it followed by your name and the year to copyright a work," but that's about it, and that is not significant coverage. I fear that this is not a notable symbol. ╟─Treasury Tag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 07:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this should be entertaining. 28bytes (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Historically we can say that it appears already in the Copyright Act of 1909 (Wikisource) section 18. Hektor (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that appearance "direct, detailed coverage" as mandated by WP:SIGCOV? ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 10:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – See [27] and [28], for starters. In the event that the article is to be deleted, then at least merge valid information to copyright. There probably aren't going to be lengthy articles, theses and analyses of a symbol. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, the notability guideline requires you to be slightly more specific than simply providing a link to Google Books. You need to explicitly cite sources which contain "direct, detailed coverage" of the copyright symbol. ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 13:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick search on "Copyright symbol" gives the short history of its use and on how it is to be formed in extended keyboard sets. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not direct, detailed coverage. (Or if it is, please link to it so that we can all bask in its significance and include it in the article and stuff.) ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 13:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep and a damn great fishslap to a nominator who ought to know better. Yes, the article fails to explain the origin and typography of the symbol. However the first ref cites a US statute that accepts C in a circle as an accepted symbol for copyright, and that's enough for basic proof of notability here, against deletion.
Was there any useful purpose to this nomination, other than TT believing that he has some sort of quota to achieve for gratuitous deletions? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first ref cites a US statute that accepts C in a circle as an accepted symbol for copyright, and that's enough for basic proof of notability here – I think that copyright legislation has to be considered a primary (ie. not third-party) source in this case?
Was there any useful purpose to this nomination, other than TT believing that he has some sort of quota to achieve for gratuitous deletions? I'll fax you an answer to this question just as soon as you answer mine: was there any point to that comment other than to gratuitously allege bad faith on my part? ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 14:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - significant history and importance discussed in scolarly works (lawyers have ~~spoken~~ written). independant discussion of the symbol and its significance is not limited to the law implementing it. Reliable see lawyers (oh well, one could argue ... but then there is peer review). Sources eg Business Law and the Legal Environment, Standard Edition by Jeffrey F. Beatty,Susan S. Samuelson discusses current use of the symbol and why it is used despite not being a legal requirement in the US anymore. Many more if you search in the right places. Agathoclea (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have articles on trademark symbol and just about every other typographical symbol you could name. ?, !, @, #, $, &. All of them have histories and variants. They are all encyclopedia subjects. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting mix of WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ALLORNOTHING and "Other shit exists" in other words? ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 15:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASH. This page deals with a unique subject and nominating it for deletion is and was likely to start a protracted argument. I'm curious to see what such a discussion could accomplish. Several Times (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated above. For what it is worth, the bible of copyright law, Melville Nimmer's Nimmer on Copyright, §7.07, has a five-page discussion of the proper use of the symbol, including earth-shattering debates over whether the Universal Copyright Convention mandates the use of the symbol (rather than the word), and whether the enclosure of the "c" by parentheses or a hexagon, rather than a circle, passes muster. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The letter of the notability guidelines or the essay cited above by the nominator don't override the requirement to use basic common sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's all been covered already so I'm going to join the chorus by simply saying, "keep".--User:Warrior777 (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This article looks like it could become valuable info one day. Also, Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. James1011R (talk, contribs - Visit The Forge) - That's ridiculous. It's not even funny. 21:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: it's a ubiquitously-visible typographical symbol with substantial legal significance and real-world importance, and the subject of substantial commentary in multiple reliable sources. -- The Anome (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion would definitely hurt the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 22 September 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 Keep per pretty much everyone. I find this result especially justified in light of the prior years' discussions that have been cited. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

2011 Christmas special (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

I have been unable to find any reliable sources covering this work significantly and in direct detail. There's one article from SFX mentioning who the director will be, and that's it. It's not multiple independent reliable sources (the BBC source is not independent). It's not significant coverage. It's not direct, detailed coverage. It's not notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 07:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have this discussion every year, with the same tired arguments. Last time was in July 2010. Obvious notability, covered in various media. We have things to say, such as director, cast, character names, and elements of the story. Hektor (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We have this discussion every year, with the same tired arguments. WP:NOTAGAIN. Obvious notability... – WP:Clearly notable – ...covered in various media. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Can you actually cite any direct, detailed coverage? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider Wales on line as an independent reliable source ? Hektor (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Absolutely agree with Hektor. The episode is confirmed, so it will happen, and the episodes are notable as we have one on every Doctor Who story. TheRetroGuy (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The episodes are notable as we have one on every Doctor Who story. Meaningless and in violation of WP:NOTINHERITED. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chief Counting Officer─╢ 10:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, we have three sources, BBC as primary, SFX which explicitely says that they did some extra research to find information which was not in the primary source (the name of the Director) and Wales on Line which provides pictures of the lead actress which were not in the primary source and confirms that filming has started. So what are we missing here ? How many independent reliable sources do we need ? Hektor (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In last twenty four hours Daily Telegraph, The Sun, Metro and NME have picked up the press release and commented on it. Edgepedia (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may also be interested in reading previous deletion discussions about the Doctor Who Christmas Specials in 2007, 2008 and 2010. Edgepedia (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and TT does not even have the excuse of not knowing the subject matter at hand. Agathoclea (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Dr Who is so big in the UK that this episode would be notable (even more so) if between now and xmas it was cancelled. Unless the world would end before then, but then we would no longer worry about notability. Agathoclea (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have a reason to assert that this subject is notable, or are you just making a crap WP:ITSNOTABLE argument along with some gratuitous personal abuse? ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 14:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
why repeat what already has been said. You compare the amount of mainstream media coverage for every Dr Who episode with that of any other series. You compare the media coverage of this specific episode existing today with anything else scheduled at this xmas you notice that this stands out. You want to delete something that is covered independently in diverse reliable sources. Agathoclea (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability does not require that the sources be immediately there to show that it is notable - as long as there's a reasonable assurance (and in this case, a special episode of one of the UK's biggest programs) that notable sources will be apparent, and otherwise not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, then we keep them. Of course, what's already given would make it notable regardless. If anything I personally would have waited per WP:HAMMER for a proper episode title, merging the details of the special into the 6th series article, but this is far from a gross violation of that. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment more coverage from The Guardian, Photo of Claire Skinner on set filming (Daily Mirror) and the Radio Times. Edgepedia (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Enough sourcing exists and is in the article that a standalone article is justifiable. WP:GNG, and exception 1 of WP:CRYSTAL are both satisfied. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No brainer. Move on. Lugnuts (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The BBC release a press release and this is commented by several independent sources, in a few cases adding detail. If there was less comment we would have a paragraph at List_of_Doctor_Who_serials#Specials (2011) (as I've seen nothing to say this is part of series 6), and this would redirect to that. Edgepedia (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the points made above. /Julle (talk) 21:59, 22 September 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 per WP:SNOW. 28bytes (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah Junction[edit]

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

I have been unable to find any reliable sources covering this work significantly and in direct detail. The PROD-tag was declined because the composer's autobiography was called Hallelujah Junction. Fascinating. But it's still not significant coverage. ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 07:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – John Adams is a notable composer; the fact that he named his autobiography after this piece must count for something.
The piece has been recorded a number of times, inluding by notable performers.
The piece is cited numerous times in musical journals and books; the journal articles all seem to be (subscription required).
The requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (music) are at odds with practice in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias: every composition by classical notable composers deserves an article – that's what distinguishes an encyclopedia from John Adams for Dummies. Very few of the works in Category:Minimalistic compositions will ever appear in the popular press. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep old stuff does not need to be in the popular press. (is NYT unpopular these days?) Agathoclea (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Influence of the work on another composer also asserted in this Guardian article. AllyD (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 19:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable - composition by major composer. And I'll wager any CD worth its salt will have significant coverage in its liner notes. I own a copy of the Naxos release; I'll look tonight and see what it says. (It appears not to be available online - surprising, given what I know of Naxos.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable – composition by major composer. – WP:ITSNOTABLE. Any CD worth its salt will have significant coverage in its liner notes. – although that wouldn't be a third-party source. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 19:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? The liner notes aren't necessarily written by the composer. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More evidence of the impact of this piece. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per comments above. I have seriously considered closing this discussion as a speedy keep at this stage, but decided, by a narrow margin, to leave it open for additional input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that none of the 'speedy keep' criteria actually apply. ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 09:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mass nomination of obviously to be kept articles like yesterday might qualify under #2. Three nominations and not a single delete comment. Agathoclea (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Mass nomination of obviously to be kept articles" might indeed qualify as flagrantly disruptive. However, nomination of three articles without the slightest whiff of notability probably doesn't, and I think WP:AGF tends to apply. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 12:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To apply AGF one would also expect the opposite of the tooth and claw approach shown on these three AFDs. Agathoclea (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider labelling transparent WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments as "WP:ITSNOTABLE" to be a 'tooth and claw approach' then we may have to agree to disagree. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 13:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A significant work by a major composer with multiple recordings and independent coverage in reliable sources. --Deskford (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The work is notable per the evidence presented above, and the article now contains sufficient sourcing to establish that. How could it possibly improve the encyclopedia's coverage of modern music to delete an article like this one?--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:42, 23 September 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. Clear consensus that WP:GNG is not met and that this article doesn't add anything significant to Genetic algorithm. I will happily userfy if someone wants to merge any content somewhere. TerriersFan (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic algorithm in Mechanical engineering[edit]

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

Article lacks reliable sources and does not meet notability guidelines. Tinton5 (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ One would hope that WP:BEFORE covered fixing trivial syntactic errors that were hiding the two adequate academic refs already on this article.

There may be quality-based reasons for deleting this poor, unreadable article. There are probably reasons to merge it with our existing article on genetic algorithms in mechanical engineering (If we don't yet have one, we should have done long ago). There is no reason for claiming the topic to be non-notable, or the article unreferenced. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't add anything much to Genetic algorithm which is a solid, thorough piece of coverage. Author could add a short section on use of GA in mech. eng. to that articleChiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to List of genetic algorithm applications would seem more appropriate than Genetic algorithm, but yes, that seems like a reasonable short-term response. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Looking at the page history, this looks like yet another connected with WP:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Machine Drawing and Computer Graphics. Given how much writing I've already done for articles on their list, I feel I should be asking Pune for an honorary degree! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chiswick Chap. I don't see anything here that would add to genetic algorithm, and I'm not sure that this article proposes a new implementation that would belong on the list of genetic algorithm applications. It's a content fork. I will admit that the sentence Genetic Algorithms are proving to be very useful in engineering design, manufacturing and other such applications because they are easy to use and they are likely do find globally, best design or solution, which is superior to any other design or solution makes me smile. I don't know why. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 07:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A promotional POV fork. Biophys (talk) 20:48, 27 September 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} 00:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Football Club salary cap breach[edit]

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

I struggle to see the relevence of this page on WP. Currently, a lot of this information is already published (and referenced) in Carlton Football Club. I am proposing deletion of this page. There is no need for a seperate article with such a broad title. Say for example there is a future salary cap breach. Are you going to create an article titled "Carlton Football Club Salary Cap Breach 2"? I don't see this as sustainable. Pdunky (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Definitely notable – one of the biggest ever scandals in Australian football. The Carlton Football Club page only has around two paragraphs on the issue. Ignorant Armies^?! 08:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Ignorant Armies^?! 08:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a Merge with Carlton Football Club would be sufficient? There is no reason for a separate article on such a specific issue when it is already covered in the main article. Pdunky (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The breadth and depth to which this could be expanded is significant, and for it to be covered in an abridged version in the Carlton Football Club's history would be insufficient, I feel. Arguably the AFL's Black Sox Scandal. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with what IA and fourdot have said. To truly do this incident justice, it would bloat the Carlton Football Club article. It would be better to summarise in the CFC article and have a hatnote to this article, which can go into the detail it deserves and the coverage warrants. Anyway, this clearly meets WP:GNG – have a look at this google news search and keep in mind that many Australian newspaper articles from that time are not online. For examples of significant coverage, see: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], etc. Jenks24 (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds small to someone who hasn't heard too much about it. But a surprisingly big, and well-documented, issue in Australia. TheGrappler (talk) 02:04, 27 September 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} 00:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Torres (pornographic actor)[edit]

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

no footnotes establishing notablitiy. serioushat 06:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. He has in depth coverage by a single blog. Coverage by reliable sources like GayVN is strictly routine in nature. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't even make a real claim of significance, merely a statement that he exists and has done some gay porn.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Torres (porn star)Curb Chain (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even after assessing the first deletion debate, it seems the 1st one was kept because the guidelines for porn actors had not been agreed. It seems the article now is still not notable.Curb Chain (talk) 09:35, 28 September 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 with salt. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SM Cyberzone[edit]

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

possible violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY Rxlxm (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sigh... their PR section keep making these articles.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Similar articles have been deleted twice already as unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Shameless advertising, no part of WP's job. No notability either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiswick Chap (talk • contribs) 16:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:CORP. Searching for reliable sources, I found an advert disguised as an article in the Sun Star. Insufficient to establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you please be more specific, and state which part(s) of WP:NOTDIRECTORY you are referring to? This would help to clarify your statement. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant PR advertising, patent nonsense & unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 22:30, 23 September 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. v/r - T P 01:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Riyadiah[edit]

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

notability, lack of sources, soap boxing, content fails to focus on a topic —EncMstr (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article makes no sense whatsoever, and I agree with reasons for nomination.--Rxlxm (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete verges on WP:G1. I can't make head nor tail of it. Yunshui (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though it is quite funny and illustrates the perils of machine translationTigerboy1966 (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contrarian view, apparently! Reasons: 1) this appears to be the only article on the Broadcasting Services of KSA (BSKSA) (which needs its own article); 2) I've added some facts and citations (citations missing from the article's counterpart on Arabic Wikipedia). Suggest stripping out the gibberish, which is probably a machine translation of copyrighted info anyway, and leaving the infobox and lede paragraph, tagging as stub, and waiting for expansion. — Brianhe (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting self on point 1 above: there also exists Saudi T.V. Channel 1 and Saudi T.V. Channel II. But I'm sticking with keep. Brianhe (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As far as I recall it has been standard practice to keep articles on all licensed terrestrial radio and TV channels in the United States. Is there any reason why we should treat Saudi channels any differently? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I nominated the article for AfD, it was far from clear that the article was about a broadcast channel. Recent work on the article has improved it greatly. —EncMstr (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean my comment as a criticism of your nomination, but as a question about what we should now do with the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No criticism taken. If all my initial concerns are addressed, I'll revoke the nomination. The improvements so far clarify what the article is about, and decent citations imply a degree of notability. The babble about Ageora knees and similar ilk need to go, but I know little about such subjects. —EncMstr (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, appears to be a notable channel. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 29 September 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. Even the nom reads like an argument for a merge/redirect, nto a use of the deletion tool. So we'll call this no consensus. Courcelles 20:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lillehammer bid for the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics[edit]

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

Delete Lillehammer is the only bid so it is really unnecessary and redundant to have a separate page dedicated to it when it can be included on the main article (2016 Winter Youth Olympics). Intoronto1125Talk Contributions 01:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my idea. It is certain that the IOC will announce Lillehammer as the host city next month. Once this happens, we can get rid of this article. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The what is the point of the article? Intoronto1125Talk Contributions 20:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope of the article meets the general notability criteria, as it is the sources of much media attention. Just because there have not been any official bids does not mean that any of the other proposals are not notable (see for instance Trondheim bid for the 2018 Winter Olympics). Several of these bids would probably be warrant an article. This article would also be part of the summary style of the main 2016 Winter Youth Olympics, as it would summarized the proposals and bidding process of the Lillehammer bid, which would be undue weight in the main article, particularly after the games have been. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social Issues in Cambodia[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Not a well-written or verified article that resembles an essay. The topic might be notable, but not in this way: too argumentative. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that the article creator endorsed the original PROD, and the other major contributor recently blanked the page, could this not be deleted under G7? Yunshui (talk) 09:55, 15 September 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) 00:26, 22 September 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. Courcelles 20:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary LaRocque[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. He played only three years in the minors, never going higher than AA. He managed in the minors, but with minimal success (he had winning seasons in only two of the seasons he managed). References are lacking, with the only one there being another Wiki. There are results of him on Google News Archive, but they appear to mostly be WP:ROUTINE. The major league positions he held, per WP:BASE/N, aren't inherently notable. Alex (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable; there are news sources but as the nom says appear routine. Doesn't need his own article. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has held some important front office positions with both the Mets and Cardinals. Spanneraol (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Span, and the references reflected in a search of his name (though not reflected in the article, as of yet).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Asisstant GM doesn't meet WP:BASE/N. The sources I see have me on the fence, but just enough on the delete side to go with that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think roles at Mets/Cardinals save this. Depends on whether you think Assisstant GM is a role covered by "a commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager ".Tigerboy1966 (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is, but I admit this case is on the borderline, and is not clear one way or the other. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Muboshgu said, this is a borderline case. So, I default to keep. I think he's done enough in various coach positions to satisfy WP:GNG. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 00:10, 26 September 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. Redirect created following deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barenaked Lunch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Barenaked Lunch (2nd nomination)

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

It is a demo tape that does not fit WP:NOTABILITY. Last AfD was closed without consensus. Only 2,000 copies exist, which were recalled, and all of the songs are available on other albums. All information has been moved to Barenaked Ladies demo tapes. ChineseLamps (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the information on the page Barenaked Ladies demo tapes is entirely satisfactory as coverage, and is better there as it puts Barenaked Lunch swiftly into context. There's no need for a separate page to be created. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this demo tape has charted or had significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Hekerui (talk) 16:39, 28 September 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.