Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 22

< 21 July	23 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPW New Zealand Heavyweight Championship

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

Contested speedy claiming sources this time and no sources last time. Doesn't change the fact that this title is not notable. Sources are not independent of the subject (ie there's nothing outside of NZPWI which takes up all bar two of the sources - not good enough). Previously deleted for lack of notability and should go again under DB-Repost. !! Justa Punk !! 23:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —!! Justa Punk !! 23:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Sources make no difference if the content is the same. It's primarily a list so just proving title changes happened doesn't change the root notability issue. Speedy. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 03:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's hard to know whether it's a speedy G4 or not, since the provision is that "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" which makes it essentially useless (You know why I can't compare this to the deleted version? Because it was DELETED!! Duh!!) However, there's no notability established, since the only sources are the IPWNZ website. Mandsford 01:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not going speedy because last time I voted delete the fed wasn't notable. The fed appears to be now, but that doesn't mean this title is. Mal Case (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. No independent third party coverage. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Title will be salted, as well. Courcelles (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformice

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

Non-notable browser-based game. No independent references, nothing to establish notability. Fails WP:N, WP:RS andy (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Weak Keep: These are one of those things where the subject looks like it's "rising" in fame. I would delete, but in this case, it's just going to be a matter of time before this request becomes inrelevent. The-magicJack (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC) — The-magicJack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just to comment on this, please note that what may happen is not a criterion for inclusion. We can always restore the article later. (I am not commenting on the merits of this particular article, only on the above !vote.) --Chris (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note The-magicJack has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. andy (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly fails WP:N Likeminas (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Google only turns up blogs and no reliable sources. Let's wait until it has indeed 'risen' in fame. Arnoutf (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, WP:RS by a mile. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remake this article if it gets deleted. you better expect that you jerks :(. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-magicJack (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does it, expect people to be coming in here to save this article when I make a topic about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-magicJack (talk • contribs) 13:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. They'll get the SPA tag, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a complete waste of everyone's time, you'd be better off looking for reliable sources, people coming here and screaming "keep as I really enjoy this game" will make absolutely no difference to this AFD, only reliable sources will do that. As for recreating the article, we can lock the article against that and blacklist the website (so it's automatically removed by our wiki software). You can't play hardball when you have nothing to play with. So to 'win', you need to find reliable sources and add them to the article, it is the only way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was originally CSD'd as A7. As there was an established history/evolutionary path put forward that spanned a number of years, I considered that to be enough notability to survive CSD, but I had changed it to a PROD. I'm not overly surprised to find it here at AfD. However, I warn the article proponent that "I promise to make it again if deleted" is usually the surest invitation to WP:SALT the article to ever prevent re-creation, and if this article is indeed deleted, I recommend create-protection based on the above "threat". I also remind them that WP:CSD permits the immediate deletion of any article that is essentially similar to one recently deleted in a community AfD discussion. Notability guidelines are important to this project. You have a chance to fix it: about 6 days, in fact. Stop whining and threatening, and try to actually fix it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also WP:SALT — raeky T 14:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are only blog reviews. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of any significant coverage so fails WP:GNG and Strongly consider salting given this "offer" Codf1977 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Codf1977 and Strongly Endorse salting due to ongoing ANI and above comment. Deltwalrus (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and WP:NEXTBIGTHING, add a little WP:SALT for flavour. ukexpat (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep can this article be saved looking at ALEXA ranks? also the youtube video Meet the mouse that boosted the game popularity has got more than 300.000 views.
I agree there aren't much 3rd party sources but I like the game :-).--Melaen (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got also a general question a game published and sold on a physical support is more notable and deserves an article more than an oline game with more players?--Melaen (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexa rank, youtube views and distrubution method are only relevent if they've been commented on by reliable sources - so it's all back to WP:N, really. Marasmusine (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12. A very close paraphrase of http://genome.wustl.edu/people/mardis_elaine, which is clearly marked as non-free. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Mardis

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

Potentially non-notable, written by an author with a potential COI, contains close paraphrasing of a copyrighted source. elektrik SHOOS 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear failure of WP:ACADEMIC. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also include (for the same reasons):

George Weinstock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Timothy Ley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as clear failure of WP:ACADEMIC and WP:RS. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Likeminas (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this page from content that I wrote but it is being flagged as too similar to other content on the web (which I also wrote). I have also added further references and selected publications to denote notability. How do I prevent deletion of this entry? --Gremerow (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds of copyright infringement despite subject passing WP:Prof cites in spades. One of several articles on the The Genome Center written by the communications coordinator. Such practices are apt to end in tears. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helidon Gjergji

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

The article fails WP:BIO thus WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Please note that the article's creator ([[Materials2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)]]) only contributions to Wikipedia have been linking this article to other pages. Which also seems to be in violation of WP:SPIP for self-promotion. Likeminas (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There may well be some self-promotion going on. However this artist appears to be notable. There are articles about him. His work has been included in major exhibitions such as the Venice Biennale as noted in the previous Italian language source and confirmed here. Unfortunately, none of the books are viewable in a google book search, but the snippets in the results indicate he does receive coverage. I am satisified that additional sourcing is available and notability is established. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is not well referenced, but there are plenty of sources and articles on him to determine notability. Clearly passes wp:artist. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tag with cite and expand templates, but subject is fully notable. Just another bad article on a good topic: no cause for nuking. Sources are not hugely obvious, mostly academic & art related, but they're plentiful. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exhibition record established notability easily. Other issues can be dealt with as necessary. freshacconci talktalk 01:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable and encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per inclusion in Venice Biennale and other shows. Needs work. Ty 17:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. A discussion on whether to redirect/merge/etc. can be pursued on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dive bar

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

This appears to be a dictionary definition. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary gives some guidance, and one suggestion is that such definitions are merged or redirected to the nearest article on the topic. Drinking establishment seems to be the most appropriate redirect, where a definition of dive is given. One difficultly in giving a definition is that there is no formal agreement, as the term itself is slang and somewhat vague. There are no reliable sources talking directly about the concept of "dive bar", though there are sources which use the term, which does indicate that it is "slang, jargon or usage" rather than an encyclopaedic topic. SilkTork *^YES! 22:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fails WP:NOT. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retain I wrote most of this definition myself and did not consult any dictionary when I did it. This article has been on Wikipedia for over five years. It meaningful, informative, and a significant contribution to content in the area of alcoholic beverages, drinking establishments, and drinking culture. "Dive" in this meaning has an entry in NOAD2, where the word is classified as "informal" -- not as slang or jargon.Wahrmund (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs work but it can be expanded and improved to meet WP standards. Likeminas (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a slang term, but a recognized category of watering hole. the_undertow ^talk 02:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dicdef or redirect to Bar (establishment). Evidence that this is not a coherent topic can be found in the Google Books results, where the term seems to be impossible to pin down, with each person who writes about "dive bars" offering his or her own idiosyncratic view of what constitutes one. Deor (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bar (establishment). Deor has a point. I read the article and I still don't know WTF a "dive bar" is. If somebody can pin it down then a standalone article can be restored. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ron, I can't find any indication that this is a term that is worthy of an article in its own right. A redirect would be especially useful if there were a section on dive bars in Bar (establishment). (This, of course, assumes that a well-sourced and more clear description can be presented.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect – a dive bar is a significant recognized genre (low-end neighborhood bar; in the US, where patrons drink PBR, not microbrews); quibbles aside, let’s not fall into Loki's Wager. Could be expanded to a reasonable article as per fern bar with a little work, in current state better suited to a section in Bar (establishment). —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Specific and notable genre, as explained by User: Nbarth. I added a source to the article.--Pink Bull 02:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's more than a dicdef. It is a real term, and describes a real thing, granted that it is somewhat slangy, but what do you want when addressing the demimonde? Notable, referenced, worthwhile. Herostratus (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Half spam, half copyvio. —fetch ·comms 01:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OriginOil

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

Contested prod. The creator added a coatrack essay about depleting oil supplies, then added "impartial references" supporting the facts laid out in the essay, but neither the essay nor the references mention OriginOil. As far as references go, all I could find were press releases and trivial mentions. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a strong taint of WP:SOAP about this article and, as it stands, the subject company fails WP:CORP. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search revealed that a major part of the article has been lifted from the company website. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Call it "one user who has blanked the page". See this discussion and this message. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ManagePro

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

Original author of this is a suspected sockpuppet. So I don't want to be part of this. Pm master 21:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I was re-evaluating my user's page, and I discovered that I was a bit harsh on the author, who tried to explain to me the real situation. So I re-added the article, only to discover that the article already exists under Managepro. We have now a duplicate, this is why I think it needs to be removed.Pm master (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch ·comms 01:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Man

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

This article has no reliable independent sources. It describes a generic publicity-seeker. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see that WP:ENT is being followed with regard to significant roles. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fifty pages of vomit-inducing GNews hits from major newspapers such as Ming Pao about her every move, outfit, catfight with other models, etc.: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I won't dispute the nominator's description of her as a "publicity seeker", but she rises well above the level of "generic", having taken advantage of all that publicity from her modelling to land major roles in Hong Kong movies. I added a few citations; will keep working on it later. cab (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in the area per above, although wouldn't deny her as publicity seeker as that's pretty much all she does (personal opinion). Dengero (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per apparently overwheming the WP:GNG with coverage since 2002.[1] With the sheer number of sources available, one might conclude that concerns with style, tone, or sourcing can be improved though regular editing... and will simply take a bit of work and someone proficiant in translating. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cidco MailStation

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

Not a single reference given. WP:SPA user created this page. No importance asserted. Reads more like WP:ADVERT, and includes sections written in a how-to tone. — Timneu22 · talk 21:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: CIDCO Inc is up for CSD; this article (being a product and not a corporation) cannot qualify as speedy. — Timneu22 · talk 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet it got speedy deleted anyway. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a tidy-up but the product pre-dates a similar concept, the Amstrad E-m@iler, which has its own article. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, spam, one of several spam articles being created by this user. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see how this is spam. the product isn't available for sale any more. The article cites one article about the product. There are many reviews of the product for a a wide variety of sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7] are just some. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq. Hobit (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the page has a link to the "purchase page" on Amazon. — Timneu22 · talk 13:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - which I easily fixed by removing it. -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Links provided by User: Whpq demonstate that the product is notable. As the product is obsolete there should not be any spam concerns--Pink Bull 02:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, I guess. Whpq's refs are not overwhelming, but they are real. Not spam, as product is obsolete. Marginally notable. 03:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George William (actor)

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

I can't find any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources or any other evidence that this man meets notability guidelines. I can't find anything by searching his name and the title of the play mentioned. IMDb (his filmography, not his resume used in the article) lists only a director and cinematographer credit for a straight-to-video film. Band article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Save Our Souls. Beloved Freak 21:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO Likeminas (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Alternate searches using assertions in the article find nothing. Fails WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I guess, but those searches are worthless. It needs to be stuff like George Freund "Tony Poppa Music", or maybe no quotes at all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It might even be "Poppa Tony Music", that's what's on his Myspace page. Anyway:
  (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)
  
  "george freund" poppa tony music -wikipedia
  
  "george william" +poppa +tony music -wikipedia
  
  "Last Day of the Hate Bombs" -wikipedia
  
  "george freund" "Tony n' Tina's Wedding" -wikipedia
  
  "george williams" "Tony n' Tina's Wedding" -wikipedia etc. --Beloved Freak 08:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is something that might be help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.0.151 (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, but what we really need is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. A resume isn't really enough.--Beloved Freak 16:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arguments for delete appear to be more policy based than arguments for keep. Arguments such as "can't we make an exception" are not a good basis for making encycolpedic entries that may have serious synthesis issues. Wikipedia is not a place for original research as has been spelled out here. Polargeo (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Esperanto, Ido, Novial, Interlingua, and Lingua Franca Nova

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

Blatant WP:OR; not a single source given; reads like WP:ESSAY. Probably not an encyclopedic topic anyway. — Timneu22 · talk 20:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Blatant WP:OR" and "reads like WP:Essay" clearly personal opinions without evidence. Notice added minutes after initial posting, prior to completion! BasilDickswell (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for BasilDickswell. The article has been labelled as 'original research' and 'essay' because it completely omits any references to third-party, reliable sources. They were not personal opinions but pointers to non-compliance with Wiki protocol. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - for the article creator, or anyone else: Can you cite sources that discuss the similarities of these various languages? If so, that would help us satisfy the verifiability requirement and to show that this work does not constitute original research. LadyofShalott 22:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources exist on each pages describing each language. There is not much discussion of differences on this page; it is almost entirely a side by side presentation of information presented in other articles. I see most of those articles need more sources, but that's not a failing of this article. If there was discussion of the differences, that would require sources, but I don't see any of that. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 20:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent. This is a useful article to be sure but MUST comply with WP:RS to avoid deletion as original research. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on the deletion, but if it survives perhaps renaming it would be a good idea. The languages chosen here represent a pretty good spectrum of the types of IALs there are out there, from extreme regularity in Esperanto and Ido to extreme naturalism in Interlingua, Novial is an attempt to bridge the two and was created by the famous linguist Otto Jespersen, while Lingua Franca Nova is an example of a somewhat different approach that focuses on a more creole-like grammar and an approximation of a spoken language (note the lack of h in words such as otel in an imitation of existing Romance languages whereas others will usually bring the h back and pronounce it) instead of starting with a written language and going from there. Incorporating this into another article before deleting it (assuming it does get deleted) might be best. Mithridates (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That last sentence sounds like "merge and redirect". Is that a fair reading of your opinion? LadyofShalott 23:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My (nominator) thought: maybe merge anything useful, but no redirect. This is certainly an implausible redirect (r3) — Timneu22 · talk 23:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is this article different from the other comparisons in wikipedia, other than being less biased and more inclusive? How is this "original research" when it consists of nothing more than accurate information easily available from the references listed? BasilDickswell (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. The Wiki protocol is clear enough. "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources". What you have done is to combine material in such a way as to advance a position that the individual websites you have referenced do not support. Now, if you had quoted an academic study of the languages in question then the article has validity as it is no longer "original research". Eddie.willers (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article uses only material already published by reliable sources. And the article does not advance any position whatsoever, certainly not one that the references do not support. It simply presents the material clearly and succinctly, as a good encyclopedia article does. BasilDickswell (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Seems like WP:OR and synthesis to me, unless reliable sources are provided, this article shall be deleted. Anyway, the selection of specific IAL languages was arbitrary (Where is volapuk?), so I moved it to a new title who includes all IAL languages (though the article's still only about 5 languages) Maashatra11 (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The new title is fine. My intention was to add several other IALs. However, I did not include Volapük because I wanted to present a comparison of several viable IALs, not every IAL ever invented - an impossible task. "Viable" is, of course, a value judgement. Debate on that issue would be welcome! BasilDickswell (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:BasilDickswell has no other edits but this AfD and the page in question. The user has also been blocked due to violation of username policy. — Timneu22 · talk 16:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevance? BasilDiggswell (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Timneu22 now has charged me with "sockpuppetry" (which I am frankly not familiar with). I was not aware that I needed to use my actual name. I assume that many of you do not. I was forced to change my name by a bot. I guess it responds automatically to "dick" - which leaves an awful lot of Richards in the lurch. BasilDiggswell (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand the aggressive attitude of Mr. Timneu22. If this is the standard operating procedure of the bureaucracy of wikipedia, I have had enough. All I intended to do was to add a useful article on a subject in which I am interested and knowledgeable. BasilDiggswell (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - To answer your questions:
    1. There is no agressive attitude, and no bureaucracy.
    2. I patrol new pages. This page had no references which means it seems like WP:OR. So I nominated it for deletion, per the WP:AFD policies.
    3. "Dick swell" in your previous username was banned as offensive.
    4. "Diggs well" seems like an attempt at the previous offensive name.
  - That's all. We'll see how the sockpuppetry case works. In the meantime, if you have constructive references to add to the article, that will help avoid deletion. — Timneu22 · talk 19:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I simply used the name of a series of baronets named Basil Dixwell, which was a featured article in wikipedia. I misspelled it, which was perhaps fortunate in that it is someone else's name. I then replaced the cks with ggs to avoid the prurient implication. Apparently some find things in names that others miss.
    - You tagged the article within minutes of my posting it. I therefore had no time to edit, add references, etc. That is what appears aggressive to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilDiggswell (talk • contribs) 20:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But let's get back to the issues: I haven't heard a response to my point above. To reiterate:
- The article uses only material already published by reliable sources. And the article does not advance any position whatsoever, certainly not one that the references do not support. It simply presents the material clearly and succinctly, as a good encyclopedia article does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilDiggswell (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's the issue: it doesn't matter that I tagged the article minutes after creation, you have had more than a day to add references, yet none exist. External links and "further reading" don't cut it. Inline citations are helpful, if the added external links are relevant to providing WP:RS. The issue here is that there isn't a reference (or, there wasn't) in the article. That's the issue. Who cares when it was tagged? Add the refs, and it's likely that the article will be kept. Period. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~. — Timneu22 · talk 21:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for "who cares when it was tagged", we do encourage people not to bite the newbies. I think Mr. Diggswell has been well bitten. Tagging for OR and being unreferenced and seeing if there were any response to that before running to AfD might have been reasonable. LadyofShalott 04:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well written and useful article, especially considering its youth. Although there aren't enough sources here, the topic of this page is clearly notable as evidenced by the contents of "See Also" from this article. Keeping this article allows wikipedians who abhor OR to constructively add references. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 20:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question on policy for sourcing comparisons. This information is being taken from grammars such as ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]. Is it appropriate to cite specific sections of each of these grammars every time information about a language is introduced? Adding these sources as "External links" seems better to me because it's cleaner, but seems to run contrary to policy. I am adding sources to this article. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 21:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: if the article is kept this title should certainly be deleted as an implausible redirect. (The article was renamed since the AfD was created.) — Timneu22 · talk 21:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A rudimentary reading of the article indicates that it may violate Wikipedia's WP:SYNTH policy, but the topic is unfamiliar to me so I'm refraining from officially voting.--Pink Bull 02:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know to what extent its WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, but to the extent that it is, can't we make an exception? Certainly seems the sort of article that one would expect to find in an an encyclopedia. Adds to the sum of useful knowledge in the encyclopedia, does it not?. Do we really have to get rid of articles like this but keep "Phineas & Ferb's Summer Vacation" or whatever? If so, that is demoralizing to readers like me. It's not like the article has an axe to grind or a point to make. It's just presenting facts. And the facts are referenced. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion. (WP:CSD#G4 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ananny) -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry A nanny

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

No real notability here; some claims are made but no sources provided. Not convinced that this person is actually significant. — Timneu22 · talk 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO Likeminas (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article was previously deleted via AFD 2 years ago (see also deletion log). I wondered why the space in the name. I don't know if this is significantly different from that version or if it would qualify for speedy deletion under G4.--Beloved Freak 22:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You might want to look at this: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ananny. I've been dealing with this for years. The odd spelling of the article name is because "Terry Ananny" has been salted. freshacconci talktalk 22:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite wise of you to know this. I have added a delete tag with your reasoning. We'll see how it goes. — Timneu22 · talk 22:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Athaenara per article creator's request. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janique Rice

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

Subject does not satisfy WP:ENT. No notability, Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the construction of the article was incorrect. However notability has been estabished with links to proven forms of published work. As well as over 30 published videos of a regular feature on a national cable network-Home Shopping Network. All links should be properly evaluated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlr04j (talk • contribs) 21:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not ability has not been established. Not only does this read like a resume, it actually cites a resume-like website.— Timneu22 · talk 21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can I delete the post myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlr04j (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you have probably seen by now, it has been deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already adequately covered in the episode list. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Faithful

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

non-notable television episode. No independent reliable sources attest to the independent notability of this particular episode. What few sources exist are passing mentions in articles about the series or TV Guide-style program listings. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT and probably violates copyright with the extensive quotes section. Since the episode is covered in sufficient detail in the season 1 article and since ambiguous name is far from the most common meaning of this term, no merge and no redirect is required. Otto4711 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 1), which may or may not require keeping this as a redirect in some form. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no useful content, as the cast information and a more comprehensive plot overview already exist in the season 1 article, and neither the trivia section nor the quote farm should be retained regardless of what happens to the article. Otto4711 (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The episode is already covered in the episode list within Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 1), can't see anything that needs merging, that being the case a redirect isn't necessary either (I doubt the term The Faithful is most strongly associated with an episode of Law & Order). Someone another 02:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has no particular notability which would place it outside the full season episode guide. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers by establishment date

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

Article is not very strong and not enough data Yougo1000 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while I have no strong feelings about this list, neither "not very strong" nor "not enough data" are valid deletion reasons. Also note that this is actually the first nomination for this article. In creating the AFD nominator somehow made it appear there was a previous one. Otto4711 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep although indeed not completely developed yet, I think this article is relevant enough. Collaboration to develop articles from stub to better is what Wikipedia is all about. Agree with Otto4711 that no valid deletion ground is given. Arnoutf (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of newspapers by establishment date which was opened at the same time because the nominator made some mistakes. Arnoutf (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“

Keep: No sufficient reasons given. The topic is notable, the entries are well-sourced and the table structure is there for a massive expansion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep although indeed not completely developed yet, I think this article is easily relevant and notable enough. Collaboration to develop articles from stub to better is what Wikipedia is all about. No valid deletion reason is given, so not sure why the nominator thinks this can be deleted within guideline. (PS note that the nominator has accidentily created both this first nomination AND the second nomination (see sidebox) at the same time. Arnoutf (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep: The argument posed by the nominator for deletion (in the other nomination page) perhaps belongs in the WP:IDONTLIKEIT category, hence it is invalid as a reason to delete the article. Besides this, I can see no valid reason to delete the article, especially since it has just begun and has yet to be properly expanded.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

”

Keep The nomination is not very strong and has not enough data. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The subject, presented as a list, has it's own encyclopedic value. No questions about. However, I share the nominator's concern about contents: such lists makes sense when they are more or less complete and unbiased. No London Gazette? Why? Does the modern concept of universality (sic) apply to the 17th century? East of Borschov 10:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because "London Gazette" was originally published as "Oxford Gazette" and it already appears in the list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, if you allow some leeway for the broadening of the range of topics overtime, and don't fall into the anachronistic trap of judging the ancient Athenian democracy in terms of the modern democracy. The implicit benchmark, mentioned in the lead, is obviously the forerunner of the Avviso which heavily concentrated on economic news. So, yes, in comparison to these handsheets, the earliest newspaper were comparatively universal in their scope. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - London gazette added. Arnoutf (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep, it meets every requirement for an almanac type list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just in case my input on the first nomination page isn't counted here.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced and significant.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be two concurrent AfDs for this article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of newspapers by establishment date. Them From Space 05:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasons given by nominator are reasons for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Userfied. Userfied per author's request TFOWR 20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The C of E:List of Teams named after a sponsor

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

Improperly referenced, improperly named, should be deleted per WP:IINFO. elektrik SHOOS 20:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's my attempt at userfication, can you move it into a more appropriate namespace? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After disregarding the input of socks Courcelles (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solairus Aviation

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)

Advertisement for a non-notable charter company that fails the requirements of WP:COMPANY. Sources are from the corporate website and press releases. PROD was contested. VQuakr (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Addressing the three line items in the deletion notice, the article now has corrected and additional references to third party publications, the most recent addition being an article located at http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/22537/petaluma-based-solairus-aircraft-on-growth-trajectory/?tc=ar

The company is highly notable in the aviation services industry as indicated by the amount of coverage in industry publications and news alerts. Especially notable are the company's executive staff who have long been considered pillars of the business aviation industry.

The article has also been purged of puffery and has been limited to the objective facts. Zachobrien1 —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I edited the fleet text to have a more neutral voice and I eliminated the services offered section which did seem like an advertisement. Additionally, the company is very notable in the business aviation industry. These types of companies do not get a lot of mainstream attention, but they are actually quite well known in the luxury goods market. EWildt Note: EWildt is the author of the article and is a Special Purpose Account. User is currently blocked for running sockpuppets here.

~~Keep~~ Thanks for providing an additional reference Zachobrien1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EWildt (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - your "keep" opinion was established in an earlier post. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Added another third-party reference. Hope it helps!!! JaneCoff —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JaneCoff (talk · contribs) and Zachobrien1 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sockpuppets of EWildt (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EWildt). VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Considering the sox, Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm disappointed that sockpuppetry had to come into play here, but the article looks to have a fair amount of notability in it. This, this, this and this are all examples of independent reliable coverage, of which the first three at least would qualify as significant. The only issue could be WP:NOTNEWS, but since the sources all refer to different events that shouldn't be an issue. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had interpreted those articles as press releases authored by the company; it sounds like their source may be technically independent from the company. They are very industry-specific (and in the case of the second article local); do they show that the company has "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education"? VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the refs cited are all company, the refs mentioned above all look like press releases to me. The article looks like a COI attempt to promote the company, at least up until the most recent edits on it. If kept it would require a serious rewrite and removal of corpspam material. Fails WP:CORP. - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RELUCTANT KEEP Considering that not all the refrences cited are company propaganda, this company is notable as a "start-up" but I agree with AHunt that WP:COI is involved and a rewrite is in order. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - just one of many aircraft charter brokers, cant find any reliable references that it actually own any aircraft just manages and charters. Not a new start just a re-named 1990s company. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another aviation company using WP to tout for business. I agree with MilborneOne, it appears be be just a broker with no aircraft of its own. Of the four "independent" references cited and referred to by Alzarian 16, the first, third and fourth are word-for-word copies of company press releases; if one removes word-for-word press release excerpts from the second cited article there is not very much of it left. YSSYguy (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Non-notable 1-year-old company without significant independent coverage. Of the four sources cited by Alzarian, only one is authored by named staff at a real newspaper - and that one is from the North Bay Business Journal, the company's hometown press. The Air Charter Journal articles read like uncredited press releases, and the Airport Business article is cited to Business Wire, a press-release medium. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Baker

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

Delete - I've been looking for sources for this gentleman for a while and I'm not finding anything that covers him in a capacity other than as plaintiff in the case Baker v. Wade. Fails WP:BIO1E. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:ONEEVENT. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it to the Baker case. While I agree it's one event, merger is much preferable here to deletion, thus saving any history and filling gaps in the target article. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge. What little information in this article that's sourced is already in the case article (I added it from an independent source, not from this article) and what isn't referenced is either not relevant to the case (Baker's early life and life after the case) or is factually inaccurate (the recounting of the case history is wrong per multiple reliable sources). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N Likeminas (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ONEEVENT - we already have a page for the legal case, so nothing, as they say, is lost - Alison ^❤ 03:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reluctantly, but all the good coverage seems to be in relation to and better treated at the case. A simple redirect would also work, as we will need a redirect at this title in any case. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. Lionel (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Variations of blue

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

Delete? - seems to violate Wikipedia is not a directory and is redundant to the templates for shades of blue and shades of cyan. I'm not seeing the encyclopedic value. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of the variations of green article was to remove a lot of crap out of the green article where it had been previously, and consolidate a bunch of never-likely-to-be-more-than-stub articles. The variations of blue article has a similar goal. Personally, I wish that we had a clear standard for notability of color names, that we could stick to, and a clear standard for sources of representative colors for those names. That would take a lot of organizational work to get enough people to agree about though. user:Keraunos has put a lot of work into various minor color name endeavors, and though it is in my opinion (and the opinion of several others) misguided and not especially encyclopedic, no one has really had the time or desire to build a consensus around any solutions. The “shades of blue” and “shades of cyan” templates in my opinion should not exist, at least not in their current form. –jacobolus (t) 22:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on this, there are a lot of stub articles (or articles of several stubs combined, or articles consisting of stubs + trivia sections) about various “blue” colors: Alice blue, Azure (color) (scroll down and look at the variations), Baby blue, Bleu de France (colour), Bondi blue, Brandeis blue, Cambridge Blue (colour), Carolina blue, Ceil, Cerulean, Columbia blue, Cornflower blue, Deep sky blue (“capri”), Denim (color), Dodger blue, Duke blue, Electric blue (color) (“Displayed at right is the color rich electric blue, a color widely used in the sex industry because it is a popular color for women's bikinis.”), Eton blue, Federal Blue, Glaucous, Iceberg (color), Iris (color), Majorelle Blue, Midnight blue, Navy blue, Non-photo blue, Palatinate (colour), Periwinkle (color), Persian blue, Powder blue, Royal blue, Sapphire (color), Steel blue, Teal (color), Tiffany Blue, Tufts Blue, UCLA Blue, Yale Blue, Aqua (color), Cadet grey (lists some "blues" too), Cyan, Indigo (scroll down; the top part is fine), Lavender (color) (scroll down), Robin egg blue, Turquoise (color), and probably others that I don’t know about. And that’s just colors close to “blue”. Some of the content of these many pages is clearly encyclopedic, but on the whole the articles are in shoddy shape, and straightening them out would be a huge job, for which there hasn’t been a whole lot of interest by anyone willing to actually devote time and effort.

Deleting this single “variations of blue” article as a hit-and-run deletion (that is, by editors uninterested in working to improve all the rest of these color-related articles overall) does almost nothing to clean up Wikipedia’s coverage of color. It would be more useful to instead merge many of these stubs into variations of blue, so that, all in one place, they could be kept track of and any unencyclopedic content could be removed. –jacobolus (t) 15:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It's a legitimate spinoff from the article blue. The encyclopedic value, of course, is that people would consult such an article to determine the differences between navy blue and midnight blue. It may well be that this simply needs to be redirected to a picture of the template, or to the page Category: Shades of blue, however. Mandsford 01:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We already have ample articles on colors, including Blue, Aqua and countless others. We don't need more mindless permutations that add nothing. Shadowjams (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the purpose of the article is to display the major shades of blue that there isn't room for to display in the article on blue itself. Keraunos (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Template:Shades of blue is included in the original article, but one has to click on it to display it; why that is, I have no idea. Mandsford 19:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the shades of blue template is an arbitrary set of color names, some quite obscure, with unsourced or unreliably sourced RGB definitions. It’s bad enough that it exists at all; it's quite fine collapsed by default. –jacobolus (t) 00:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As jacobolus points out, if we get rid of this one, we'll have a bigger problem killing off all the other blueish stubs. Until we have a better strategy, this article also helps keep Keraunos from bloating the blue article with this stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the RGB color system Cyan and Azure are NOT just shades of blue. There are 12 major colors of the RGB color wheel at intervals of 30 degrees. Cyan and Azure are two of these 12 colors besides Blue itself. Cyan and Azure are major and important colors in their own right apart from Blue. Keraunos (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 major colors of the RGB color wheel

The 12 major colors of the color wheel, at 30 degree intervals on the HSV color wheel (RGB color wheel) are the following: red (Color #FF0000 (0 degrees or 360 degrees), orange (Color #FF7F00) (30 degrees), yellow (Color#FFFF00) (60 degrees), chartreuse green (Color#7FFF00) (90 degrees), green (Color#00FF00) (120 degrees), spring green (Color#00FF7F) (150 degrees), cyan (Color#00FFFF) (180 degrees), azure (Color#007FFF) (210 degrees), blue (Color#0000FF) (240 degrees), violet (Color#7F00FF) (270 degrees), magenta (Color#FF00FF) (300 degrees), and rose (Color#FF007F) (330 degrees). This constitutes the complete set of primary, secondary, and tertiary color names. Keraunos (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this 12-pointed RGB color wheel is something made up, with as far as I know no scientific, psychological, or prominent art-education basis. –jacobolus (t) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't claim to be an expert on colors by any standard, but it seems like the tremendous ambiguities involved in naming colors argues against a list article. One person's (e.g.) "light blue" is another's "pale blue". In the absence of reliable sources that a particular shade of blue is named and notable this article strikes me as a repository of original research. I personally have no problem with a series of stubs about various shades of blue if there is reliable sourcing to back up the name of the shade. This and similar articles strike me as magnets for original research. Individual articles on various shades can include reliable sourcing regarding the particular shade. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable source for most of these stubs, or when there is a reliable source it is only cited, telephone style, via a couple of people's personal websites. The stubs are not only also WP:OR magnets, but they can't be kept track of nearly as easily as a few consolidated articles (unless there are some people here volunteering to do clean-up work of all the color stubs... that'd be great). –jacobolus (t) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. Tough one. Seems like the argument that we need a place to keep all the info on the variations of blue that 1) would clutter the Blue article but 2) don't need an article of their own makes sense. Herostratus (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as trivial and pointless an article as I can conceive of. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you volunteering to spend some time working on cleaning up blue-related stubs? –jacobolus (t) 00:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Megadeth's thirteen studio album

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

Seems like a bit of a WP:CBALL here, completely unreferenced "future album". And two more cents: there's no way this is the appropriate title for this topic; maybe that's because the album doesn't even have a title yet!? — Timneu22 · talk 18:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: looks like a textbook WP:HAMMER case—just speculation. If and when Megadeth record a thirteenth studio album, information about it should probably stay at their article until the title, track listing, and release date are all confirmed. Cliff smith ^talk 17:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very obvious issue with WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. If the band is truly in the studio, that can be mentioned in their biography for the time being. And if (when) this album article gets deleted, watch for re-creations under slightly different article titles. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Platforms Use for Community Disaster Preparedness

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

Blatant WP:ESSAY and thus WP:OR. No CSD for essays. :( — Timneu22 · talk 18:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many and new references to substantiate that immersive learning is more effective for training and that community preparedness helps to save lives. We will be inviting those references to comment and/or link to this to indicate prior establishment of effective process. PSmithDrpsmith (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maashatra11 (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as WP:OR. Author also has, I suspect, WP:COI and without any kind of references, this article becomes borderline WP:CB. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and user:Eddie.willers.Maashatra11 (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references for the many strong claims made. It looks like an advert to me. Plus there is a "copyright pending" statement on it for some reason? Strange. If/when reliable sources start talking about it someone can recreate it properly. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Surgical Technique and Case Report

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

New journal with no history; most unlikely to be notable yet & in no major selective indexes. (it had been prodded, but prod removed with a request to send it to afd). I have just deleted expired prods for about a dozen similar titles from this publisher, all too new to establish a publication history. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it's not impossible to be notable when being new, it does tend to be difficult. This doesn't pass muster. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a merge into Usmanu Danfodiyo University would be good. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My original prod reason still stands: "New journal, not indexed in any selective major databases. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG." --Crusio (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Usmanu Danfodiyo University, the journal's publisher.--Pink Bull 02:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is there to merge? There is no info sourced to anything else than the journal's homepage, so all we know is that it exists. In addition, the university covers lots of scientific fields, so a minor journal in one particular specialty being edited there (even if it were notable in itself) is rather trivial as far as the university is concerned. --Crusio (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander DeLuca

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

Non-notable blogger and author of a self-published book. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO ttonyb (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. Subject is author of one short self published novel.--Kudpung (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - fails WP:N as well. Likeminas (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Wagner (vintner)

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

Article appears to fail criteria for inclusion set forth in WP:BIO. Although the cited sources are reliable and independent, they are obituaries. Many non-notable people get obituaries; having such coverage doesn't meet the intent of the basic criteria for biographies. Also, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Neither the article nor the cited obituaries describe anything particularly notable about this individual, as required by WP:BIO, specifically the criteria in WP:ANYBIO and possibly WP:CREATIVE. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is accompanied by multiple reliable and verifiable sources documenting notability, including a rather lengthy obituary from The New York Times, one of three or four published in the paper that day. The article was included on the Wikipedia front page through WP:DYK on July 9, were it received substantial coverage with nary a complaint. WP:NOTMEMORIAL has no relevance here and the same argument could be made about any article about any person who has died. Alansohn (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As I stated in the opening, coverage by itself is not sufficient. Coverage within in Wikipedia, including DYK (which doesn't have notability as a criterion) doesn't confer notability either. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL has relevance if notability has not been established for the person. The article currently doesn't describe anything particularly notable. See "Additional criteria" in WP:BIO. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What does count is coverage in reliable and verifiable sources, which this article has, making the subject satisfy WP:N. Any other comments made above are comments alone. Which sources are you deeming to fail WP:RS and WP:V? If there is some issue with the content, please clarify what the issue is or make corrections to improve the article and address your concerns. By your own standards, WP:NOTMEMORIAL has no relevance here as notability has been demonstrated. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article does not indicate that any part of WP:BIO Additional criteria (not basic criteria) have been met; see WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are confusing notability with remarkability and other superlatives. Wikipedia uses notability, Guinness World Records uses remarkability as their standard for inclusion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep with an extra "e". Wikipedia says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." An obituary is the ne plus ultra of "significant coverage in reliable sources". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So anybody who gets a couple of obituaries automatically qualifies for inclusion, even if they meet no other criteria? Non-notable people get obituaries all the time, often two -- one in the town they were born and one in the community they lived. So what? My science fair project got covered in 3 reliable sources, and I can assure you I'm not notable. You don't get to pick and choose parts of WP:BIO convenient for you. What part of WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE is met here? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. That is the difference between a local and a national obituary. A local one isn't independent, it was written by the family. It involves a fee to the paper or to the funeral home, so it is self-published. Most papers don't even give full obits to locals anymore, they have the the standard 5 line funeral notices. I love the papers that still do local obits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"My science fair project got covered in 3 reliable sources". That would be excluded by being a single event, and it would have to contain a full biography of you, not just three lines with your name and school and a sentence about your project. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, a death is also a single event. I find it odd that a person would be deemed notable not before his death, but only afterward, by virtue of obituaries resulting from a single event. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is presumed notable on Wikipedia only once they have been noted, i.e., been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Assuming for the sake of argument that your characterization is correct, that Wagner was only noted upon or after his death, it's an obvious time to take stock of a life's accomplishments, and history is full of notable people whose accomplishments were only recognized posthumously. So the timing of those publications about him does nothing to rebut the presumption of notability (we can also assume that the NY Times decided he was worthy of an obituary profile well prior to his death, as those are prepared in anticipation, but that's not necessary to go into). Nor would it follow from the timing of those publications that he is notable only in association with his death (your "one event" as you have confusedly characterized it). When reliable sources decided to write about him has nothing to do with why they wrote about him in this case. The NY Times did not write an obituary about him just because he died, as would be the case with a routine family-submitted obituary, but rather because the paper thought he was a significant individual, worthy of being noted. You can choose to persist in failing to understand this, no matter how many times it's been explained to you, but it should be clear to you at this point that you are the one in error from the fact that everyone else has disagreed with your interpretation of applicable guidelines and from your application of them. postdlf (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep anyone with a full obituary in the New York Times automatically qualifies under the most basic of Wikipedia criteria, that of non-negligible coverage in reliable sources. As Richard Arthur Norton indicates above, newspaper obituaries of this nature might even be called a defining form of notability - you must be notable to even be considered for an obituary in a newspaper of record such as the New York Times. If Amatulić does not understand this then I suggest they do some more research into the matter before commenting further: in answer to their questions, WP:ANYBIO 1 & 2 apply and WP:CREATIVE 1, 2 & 3 are all met while 4 could be argued to have been achieved.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A non-notable fellow, who hasn't accomplished anything particularly notable in his lifetime, and who has received little or no coverage during his lifetime, is nevertheless an upstanding member of his community and highly regarded, gets a full obit in the NYT and this automatically confers notability? Sorry, I don't see it. The subject here is presented as a vintner. Okay. Has his wines received national acclaim, or just awards in the many thousands of local/regional competitions held every year? I can't tell. Did he preside over a notable winery? Apparently not. Has he made a significant contribution to the world of wine? The article doesn't indicate it. You also need to do better than simply assert WP:ANYBIO 1 and 2 apply. The article must do this, and I am not seeing where this occurs. However, I will bow to consensus, as it looks like this article is a keeper.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatulic (talk • contribs)
  - I personally don't give a damn about wine and I don't know what constitutes a significant contribution to the world of wine. But the New York Times viewed him as the founder of a company (one of the first in a region now known for its wines) "whose wines quickly earned state and national recognition." That's why they published a posthumous profile of him. Not because they just thought he was a nice guy. So regardless of whether you personally view him as someone worthy of note, the fact is he was noted, by multiple reliable sources in substantial coverage. Satisfying WP:GNG is sufficient regardless of whether "additional criteria" such as WP:ANYBIO are satisfied ("A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.") postdlf (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Postdlf, and further suggest that you take note of the way this Afd is going before submitting any more: learn more about the nature of reporter-written obituaries in newspapers of record before dismissing them so carelessly.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability clearly established through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. My grandmother got an obituary when she passed away last year: it listed surviving family members, place of death, residence. It was published in the obituary section of the local newspaper as a matter of routine, submitted by family. Great lady though she was, she did not have a reporter-written profile published in the New York Times. It seems to me that the nom is equivocating the former with the latter just because both may be blandly called "obituaries." But the latter is clearly evidence of notability. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - on the "a NYT obit is ur- notability in the US" criteria. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not believe that having a New York Times obituary is an inherent guarantee of notability. However, it does help establish notability under WP:GNG. Furthermore, the subject received other obituaries (i.e. proper obituary articles, not just one-paragraph death notices naming his survivors and where the funeral will be held). Not only that, he was mentioned in connection with his vineyard business in articles dating back to 1981 or maybe earlier (see [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). He seems to have been a person of some note at least within the New York winemaking business, so I would consider him sufficiently notable for an article. (However, I would recommend that the article be moved to Bill Wagner (vintner) instead; he seems to have been better known by his nickname Bill than as Stanley.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BASIC easily. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and yet, until Metropolitan90's comment above, nobody has explained how -- least of all the article itself with the sources cited. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BASIC states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". User:Alansohn explained this right off the bat. The nomination tried to tapdance around this by talking of "intent" but now you see that no-one is buying it so please withdraw to spare us further waste of time. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, moment of confusion there. I meant WP:ANYBIO. I don't contest that WP:BASIC isn't met. I have asserted, rather, that WP:BASIC aren't the only criteria that must be met for a bio article. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you asserting that because you have not read the sentence that immediately precedes WP:ANYBIO, because you don't understand it, or because you would like it to be otherwise? postdlf (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly notable, several reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – absurd nomination. Occuli (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB - the standard template for this process is biased pro-deletion if the article name is unusual in some way. Compare Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (685 ghits on 'news', some relevant) with Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (0 ghits on 'news'). Occuli (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hobbs (herbalist)

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

Not notable Refudiate (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC) — Refudiate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has some publication record and a few trivial mentions, but I am not finding in depth independent coverage. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not supported by independent reliable sources. All sources are self-referential. Google News search finds only other people with the same name. Google Books finds only his own books. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Roth Law Firm

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

Nonnotable small law firm in NYC. Only claim to notability is a single lawsuit it filed that received a small amount of publicity. By analogy to WP:BLP1E, this shouldn't be enough for notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no guidelines other than WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:BLP truly apply, and this fails all of them. BLP1E may apply, but only in a stretch. According to my own standards, I think they also fail. Their only well-reported lawsuit was in which they represented themselves. Jordan M. Kam was a leading editor of a law review or journal at an accredited law school, so he's borderline. Richard Roth teaches MCLE at an online site, not an accredited college or law school; he may have never taught in a clasroom for all we know. None of the attorneys, upon information and belief, have ever won or judged a major moot court, or served as chair of a bar committee, clerked, arguing any before the Supreme Court of the United States, or run for or served in major public office. Their associate is a fairly new attorney, having only been admitted two years ago, and possibly has not even tried a case as "first chair". Since none of the attorneys are notable, and it is a three-attorney firm, I can't see how the law firm is notable. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails to meet a good standard of being notable. Miami33139 (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mansour

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE and is not notable. Signed his first professional contract, which led to creation of page. Doesn't justify article creation. Joao10Siamun (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without any first team appearances for Auxere, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, and he also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to absense of significant coverage, and due to its failing of WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Thank you, -Liwolf1 (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. -Atmoz (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he gets on the field for the Auxerre first team. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per all of the above. sdornan (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No appearances for Auxerre, none for either France or Egypt and nothing to show he passes Wp:GNG all point to that result. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of French language films

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

I don't see the point of this article when Category:French-language films already exists. Additionally, the list isn't even close to comprehensive judging by the number of articles in the aforementioned category. sdornan (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – it is surprising that the nominator has not noticed that the list has information not included in the category – year, English title and director – and that the list is sortable. Deleting the list is a bizarre way to make it more comprehensive. Occuli (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:CLN Lists and categories go hand-in-hand. This list has a clear-defined inclusion criteria for a notable topic. Lugnuts (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli, Lugnuts and WP:CLN. Lists and categories aren't mutually exclusive. As can be clearly seen by this article, lists can contain much more info than categories. This list is in pretty good shape, although needs more references and is far from complete. Luckily, comprehensiveness is not required of list articles in order for them to exist.--Beloved Freak 19:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or Conservez). The sortable table makes this more useful than a category, although the nominateur does have a point in being concerned about the extent to which such a list would grow. Mandsford 01:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive, but rather mutually supportive... with a list offering more to the reader (specially this one, as it is sortable) than a simple category. This list has a clearly defined inclusion criteria for a notable topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worth having this style presentation of the info provided. JmacBrown (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evinger Enterprises

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

Notability concerns -- is the article mentioned anywhere in technical journals or large publications? User A1 (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google News knoweth them not. The article is bristling with unsourced statements about how wonderful the technology patented by this business is. Merely being awarded a provisional patent does not establish that this business established in June, 2009 has historical, technical, or cultural significance or long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning towards Delete - Evinger Enterprises does not seem to be very known, and barely has any mentions except on websites it owns (such as evingerinc.com), and none in significant publifications. Unless valid and reliable sources can be found, I see no point in having this article on WP. Thank you, -Liwolf1 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Judging from the page history, it seems all of the article's content was created by Albert James Evinger, III (User:AJEIII), listed in the article's infobox as "Founder, Chairman, and CEO" of this "corporation." sdornan (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how can a company founded in 2009 be notable as per WP:CORP? Also, potential WP:COI with article's creator. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If filing a patent is enough to establish notability I should have multiple pages! Seriously, this article just doesn't meet the guidelines. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forward thinking

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

Contested PROD. Seems to be pure, unadulterated original research, prohibited in our WP:NOR policy. Was considering a G1 speedy deletion, but couldn't quite bring myself to take it there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research per WP:NOR, no significant coverage of term online in WP:Reliable sources. Empty Buffer (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speedy delete would have been okay. Original essay. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR with no potential for backing sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is very close to patent nonsense: Forward Thinking = The Animal is a Duck and it will fly or walk, or The Animal is a Duck and it will not fly or walk, or The Animal is not a Duck and it will not fly or walk. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This most definitely seems to be original research judging from Google results. sdornan (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an original essay (WP:NOR), and there isn't much research into this subject. And not written in a very encyclopedic manner, in my personal opinion (A=B=C=D=E? Really?). Thank you, -Liwolf1 (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research/essay. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - Nonsensical OR/essay. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's ok to delete, why debate it? (WP:NOR), and it was submitted to the system at 18:30, 8 August 2007, and been in the the system for almost 3 years with very little constructive dialogue from very few users... in my personal opinion it should be deleted. Thanks, -Davidvalin (talk)
Speedy Delete, Per WP:CSD#A10 or WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#G2 (It's true that G1 isn't a good criterion.) Maashatra11 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Smith (prisoner activist)

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

This biography has almost no verified information - the only information that is verified in a reliable source is that Smith founded POSRIP and then disappeared in the early 80s. The other sources are either blogs or primary sources (one of which doesn't even mention him). I found a 2009 book that discusses him,[13] but it so closely resembles this article (which pre-dates the book, see the version from the beginning of 2009) that I would be concerned about fact-laundering if we used it as a source.

I am not proposing a merge to Just Detention International due to the lack of information about Smith available in reliable sources.

Note: User:Russelldansmith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) who claimed to be the subject of the article was blocked in February for making legal threats, and a Russell Dan Smith did then file legal proceedings against ~~the WMF~~ the Department of Homeland Security for not investigating the WMF for links to terrorism:[14][15]. A biography of someone claiming to be Smith is available on Xlibris, a self-publishing platform. Fences&Windows 13:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 13:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely search term; no need for redirect. This is probably the same guy who has written a non-notable series of books about ETs and sex, but there is a lack of signficiant coverage in independent reliable sources on which to build an article. The New York Observer article is likely the only reliable secondary source and there is nothing of substance there that could not be included in Just Detention International. Location (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources used in the article can be regarded as reliable, and much of the article is unreferenced. Furthermore, I am unable to locate reliable sources myself. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- COI disclosure: The subject is currently indef-blocked from editing Wikipedia over legal threats made here on my talk page and reiterated through an unblock request. I was mentioned by name in this writ, submitted by the subject. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lionel (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — ξ ^xplicit 04:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bored Gordon

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

Notability and referencing issues I8a4re (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —fetch ·comms 01:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. First of all, like a lot of bands, the easily fail all of the WP:MUSIC criteria -- No national tour, no charting songs, no significant media writeups, no awards, etc. -- except that they do have albums. But on Powertool Records. Is Powertool "one of the more important indie labels"? No, not even close. Powertool appears to be (or have been - they seem to be out of business) some guy in a closet making records of local New Zealand bands. Band no longer exists, so its not like they're going to become notable. Herostratus (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. No delete votes. — Timneu22 · talk 01:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoliy Nasiedkin

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

OK, this person won the Shevchenko National Prize, or so they claim. ~~But there is absolutely not a single google hit for this name.~~ The name should be Anatoliy Nasedkin, then you get some hits. But is this enough?? Similar searches aren't promising. Notability problems and lack of substantial coverage is the primary reason for this AfD. — Timneu22 · talk 13:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mark as stub. Change spelling of name to Nasedkin. Change word order of names given in Russian and Ukrainian. The Shevchenko Prize is the highest Ukrainian literary award and his winning in 1985 makes any other requirements for inclusion moot. He is notable. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the name order problem. Still needs to be marked as a stub and to be renamed. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast on the keep. Where's the reference? — Timneu22 · talk 16:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See ru:Наседкин, Анатолий Леонидович on Russian Wikipedia. A notable painter.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:You can find plenty of sources in Russian/Ukrainian here. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, the article headed Вечірній Харків, 21.04.1984, Образний світ Анатолія Насєдкіна is independent third-party coverage of Nasedkin in the newspaper "Evening Kharkov"... Carrite (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Winner of Shevchenko National Prize. Pburka (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Hare - English Folk Guitarist, Singer and Songwriter

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

The title is absolutely incorrect, and that's just getting started. No citations, no sources, not favorable google hits and promotional youtube links. This wasn't A7'd ~~but I don't see where importance is asserted~~ because there is a mild bit of importance asserted, but nothing backed up with a viable reference. — Timneu22 · talk 13:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Phil's debut album 'Living On Credit' was released to critical acclaim and featured strong political material which moved the Daily Telegraph to say in July 1990: 'If Folk song is history from underneath, the Phil's songs are todays' broadsides'." That isn't an assertion of importance? Theleftorium ^(talk) 13:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tho I was unable to find a source for the Telegraph quote. There is certainly assertion of importance, but not sure there are reliable sources to back that up. Syrthiss (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PUFFERY - also reads like WP:AUTOBIO. No WP:RS available. "Criticial acclaim" does not meet WP:MUSIC (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this musician. This article in Spalding Today is a substantial writeup with several assertions of notability; assertions that were taken verbatim from the musician's website biography. As such, it's really a press release rehash rather than independent coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missy Crutchfield

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

Biographical article about a local politician, but written as a spammy promotion rather than genuine biography. There's virtually nothing here about Crutchfield herself, not even her date of birth, background, family etc, just spam-like material about her department and its various initiatives and about her own radio show and magazine. Inadequately referenced as well. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:RS andy (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article makes only passing mention of its subject, and I feel fails to satisfy WP:NN. Significance is averred, but not adequately demonstrated. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable local government official/media personality. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is currently unavailable for reading or editing because of a copyright infringement investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which, bizarrely, was triggered by the article's creator. However you can read the article here. BTW I already removed the obviously copyvio material so I really have no idea why she flagged the article. andy (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as duplicate of THD method which is also at AFD here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doppler guided transanal dearterialization

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

Yet another repost of an article that has already been deleted as the result of an AfD here and twice subsequently as a repost. This is word-for-word identical with the original. The original nomination was that "this appears to be an essay explaining this technique in removing hemorrhoids - and beyond promotional tone, not a lot more than that", and the point was made that although the supporting references exist there is no evidence of notability and the article is not suitable for merging because of its ad-like tone. So I'm nominating it as a reposted, non-notable, soapbox essay. andy (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as promotional peacocking. This article is a recreation of a deleted article of no merit and should have been deleted per CSD G4.Novangelis (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being an essay on a proper subject is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Consider working on articles as a substitute for tagging them for deletion. This is Wikipedia:Deletion policy. And the number of medical articles on transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization, published in such places as the peer-reviewed American Journal of Surgery (example: doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2002.11.003), the peer-reviewed Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (example: doi:10.1007/s10350-005-0281-8), and the peer-reviewed Techniques in Coloproctology (example: doi:10.1007/s10151-007-0376-4) indicates that you could clean this article up if you actually tried. I note from the previous AFD discussion, Novangelis, that you prefer an unsourced paragraph of text to an article which cites four journal articles on the subject. What on Earth is possessing you to favour unsourced content over actual sources and content that can be worked with? For goodness' sake pull out the editing tool to write without mercy instead of to call for deletion again and again! Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the article as it stands is unsalvageable, and the point has been previously made that the topic is already covered at Hemorrhoid#Procedures although not in such depth. It could only be rewritten by an expert who could see their way through the blether and inaccuracies of the current article ("one of the most widespread and feared anal-rectal diseases" for goodness sake!) and create something better. It's very easy to say "write without mercy", but a non-expert could do no better than Hemorrhoid#Procedures. andy (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of an inline citation does not make a statement inaccurate. On the other hand, sources are meaningless if the article does not resemble the content of the sources. This piece of promotional fluff should be deleted for the fourth time, and swiftly. The existing text is beyond salvage. If I thought it was salvageable, I would have made the effort or, at the minimum, recommended against deletion. I've found little to salvage or articles I thought were more savable.Novangelis (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Hemorrhoid#Procedures as per andy. And possibly protect the redirect page, to prevent yet another recreation of this badly titled, horribly written article. There are many treatments for hemorrhoids available; they should all be in one place, unless a separate article for one of them is required by some striking notability. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's link to this AfD discussion is a redlink. I have no idea why. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. andy (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hemorrhoid#Procedures. If this method is found to be notable, then perhaps someone from WP:MED can fix this article later. As it stands, the article is not salvageable. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aimetis

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

Contested speedy deletion. This non-notable back office tech business is described in the article as a software company offering integrated intelligent video management solutions for security surveillance and business intelligence applications. Not sure enough about what that might mean to try to clarify it, though it does sound rather sinister. Unambiguous advertising (ooh, its products are integrated and intelligent ... solutions!) that makes absolutely no claim in-text to subminimal importance: the only claim of notability is a petty trade award from a consulting firm. At any rate, nothing here suggests historical, technical, or cultural significance or long term historical notability. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 11:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Speedy delete This is nothing but advertising. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ad spam disguised as a WP article... Carrite (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wish there were more speedy criteria for unreferenced spam. Miami33139 (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Advertising spam, another corperation trying to advertise itself on wikipedia--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see nothing here indicating notability and I cannot find any reliable sources to establish same. Transmissionelement (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Six Feet Girl

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

A search for reliable sources comes up with a very brief mention by Ain't It Cool News as part of its coverage of Anime Expo 2006, but it is not enough to constitute significant coverage. The rest were forum posts and illegal scanlation websites distributing the work without the original author's permission. Does not appear to be licensed outside of Japan. Fails the inclusion criteria for stand-alone articles, especially the specific inclusion criteria for books. Deprodded without any comments by an IP with a known history of disruptive deprodding everything he/she comes across. —Farix (t | c) 11:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 11:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 11:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, could not find any reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, no sources found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything either. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The only sources I can find are on unreliable self-published web sites like ComixTalk. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billion Girl

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

A search for reliable sources comes up with just a very brief mention by ComiPress, but not enough to constitute significant coverage. The rest were forum posts and illegal scanlation websites distributing the work without the author's permission. Does not appear to be licensed outside of Japan. Fails the inclusion criteria for stand-alone articles, especially the specific inclusion criteria for books. Deprodded without any comments by an IP with a known history of disruptive deprodding everything he/she comes across. —Farix (t | c) 11:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 11:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't turn up any evidence of notability either. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources were looked for by 2 diffrent people and yet nothing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make that a third. This has a limited amount of buzz, but nothing remotely reliable that I can find. It wouldn't surprise me to see it licensed by Tokyopop (either US or German division), but until that happens and it gets reviews, delete without prejudice if notability is acquired. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 11:35, 22 July 2010 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) deleted "Bass graphic Equalizer BEQ700" ‎ (Mass removal of pages added by Musikahola) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bass graphic Equalizer BEQ700

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

Subject does not satisfy WP:PRODUCT Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EUROLIVE_PROFESSIONAL_B1520_PRO, changing to CSD G11 Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 11:35, 22 July 2010 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) deleted "Powerplay Pro-XL HA4700" ‎ (Mass removal of pages added by Musikahola) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Powerplay Pro-XL HA4700

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

Subject does not satisfy WP:PRODUCT. It's a cheap headphone amp with no notability. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly G11 Speedy Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EUROLIVE_PROFESSIONAL_B1520_PRO, changing to CSD G11

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G3 hoax Polargeo (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Newton (photographer)

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

Not clear-cut A7, as it says the person won some award. Not sure how notable that award is, but it's hard to find in this search. Note that there's another James Newton article on Wikipedia, and google results tend to show that guy, not this one. This AfD is created because of lack of notability and substantial coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 10:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no reliable sources to back any of the claims... looks more like a hoax?Teapotgeorge^Talk 10:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The "foundation" that he started appears to not exist. Tag this as G3 hoax? — Timneu22 · talk 10:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged as a hoax. The article references jff.org, probably to make it look like the foundation he started. JFF.org does exist, but it has nothing to do with "James Newton". — Timneu22 · talk 10:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowjams (talk • contribs)

Hillier Cup

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

Local sports trophy that I don't see indications of widespread notability Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I still don't see references indicating much notability, but given the arguments below, I misunderstood the regional level of the cup, and so I'll withdraw this nomination. Shadowjams (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Isn't this competition analogous to the Lancashire Senior Cup or any of the other County Cup competitions? – Pee Jay 13:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed - there are 41 similar local tournaments on Wikipedia, most of which have equal reputation and notability. That'sWhatIWould'veDone 14:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - top-level regional tournament; article needs improving not deleting. Giant Snowman 20:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch ·comms 02:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apsyeoxic

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

I can find absolutely nothing to support the existence of this term. Most notably, it does not appear in the standards draft RFC4690 as linked in the article. At best, this is a neologism. The page has existed without references since 2005, when it was created by an SPA (this article's creation was its only act). --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have found some mention of the strings apsyeoxic and арѕуеохіс (for example, here), but no reliable sources suggesting that the former is an adjective describing the relationship between the pair. By now there are a number of Wikipedia mirrors repeating the claim, but no independent, reliable sources that I can find. Cnilep (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that source, they are mentioned solely as an example string of characters. They are clearly not words. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero hits on Google Books or Scholar. Clearly not notable, probable hoax. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the same reasons already given by --Falcon Darkstar Momot and Cnilep. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC) nb: I spotted it first [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP as well. —fetch ·comms 02:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lewis (philosopher)

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

This article managed to survive AfD twice before, but certainly seems to fail WP:PROF under today's interpretation. GS Citations are 31, 22, 16, 15, 12, 10, 8, 8, 6, 5..., for an h-index under 10. When first nominated, Lewis was an assistant prof, and now is an associate prof. His field, the philosophy of quantum mechanics, has workers with much higher citation records, such as Max Jammer. Abductive (reasoning) 07:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that the first AfD was closed by the ineffable Essjay. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. The nominator is correct to point out that an h index of 8 is rather low for notability for a physicist. However the subject is more of a philosopher. What do philosophers think? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The way I try to decide these citation level is finding other researchers in the same field. The Google Scholar search quantum mechanics philiosophy returns a paper with 9862 citations. Then if I stick to philosophy journals, there is E Scheibe with 116 citations, P Teller with 114, M Lockwood with 70, P Suppes with 67, M Redhead and P Teller with 59, J Bub and R Clifton withb 59, ER Scerri with 48, and so on. Plus there are many books treating the subject with similar citation numbers. Abductive (reasoning) 22:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The last time this was up for deletion, WP:PROF was not yet a guideline and some keep votes were based on its not yet being a guideline (e.g., that the "average professor test" has no standing). Others argued that they found his work interesting, which not not currently a criterion for inclusion. Based on the information reported in the article, I'd say he fails the notability criteria as currently phrased. The nominator seems to understate the h-index, though. The Scholar h-Index Calculator extension for Firefox returns an h-index of 122 for a Google Scholar search of "Peter Lewis" philosophy. Still, none of the publications that come up has been cited more than 31 times. The previous AfD said that a Google search of "Peter Lewis" quantum turned up a lot of hits, but I don't get an impressive result from that search. Unless I'm missing something, he looks like a run-of-the-mill associate professor. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be calculating something wrong — maybe 122 is the total number of papers or the total number of citations? An h-index of 122 would mean 122 separate publications each of which has at least 122 citations to it, not possible when the most heavily cited of his paper only gets 31 citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not my calculation. Must be a bug with my Firefox extension. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is probably no bug. The issue is that there are many Peter Lewises working in different fields. Only those publishing in philosophy should be counted. Garbage in, garbage out. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
      - Thanks. The search specified philosophy. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 01:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a bug, then. The easiest thing to do is count by eye as GS usually ranks papers according to cites. This is what makes h index such an easy tool to use. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete in the absence of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Heading for notability but not quite there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Americans

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

Found this while tidying up the History of the United States top-level category and while I'm sure the creator was well-intentioned...just...no. jengod (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, impossibly huge and indiscriminate. After deletion, it may be a valuable redirect to Lists of Americans. Abductive (reasoning) 07:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not keep it as a research aid? Real encyclopedias have them, why can't we? Purple backpack89 18:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and Template:Famous Americans as well. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: It's a research aid designed for elementary school students who do reports on famous Americans, intended to direct them to the 30-40 Americans most likely to be reported on. Also, the nominator needs a better rationale than "just...no", it must be rooted in some policy. No policy is listed. Purple backpack89 16:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is seriously flawed and lacking of information. There is no criteria for how the people on this list are selected, there is no reason why the people that were selected, were selected. Some information is wrong, including having Albert Einstein on the list. Although the list is correct in listing Einstein as a German-American, it means he is not the same as every one else on the list. He was not born in America, or in American territory. If the list is to be kept, drastic improvements such as adding more people famous Americans to the list, having criteria for what is necessary to be a famous American, and possibly changing the name of the article to Famous American Citizens. If changes are not made, this article should be deleted. Pr€mi€r~$h@wn (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has been on this Wikipedia for only two days Purple backpack89 18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of factual inaccuracy are just wrong. Where does it say in the criteria that you have to be born in America? It doesn't. Also, you can be an American citizen even if born in America, and contribute to the American way of life if not born in America. You missed Alexander Hamilton (St. Kitts and Nevis), Alexander Graham Bell (Scotland), and technically everybody born before 1776. The idea of the list is having 30-40 people who elementary school students are likely to write about, and if people need more information, they can go to the person's Wikipedia entry. Increasing the size of the list would decrease its navigability. Purple backpack89 18:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory, an indiscriminate collection of information or a textbook/teaching aid. No inclusion criteria; selecting one "famous American" over another "famous American" involves an editorial determination that the former is in some way or another more worthy of inclusion than the latter, which is original research. Schoolkids looking for someone to write about have any number of alternate avenues to locate them. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a teaching aid, not a textbook. (policy). As User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? says above, choosing which Americans to include (and choosing an arbitrary number of 30-40) amounts to original research. (policy).--Beloved Freak 20:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to which section? In what I've read of OR, I haven't been able to find the specific section that says creating lists like that is OR. You can put that on my talk page Purple backpack89 22:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is OR because you are choosing who, amongst all the Americans with articles on Wikipedia, are "famous". In reply to your comment at my talkpage, I don't think one editor (ie. you) counts as a community. You created the list with this edit, and I don't see anyone agreeing with you at the article talkpage. If it's not OR, where are your references to reliable sources that back up your chosen criteria? I commend your efforts to improve Wikipedia and to help kids learn, but I think you're on the wrong track here.--Beloved Freak 22:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that if three editors do it, it's OK, but not OK if only one does it? Purple backpack89 22:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not saying that. Three editors can be wrong too. I just mentioned that because you mentioned at my talk page that it was "a community-chosen list with a community-chosen number of entries". I was just pointing out that one person is not a community.Anyway, I think that moving the list to Wikibooks per Metropolitan90's suggestion would be a good idea. Then your work wouldn't be lost, and I'm sure it would benefit someone. This is just not the right place.--Beloved Freak 10:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I understand why someone might want this article to exist somewhere, but it doesn't belong here on the English Wikipedia. There is a different place in the Wikimedia Foundation's world to write reference works for elementary school children: the Wikijunior namespace of the Wikibooks project. Therefore, as a second choice, if the article creator wants to have this transwikied to Wikijunior, I would recommend that that be done. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Page history has been imported to Wikijunior:Famous Americans. Adrignola (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously created with the best of intentions, but I have to agree that Wiki is not a textbook. There are other more appropriate venues such as those mentioned above. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a slippery slope that can lead to the creation of hundreds of articles on every single nationality. Likeminas (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is fallicious...and what's wrong with creating hundreds of new articles, anyway? Purple backpack89 17:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete scope too large; it's now at WJ anyway. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually like the idea but WP is not the place for it. Scope is ridiculous. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twangoo

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

non-notable website. Article does not show any trace of notability. Amsaim (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:N and WP:WEB. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails notability. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per wp:CSD#A7. Maashatra11 (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Users are welcome to redirect to Mike Alder, and if any of the content from this page is desired to merge there, drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's flaming laser sword

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Newton's flaming laser sword

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

Not notable; no third-party references exist. Melchoir (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a notable concept, but a coined term from a single essay. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mike Alder, since the author is notable per WP:PROF even if this particular essay is not. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the merge. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge sounds fine. In that case, I think the amount of material should be drastically reduced. Melchoir (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't limited by space. No need to remove anything (except what merging would remove, since there is some redundancy between the lead and the main text). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}

True, but I'm more concerned with giving the wrong impression to the reader. It's unusual to devote multiple paragraphs of material to a summary of a single article that has attracted no commentary in the literature. A reader who doesn't closely inspect the footnotes might easily conclude that Newton's flaming laser sword is a more widely known concept than it really is. IMO this is the fundamental reason why Wikipedia should care about notability in the first place. Melchoir (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to expand Adler's article, to cover his other work, not reduce it to nothing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree. But this should be more than enough. Melchoir (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable: the term was coined in a single essay (in a popular magazine) which has no citations. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merge if you really want to, but I wouldn't. The term has not caught on, period, probably because its silly. Maybe he should have called it "Newton's Razor" instead. If it fits into the Adler article, fine, as it represents an important thought, I guess. But if it doesn't fit, don't sweat it. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mike Alder. Material that has been added there is already sufficient. Plausible search term. Jujutacular ^talk 04:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sufficiently discriminate to meet WP:List. A rename should be discussed on the article talk page.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Catholics in U.S. History

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

The AfD on "List of famous Catholics" was withdrawn by nominator, with two outstanding delete !votes, on the grounds of a page move which really didn't address the deletion rationale. Indiscriminate and unmaintainable list, violates WP:SALAT. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchardb, this is not an indiscriminate and unmaintainable list and thus there is no violation. I have outlined specific criteria to guide this list in other posts. Melchoir makes a good point that it would relieve pressure from Catholicism in the United States#Notable American Catholics. With specific criteria, this would be a very useful list. I welcome anyone to add other reasonable criteria for maintaing this list. I think this Wikipedia article of Famous Catholics in U.S. history was marked for deletion way too quickly. I think you should have allowed this article to maturate before making a judgment per Wikipedia policy. Deleting this page would be an error and no strong argument has been or can be presented for its deletion based upon Wikipedia policy, in my view. Deleting this article would mean you should arbitrarily delete countless others. That is not a good way to go. I ask you to remove the deleting and close this deletion discussion. In its place, a discussion page could be added on how to improve this article. I don't think a deletion page is the right place to discuss how we can improve the article. I think the case is overwhelmingly strong that this article does not warrant deletion. Instead, I request that a "improve this article" talk page would be a better option.Frostandchill (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, I'm the one who deemed List of famous Catholics too broad in scope; however, since the United States is historically a predominantly protestant/puritan country, this list/title is sufficiently limited, and has potential to be educational. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'd be curious to discuss, though, what constitutes "fame" in this case... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fame would be identified by certain achievements. There will need to be standards for inclusion on this list. That is one thing that will make this list unique and specifically informative and helpful. Criteria can include the following: For athletes, specific achievements by being a MLB all-star, a Hall of Famer (i.e. Babe Ruth), an MVP winner. For politicians, politicians who have risen to heights in state or national U.S. government (ie. governor, senator, president, Supreme Court Justice). For actors/actresses, those people with major roles in projects that are high grossing in revenue (i.e. Passion of the Christ), are in highly rated television programming, or who have received notable awards or nominations (i.e. Emmy, Oscar, etc.). For authors, best-selling books (i.e. Witness to Hope) or award winners (i.e. Pulitzer). For musicians, high selling albums/awards won (i.e. Grammy). The list could also include Nobel prize winners if there are any U.S. Catholics who have done so. The list could also include U.S. citizens canonized as saints: this is a very small list, only a couple as far as I know. This might seem like a lot of categories, but the number of people who fit under each category probably would be very limited. The whole idea is to have it include Catholics who have reached such heights as given in the preceding examples. This way, the list has standards and is as helpful as possible.Frostandchill (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I just thought of this after Melchoir's comment... Another qualification for being listed could be that this particular Catholic already has a current Wikipedia page. For example, all of the people on the Famous Catholics in U.S. History article already have separate wikipedia pages to link to. If there is no current wikipedia page to link to, then we can agree to not include the person on the list. That narrows the field to begin with. Second, with this narrowed field, the field of people is further narrowed in that they are involved in U.S. History, i.e. they are U.S. citizens. Third, the field is narrowed to a much smaller number to those who have risen to heights in the public eye specifically such as being President, being a Governor, a blockbuster actress, an Oscar award winner, a Grammy winner, a Hall-of-Famer, an all-star, etc. So with specific criteria for inclusion on the list, it can be very useful, informative, and also enjoyable to edit!Frostandchill (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the comment that this article can be educational. I think it is a valid addition as a subcategory to Lists of Roman Catholics. A good point is made that the US is historically protestant/puritan. For example, there has been only one Catholic U.S. president. This article would be limited in scope and educational. Wikipedia users, in my opinion, would benefit from this article. An accurate and concise article of this specific nature, as far as I know in searches, does not yet exist. I thank you very much and I hope to contribute to Wikipedia community with this helpful and informative article. Fame specifically refers to people who are notable within their specific field. For example, famous politicians would include the Kennedy's. This would be noted Catholics in U.S. history in politics, sports (i.e. Mike Piazza, whom many consider a future hall of famer), arts, music, etc. Fame indicates that the person has excelled beyond the level of the majority (being president, going into Hall of Fame, blockbuster movies, albums, etc.Frostandchill (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. Although the United States is a majority Protestant (not Puritan, which is a distinct movement within Protestantism) country, it also has the fourth-highest population of Catholics of any country in the world. Even when limited to U.S. Catholics, this list is still likely to be too large to be manageable. I would also point out that there is a page called Lists of Roman Catholics which indicates that certain lists of Catholics in certain specific occupations exist as separate pages on Wikipedia -- as opposed to trying to include all of them in all occupations on a single page. Perhaps additional lists (that's lists, plural) of Catholics would be appropriate, but not a single all-encompassing list for a country which currently has over 70 million Catholics. (I also think this article has an unusual definition of what counts as being in "history", but that's just an incidental matter.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ Metropolitan, this will not be a list of all Catholics in the U.S. It will specifically list Catholics of historical significance for the history of the country and also the social, cultural, and political interests of today. The idea is, even though there are many Catholics today, to specifically list those Catholics who have made particular contributions to U.S. history in their respective fields. This is meant to be an objective list. Also, Jim Caviezel is a noted Catholic, Metropolitan.Frostandchill (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't think you were going to list all the Catholics in the U.S., but even if you list just the notable ones, this could still become a really long list. I do believe that Caviezel is Catholic, but I removed the reference after his name because the page to which it linked didn't specifically mention that he was Catholic. (Also, your "keep" recommendation was already taken into account above and should not appear in boldface again at the beginning of any succeeding comments you make in this AfD.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Define "long", Metropolitan90. It won't be any longer than any other list on Wikipedia. I don't think that length is a good excuse for deletion. 1st, it is not currently long. 2nd, there is no intention to make it enormously long. 3rd, it won't be any longer than any other list on Wikipedia. A list as one article for this specific topic, I assert, is sufficient. There is no need to overdue this, but it is important not to omit anyone of significance. Look at the List of Catholic Authors. If length is to be used as an argument then that list along with countless others should be deleted too. There is no tangible argument for this article's deletion. The request for deletion should be removed. If Wikipedia wants consistency, then if this article is deleted, tons of other lists should be removed as well. No current argument has been demonstrated for this article's deletion and this article on famous Catholics in U.S. history should not be singled out. Again, if you single out this specific article, then what is stopping you from singling out the other lists?Frostandchill (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I also add that the number of Catholic U.S. politicians of high stature is, historically, not very long. The article will highlight in particular those Catholics in U.S. history who have actually excelled in different facets. I also suggest that if indeed the list does become extremely long, which I don't intend it to be, that it be later divided into subcategories. But as of now, having separating articles for Famous Catholic Athletes in US Hist., Famous Catholic Actors in US Hist, Famous Catholic Politicians in US Hist, etc. is not necessary. I deem it more efficient to have one single concise and accurate list which will be easily accessed by Wikipedia users. The usefulness and relevance of such a list for the Wikipedia community cannot be understated.Frostandchill (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence of this list should relieve some pressure from Catholicism in the United States#Notable American Catholics. Melchoir (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Melchoir, you make an excellent point which I did not even think of mentioning. Thank you very much. The Catholicism in the United States#Notable American Catholics could be linked to the Famous Catholics in U.S. History article. If we want to rename this article "Notable Catholics in U.S. History" or "Notable American Catholics", then that is fine with me. I think Melchoir's point helps demonstrate the usefulness of this new article. Thank you, Melchoir!Frostandchill (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think a more standard name would be List of Catholic Americans or List of American Catholics, following such examples as List of English Americans and List of American Jews. Anyway, don't thank me until someone else agrees with me. :-) Melchoir (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep + Rename - Valuable list, but needs new title, possibly List of notable Roman Catholic Americans. jengod (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree.Frostandchill (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates many a guideline and is a ridiculously huge slice of humanity. Next up, List of famous American women. Abductive (reasoning) 07:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Abductive, have you even read the above comments? The field has been limited to select persons meeting certain criteria as deemed in above comments. So the persons who would qualify for this list is not "a ridiculously huge slice of humanity." Additionally, you do not give any tangible argument for your vote for deletion. You claim that this violate guidelines, but you fail to provide an explanation. Third, you mention a list of famous American women. You mentioned it sarcastically, but that really isn't a bad idea, if there are certain guidelines. If it is famous women in U.S. history, the number is rather limited because throughout history most of the politicians, for example, have been men. Certainly the list would include Rosa Parks, Hilary Clinton, Susan B. Anthony, etc. I'm not going to make such a list and I haven't searched to see if there is already one of its nature on wikipedia. Maybe, Abductive, you could take the initiative to compile it. As it stands in regard to the said Famous Catholics in U.S. history, this list is of great value. Also, with your length argument, the list is not currently long, there is no plans to make it extremely long, the criteria used for this list will prevent extreme length, and it will not exceed the length of any other list currently on Wikipedia. I repeat what I said above, if this list of Famous Catholics in U.S. history deserves deletion based upon length alone, then so do other thousands of lists on Wikipedia. And also, Abductive, if length alone is deemed the sole criteria for deletion, what is your definition of "too long"? Lastly, I will restate that if the majority of people think the list has become way too long, which it probably won't, then we can further subdivide it into other articles. Abductive, I ask that you give this article time to maturate before giving it a delete vote without any substantial reasoning to back up your delete vote.Frostandchill (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unmanageable and unmaintainable list, no inclusion criteria at this point and the suggested criteria above are completely arbitrary. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are You the Cow of Pain, how is the suggested criteria arbitrary? Please explain. How is the list unmaintainable? What do you suggest as criteria that is non-arbitrary?Frostandchill (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You really don't need to comment on every comment. just saying Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for your comment about the comments about the comments. I'm just looking for people to give rationale to their votes, which people are not doing.Frostandchill (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another note is to make sure that every person listed has a specific reference that clearly states that the person is Catholic. Thank you to Metropolitan for bringing this to my attention. It is my hope that this article does not get deleted. My hope is that it will be given time to maturate and that there be an active talk page to improve the article. I hope the majority of you see the value of this article for the wikipedia community and will help improve it rather than requesting deletion. Thanks.Frostandchill (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as moot. Article has been deleted by User:HJ Mitchell. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Team 2 Weather App

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

I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources (WHAT IS A RELIABLE SOURCE?) to indicate notability of/for this topic. —mono 04:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no news coverage for ("Weather App" "Storm Team") or ("Weather App" WGRZ) either. Melchoir (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is coverage of the Weather App taken directly from WGRZ's website: http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=78425

The reason this was added is because it is noteworthy for the station- basically this is the first station in the Buffalo area that has used iPad technology to create more interactivity. No offense- but if you had reviewed the links provided, this clearly indicates information on the app and its features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babyox4420 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination makes no sense. I clicked on the links provided in the article, and the information was right there- directly from the tv station. The product link also matches exactly. The nomination should be taken down and the article should stay in its current form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.135.42 (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not notable. The reference given above is not news coverage, it's a product announcement which can't be used to establish notability. I spent a few minutes cleaning up the references on the page so I could better understand, and having checked all of them, I just don't see anything to establish this particular app as notable. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—A quick search on Google brought up no significant reliable coverage for the app itself. I can live with the one-sentence mention currently on WGRZ#Storm Team 2 Weather as long as it is coupled with the references given in the current article (it currently is not). Airplaneman ✈ 00:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. What's the point of this!? Bigtop 04:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe actually speedy delete - may be considered spam; see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, criteria G11 for possible advertising. I'll try to tag that article as such. Big top 04:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch ·comms 02:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Screetch

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

I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability of/for this topic. —mono 04:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Melchoir (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is article about puzzle game that have unique game mechanics and don't have any equivalents in puzzle genre. I think that this is good cause for creating article about game. Brainsolid (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I didn't explain myself. See Wikipedia:Notability for background on what Mono and I mean. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The developer only released a teaser trailer for this on the 12th of July, so it's little wonder there's no reviews around. There's no guarantee enough reliable coverage will surface to establish notability even when the game is released, due to it being an iPhone game from a small developer. We don't even have a release date. No prejudice against recreation if enough reviews are published in the right places when the game is released. Someone another 10:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's not notable and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources to show notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The game is already released (http://itunes.apple.com/ru/app/the-screetch/id382329317?mt=8) and there are some reviews that filled up http://delicious.com/pistongames/thescreetch Brainsolid (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.69.227.100 (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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~~ merge to incubator version (see below). As MQS notes, I incubated the earlier version of this after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race 2 and established a redirect at Race 2 with a comment expressly asking people not to start another parallel article. I do not see enough new here to warrant the complications of a formal merge, but I will invite both the original author and the major contributor to work on the incubated version. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After second thoughts, I have performed a history merge, so that the incubator version is now the (more recent and better referenced) one which was the subject of this AfD, and the history contains the attribution for both versions. JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race 2(2011 film)

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

No evidence that filming has started for this. Fails WP:NFF Mike Allen 03:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike Allen 03:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Already making news, see sources added including BBC News. Thanks! Ekabhishek^talk 18:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Race 2 while start shooting in early 2011'" Please read WP:NFF. Thanks. Mike Allen 21:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable film.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. I never said it wasn't. It hasn't started filming and it fails the WP:NFF guideline, which states filming should commence before making an article. Mike Allen 21:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh... but WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL both allow that notability for an as-yet-unmade film might be found through extensive coverage... and we do have articles for such here on Wikipedia. Sometimes a project might have a great deal of pre-production coverage speaking toward cast, director, plot, etc... and all that pre-production press can add up to enough slap the GNG on the back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that simply does not exist for this film or I wouldn't have sent it to AfD. :) Mike Allen 03:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any sourced new information to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Race 2 See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race 2. Per consensus on March 4 2010, closer set a redirect to Race (2008 film)#sequel and sent the article to incubation to bide its time and be improved. He also left a note on the page specifically to prevent an inopportune recreation.[16] Author here simply used a different name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with this. Mike Allen 03:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: it would be good to inform the article's major cobtributor, User:Ekabhishek, that we already have this one in incubation... just waiting for his improvements and a re-evaluation before return to mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. JmacBrown (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate per MichaelQSchmidt. Filming hasn't started yet, and until it does this should be covered in the Sequel section of the article of the film it will be a sequel to. Cliff smith ^talk 15:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err... its already been incubated. My suggestion is simply that any new sourced information be merged to what is already in the incubator. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partner 2 (2011 film)

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

No evidence that this has started principal photography. Fails WP:NFF Mike Allen 03:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike Allen 03:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: No verification that principal photography has started. If and when this project is covered in reliable sources, information about the project belongs in a Sequel section of the article about the film it would be a sequel to until filming begins. Cliff smith ^talk 15:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtualology

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

Not sure of the notability of this. Relatively low # of Google hits, and created by a likely COI conflict Purple backpack89 16:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to pass notability requirements. Most of the references in the article aren't about the subject at all. Needs to show more independent coverage, but looks like a promising site; hopefully we'll see it in the future. Shell ^babelfish 19:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with rationale as provided above by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs). Fails WP:NOTE, lack of multiple significant independent and reliable secondary sources giving depth of discussion to this particular subject. -- Cirt (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article does provide reliable sources about the subject and meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is admittedly a borderline case. A couple more references like Pittsburgh Post Gazette's "Upper St. Clair archivist lends documents of Founding Fathers to library" and the article would meet the notability guideline. However, that's the only one I could find, and it needs multiple such sources. Melchoir (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Melchoir's assessment, i.e. no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree with Shell and Melchior regarding substantial coverage in reliable sources. Reyk _YO! 12:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge so Stan Klos. Can't see why deletion would be prefereable to integrating the content into the existing article on the parent subject about the site's creator. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like another editor took the initiative and boldly merged in the relevant sourced bits about this subject into the article about the site's founder. I suggest this title can be left as a redirect (protected if necessary). No need to lose the history and such. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Once production has got far enough to meet WP:NFF an article can be considered, but that looks to be some time away. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hansel and Gretel in 3D

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

Article says, "The movie is scheduled for a spring 2011 shoot on location in Germany" (without any sources) which fails WP:NFF. Mike Allen 03:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IGN says that filming will begin in Spring 2011. Mike Allen 03:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike Allen 03:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Variety says that filming will begin in Spring 2011.

The Wrap says that filming will begin in Spring 2011.
Screen Daily says that filming will begin in Spring 2011.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.112.129 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your IP and format your post so it doesn't look like I posted these links. Anyway, one link was enough to prove that filming has not begun and thus fails WP:NFF. Wait until Spring 2011 to add the article. Mike Allen 00:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think that 92.231.112.129 point was that the film is already getting buzz and so should have an article. This is, of course, the opposite of what WP:NFF says. Films that are not yet filming don't get separate articles unless there is such a mountain of coverage that there is a consensus to ignore the guideline. Often there is a reasonable merge target since most films that get lots of early buzz get it for being part of a notable series or the adaption of a notable book, but in this case, I don't really see one. When (if) filming starts this is a go but until then, there isn't really anything to say. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

KEEP THE PAGE! Here is a MOUNTAIN OF PRESS about the movie Hansel and Gretel in 3D! The film is an adaptation of a NOTABLE BOOK

Going through a few of those sources, a lot are not reliable sources and most are just repeating the same thing -- filming is planned to begin in Spring 2011. Please read and try to understand WP:NFF. Thanks. Mike Allen 09:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Eluchil404. It's not being filmed yet. Incubation could also be pursued. Cliff smith ^talk 15:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Melchoir (talk) 04:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Topoľovka

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

Hoax? Can't find references. Melchoir (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Authors:

Nrkennedy (talk · contribs)
Born in Babylon (talk · contribs)

Melchoir (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, found the smoking gun. http://forums.mwmgc.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4631 . Will speedy momentarily. Melchoir (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E. Matthew Buckley

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

Christieag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

American businessman and fighter pilot. Quite a big article but the refs are spammy and sometimes don't mention him. None of them constitute substantial coverage from reliable sources. Article reads like advert. SPA creator. The fact that the article contains so much detail that no one can verify makes me believe there is a WP:COI issue. Contested prod. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8 out of the 12 refs not only mention him directly but have direct quotes from the subject. Each section has enough information for me to verify. Seeing this page and the refs compared to the ones on list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions shows how well sourced this page is. It could be a tad less spammy though, I agree. GammaScalper (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm working on revisions that will improve the tone of the article Christieag (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think deletion is an extreme suggestion. E. Matthew Buckley has acting credits verified by IMDb that exceed those of some other actors with Wikipedia articles. I'm pretty new to the community, but your initial comments pertained to the subject not being notable enough (and verified by a third party) to merit an article. There seem to be many biographies of lesser documented people on Wikipedia who remain unchallenged; could there be a way to improve this to your standards without deletion? I saw this banner on a short, spammy article: . Can't you just recommend improvements? The subject is also a decorated fighter pilot. Christieag (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is your comment a "keep" or just a "comment"? Would be grateful if you could clarify. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There seems to be a lot of sources, but the tone of the article needs radical reworking. I'm not sure how much would remain if someone unfamiliar with the topic took a crack at it to try and clean it up. Christieag - you might want to read WP:ADVERT as a starting point if you haven't already. And if you're having trouble understanding what people don't like about the article, maybe someone at WP:Adopt-a-User could help. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think there is another person on this planet that is a decorated fighter pilot who was also an actor and Wall Street CEO. This is a truly unique individual. He's also an author. He's one of the most popular columnists on thestreet.com, Jim Cramer's site. I've seen many other bios and pages with much less sourcing and not as notable. IMO this page clearly exceeds the notability criteria and is not excluded by WP:NOT. GammaScalper (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's just the notability that is the problem, but rather the tone. The article might well pass WP:RS and get deleted under WP:ADVERT. If someone could start cleaning it up this whole deletion discussion would be unnecessary. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. The tone should be slightly altered and it will be acceptable in my opinion. There are other glaring examples of poor tone that we could discuss with less notability. GammaScalper (talk) 04:17, 23 July (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I'll check out WP:ADVERT and rework the tone. Christieag (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TAFMO

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

Possibly non-notable technology company. Possible promotion. Technopat (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unwikified business spam. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —fetch ·comms 02:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A couple of the refs are to company materials/press releases. One does mention TAFMO in a brief article in an Australian tech mag. The fourth I can't get to load. No Google presence whatsoever. Unnotable entity, it looks like to me. Herostratus (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I feel the article subject does not meet WP:COMPANYfor wiki inclusion. Pmedema (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Risacher

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

Magnusmit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

American computer person. There is some coverage of him but not, I believe, enough to pass WP:N. Created by the subject themselves. Reads like resume. WP:COI and fails WP:BIO. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is some press coverage of this individual but it's not terribly prominent and the two articles appear to be closely related to one another. And I am influenced by the fact that it does appear that the subject may have created the article, a prima facie indication of non-notability IMHO. ElKevbo (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should have been a Speedy. No legitimate assertion of importance. Lionel (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Young Pharmacists

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

This new journal has, as far as I could tell, never had an article cited. It also has zero secondary sources. Prodded by User:Crusio, then deprodded by User:Espresso Addict. Abductive (reasoning) 02:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The two positive attributes for this journal is that it is peer reviewed and is indexed, even though it was first published only in 2009. However, the main drawback for notability is that it is new since being published only in 2009. Hence, this journal is not mentioned in other, secondary sources. And it may be too new for its articles to have been cited by other works. I will have to go with delete because it is too new to have established sufficient notability. Note: Volume 1, Issue 1, is Jan to Mar, 2009.----Steve Quinn (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said in my original prod: not indexed in any major, selective databases. Doesn't meet WP:Notability (academic journals), doesn't meet WP:GNG. Most indexing services listed are trivial because they list everything (Google Scholar, DOAJ, and such) or are user-submitted (Index Copernicus, HINARI). The latter one is in a sense doubly trivial: HINARI is a service where publishers can choose to provide cheap (or even free) access to a particular journal to researchers in developing countries (so it's the publisher who decides about coverage). For an OA journal to be listed here is, if anything, even more trivial. Yet others are so obscure that I have trouble even finding them (SCOLOAR, for example). I note that many journals from the same publisher have the same deceptively impressive-looking list of indexation. Several of those were deprodded last night, but I have currently no time to bring them all to AfD. --Crusio (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Medknow is a respectable publisher, publishing many third world journals of fairly high quality. The more established ones are almost certainly notable. This is not yet well established. A new journal will not of course be immediately cited, but if published by a major publisher or a major society it can safely be assummed that it will be. The indexing statement is troublesome. It comes from the Medknow journal listing page, at [17]. The journal is in Ulrichs, but according to the Ulrichs listing it does not appear to be indexed in most of the services listed, only the Ebscohost aggregator services, which are not good indicators of notability. . Ulrichs has been known to be slightly out of date, so I checked with the services themselves: It is in Chemical Abstracts, according to their journal list [18], which I regard as good evidence that it is notable. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some further checking of the Medknow indexing listings. Them do not seem reliable. This journal for example is indexed neither in Medline, nor in PubMed, nor in PubMed Central, as search by title or ISSN. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacking secondary sources; InPharm doesn't appear notable either (based on English sources) despite 10 years of history. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed by nominator on the grounds of a page move. Non-admin closing. Will immediately renominate under the new title. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous Catholics

I won't call this "withdrawn" as this nomination referred to a completely different scope/article. Nonetheless - closed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Don't even start this, please. How long will this list become? There's no point in this when there are so many of them -- this is a non-notable part of a person's identity, which will not warrant a separate list. We could just as well start a list of "famous females" or whatnot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category that is needed to inform people of particularly famous persons who identify themselves as Catholics. Other similar articles of this nature already exist on Wikipedia of this nature, but none specifically about Famous Catholics. The fact is that many in the general population are unaware of these facts. It is important to inform people with an accurate, concise list. You claim that being Catholic is a "non-notable part of a person's identity, which will not warrant a separate list". Being Catholic is the most important fact in many person's lives. This does warrant a list and many people will benefit from this knowledge.Frostandchill (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then there are those to whom "Catholic" really means nothing more than a box on a census form. In any case, as such a list would be overwhelmingly long, thereby unmaintainable, it is useless. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchardb, have we resolved this issue? I have changed the specific focus to Famous Catholics in U.S. History Frostandchill (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT. There are many countries where the vast majority of the population is Catholic, at least nominally, and where even higher percentages were Catholic in past generations. Also, virtually everyone in Western Europe between the fall of Rome and the Protestant Reformation was Catholic. If one wants to write about the religious affiliations of certain Disney Channel stars (such as the first two people listed in this article so far), it would be better to cover that in the articles about those individuals rather than trying to create a list which would be far too large to be manageable. I would also point out that there is a page called Lists of Roman Catholics which indicates that certain lists of Catholics in certain specific occupations exist as separate pages on Wikipedia -- as opposed to trying to include all of them in all occupations on a single page. Perhaps additional lists (that's lists, plural) of Catholics would be appropriate, but not a single all-encompassing list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a list of U.S. Catholics from the 20th/21st century would be useful. How about this article is made to focus particularly on notable Catholics of U.S. history. It would be too broad to have of all history, but have it specifically for U.S. history. How can I change the title of the article to make it: "Famous Catholics in U.S. history"? This would be informative and helpful for those people interested in this information. As far as I know, such a list does not yet exist. I think the original error here on my part was that the scope of this article was way too wide. My original intent was to have it be specifically notable Catholics in U.S. History which would be a shorter, concise article than the original scope. This could be listed as a subcategory for Lists of Roman Catholics. What do you think?Frostandchill (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Have we resolved this? Can we remove the "Article for Deletion" tag to the article? I have changed it to Famous Catholics in U.S. History.Frostandchill (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess. New title/scope seems limited enough. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. The problem remains whole. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So renominate it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will userfy this if requested, but the author already has a version at User:Robtencer/The X Factor Fan Site. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor Fansite

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

Non notable fansite, does not seem to pass WP:WEB. I couldn't find any major media coverage of it. Also its only sources seem to be external links to the official website, facebook, youtube channel and twitter of The X Factor. Mauler90 _talk 02:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has also been speedy deleted 3 previous times under a slightly different name in the last several days. Mauler90 _talk 02:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That name is The X Factor Fan Site, and this is its log. — Jeff G. ツ 03:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right Jeff, the only reason those animals did not do a speedy delete on this page as well, is I believe they were sleeping, and temporarily left their computer deleting station.

I also have challenged that deletion as well, but there is nothing left to look at, as the animal admins completely removed the page. they were not as kind as you or Mauler90, and they for sure did not follow the rules of a valid contesting of removal. Instead of giving me 7 days, they gave me minutes, before ganging up on me and removing the article. It did not look like what it looks like now, nor will it look like it is today, later tomorrow. It is a work in progress, and is being updated daily. Thanks for pointing out all the facts, but you must agree, that some admins are ruthless, and not helpful to new contributors. unless the help they are giving is to get lost.

There is no listing of major media coverage, because the page is 1 day old, not the blog. Give us a chance to add something, before speedily removing.Robtencer (talk))

There are multiple types of deletion here, including speedy (which happened the first three times) and Articles for deletion full-fledged discussions (which this is one of) - please see WP:DELETE, which explains them. — Jeff G. ツ 06:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have edited and removed what was bothering you: i.e. categories that lead nowhere, please remove your nomination, for delete (These are factual and verifiable sources dealing with the article topicRobtencer (talk))

Dear Mauler90 and other Admins with quick trigger fingers to destroy, and vandalize through nominating for removal, that which you did not create.Robtencer (talk)

There is no listing of major media coverage, because the page is 1 day old. Give us a chance to add something, before speedily removing.Robtencer (talk)

Also, Dear Mauler90, I have become very defensive, because unlike yourself, admins have made speedy delete tags on my work, without discussion. If you are willing to discuss the matter, I would be most appreciated. Perhaps you have not read the article, and don't understand the significance or importance of a FANSITE. Robtencer (talk)

If fans supply the content, and major media refuses to cover their story, and thexfactor.com fan site does give them coverage, does not that have merit for the little guy?Robtencer (talk)

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. ~~This is not surprising, given that the fansite is only one day old.~~ — Jeff G. ツ 03:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

while wikipedia defines very well what a fansite is, and fair use, the examples would be scarce, if left to admins who want to delete from existence, anything that is not corporate owned or developed. Instead of giving quotes of why you are against, why not contribute and help save an article? I am sure you helped save an article or two in your past. I am pleading for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robtencer (talk • contribs) 06:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotion, no credible indication of notability through notice in independent media, ~~which is unsurprising if the site's a day old (which is not a valid reason to keep).~~ Wikipedia is not a place to get noticed, it exists to document notability that already exists. "If major media refuses to cover the story", then it has no business being on Wikipedia per WP:RS and WP:WEB. Acroterion _(talk) 03:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment I believe the author is referring to this article only being a day old. The article states that it has been established since 2001. Mauler90 _talk 03:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has a lot of content rehashing material about the subject of the fansite, rather than concrete information on the fansite itself. Fails WP:INTERNET. Taroaldo (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much traffic does it get, and where can we verify that? — Jeff G. ツ 05:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site was hacked and offline for some time, and lost hundreds of old posts, and many links on other media websites were removed due to the broken links. The rebuilding phase is going on. Traffic stats are available at alexa, which should give a rough estimate. --Robtencer (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

""Save"" per nom The article is still being worked on and was supposed to be in a mode, I thought I would receive editing help in its current place. Yes the website was established in 2001, and the article itself was 1 day old. I am compiling as many facts as possible relating to mentions, accomplishments, communications with major media, contributions, however I am trying to figure out how to reference my material, since some of the sources are located in emails. One example, not covered by the press, but effecting people whom watch music videos was the non stop demonstration against: wife beating, suicide, arson, and other anti-social behavior, which was seen in Leona Lewis's first album release video "Bleeding Love". (Leona Lewis was a winner on the x factor TV show) Due to the constant protest at thexfactor.com fansite, a new video was made, in compliance with the requests made in the fansite protest. The fan site had no formal apology from syco, fremantle or Leona Lewis's management or record label, although through protest (Protest was only being done via thexfactor.com) changes were made, and a new video released. If you look on youtube, you can find the old version and the new version with the changes from thexfactor.com fan site protest. At the time of the protest, The x factor fansite was receiving 20,000 unique visitors a day

(leona lewis original bleeding love video before protest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJZnx5pMzl4&feature=related)
(leona lewis after protest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzo-EL_62fQ) --Robtencer (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~""Save""~~ per nom WP:WEB Please take additional notice that thexfactor.com is a not for profit blog, and seeks no financial incentive. --Robtencer (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~""Save""~~ per nom WP:WEB The wikipedia page follows within the standards of WP:WEB and does not violate any conditions. The article is not an advertisement, and is not using wikipedia as a web directory. The article is also non duplicated content, made specific for the wikipedia page it exists. This is why it is taking time to edit. The article conforms to the criteria of WP:WEB, because notable high traffic sites like news of the world, amongst others have referenced articles as the source of the information being thexfactor.com fan site. The article has historical significance, since the fan site is constantly singled out by the BBC, and ITV for being the primary fan site for fans of the x factor. (emails stating this from BBC and ITV).--Robtencer (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion., We would not let them spam this ..so y a page???Moxy (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dear MOXY and others who quickly add their negative votes. How about contributing and editing and actually helping a new editor, instead of ganging up against me and making me feel unwelcome? Please help me, instead of spitting on me.--Robtencer (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Listed "References" are just explanations of various sections on website instead of references showing notability of website. Long list of external links are about the The X Factor (UK) show instead of the website. I was one of the deleting admins and stand by my deletion as the article does not indicate the importance or significance of the website. Additionally, while this does not have any bearing on a deletion discussion, I think it should be noted that the article's primary author's user name shares the name of a staff person on website's parent company. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are now no references at all after the massive cleanup by AnemoneProjectors (not that anything removed was a real reference) and my removal of the USPTO link which appears to be an non-relevant reference. The article still fails WP:WEB. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per Gogo Dodo's comments above. Also article contains a great deal of WP:SOAP. NtheP (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some cleaning up of the article, though I don't know why, since it clearly should be deleted. But it's just not notable. And I highly doubt that two videos were made for the "Bleeding Love" single because of protests on this fansite! Anemone Projectors 12:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB and has a lot of content which is WP:SOAP Yousou (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteReasons stated above. Conay (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non-notable website (A7) and spam (G7). There is no credible indication of notability and the article is overly promotional. The article claims the site has run from 2001 but, whilst the domain name was first registered on 1 July 2001, the internet archive (which is patchy for this site) shows it only started being used as an X Factor fansite sometime between February and September 2007 (there is no record beyond 2007 to determine whether it remained so). The article page claims it is "one of the highest trafficked fan sites on the internet today" but http://www.blogtopsites.com/sitedetails_3304.html (which the article links to) shows a only few tens of visits per day, and none at all before 19 July, which is when the Wikipedia articles promoting it started being created. Also recommend a block for the article creator for using Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion, personal attacks (eg [19], [20]) and canvassing. Note: this user also appears to edit as 69.235.196.187 and Pyknic56. I42 (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator chose AfD instead of A7 or G11. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pyknic56. — Jeff G. ツ 21:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped short of claiming sock puppetry; Pynknic56 stopped editing before Robtencer started and this appears to be nothing more than a WP:CLEANSTART. However, given that I referred to the the edit history of Robtenter, it is relevant to note the additional edit history that clearly exists. I42 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is insulting and takes personal attack against me. Before 2 weeks ago, I had never edited on wikipedia. For an editor to claim that I am committing wikipedia fraud (or whatever your terminology is) is vindictive, insulting and hurtful. I take great offense to this comment, and feel it calls for investigation into what the admin editor has done to destroy other editors interest in using wikipedia and contributing.--Robtencer (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article exists in at least two user spaces: User:Pyknic56/The X Factor Fan Site and your version at User:Robtencer/The X Factor Fan Site. They are essentially the same thing, because your version appears to be a copy of the one created by Pyknic56. IP 69.235.196.187 has edited both of these versions of the articles, which is odd, as have you. But if you are a newly arrived novice user: how did you even know it was there, and why are you editing pages in someone else's userspace? Whether you, Pyknic56 and the IP are the same person, or you are several people working on this together (the CU suggests the latter) there is clearly a link of some kind. And note also that Wikipedia takes a very dim view of using the site for promotion - but not only does the link to www.blogtopsites.com above show this is a site with very few visitors, it also shows that it is owned by a someone named tencerpr, which is telling. Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote your website - see WP:SOAP and WP:COI - but it will cover it when and it if becomes notable. I42 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A relevant site with good following. After reedits of articles, I believe good-enough grounds for keeping in this edited form werldwayd (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
after reading the kind comments from admins and editors of wikipedia, whom know what they are talking about. I agree with many of the comments, and ask that my article be moved to a soapbox, where editors besides myself, may be able to help me edit the article and make it worthy of a regular article that is not subject to speedy delete or even request for removal. Please notify me of the procedures for moving to soapbox or help me by moving it into soapbox. thanks.
as far as conflict of interest. This is a redundant and mean spirited comment with no thought. OF COURSE I AM AN ACTIVE FAN OF THE X FACTOR. Does being known as a fan, who submits comments and other fan related submissions to a FANSITE label someone CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Most people create articles because they have an interest in a subject or topic, does that mean everyone on wikipedia has a conflict of interest?--Robtencer (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
from my talk page: "It appears that you have some relationship to the parent company of the website. Therefore, please review the conflict of interest guideline and the Wikipedia Business' FAQ" --Robtencer (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I suspect that you mean to move the article to your user space, since there is no "soapbox" to move the article to. You already have a copy of the article in your user space, but the closing admin of this AfD will decide upon your request to userfy the article. As for your potential conflict of interest, the issue is not that you are a fan of the show, but that you appear to be employed by the company that owns the article subject's website. The article lists the owner of the website as Stun Media. The Stun Media website lists an employee named "Rob Tencer" as "Blog Relations Specialist". Your user name here is "Robtencer". Are you the same person or are the names just coincidental? If you are the same person, then you have a conflict of interest. If you are not the same person, then I apologize for claiming that you have a conflict of interest. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

editor Robtencer (ME) is an AMERICAN, and Stun Media is made up of people from the UK who know I am a fan of American Idol. They wrote to me and showed me a youtube video of the x factor, and I became a fan as well of the x factor. I am not an employee nor do I work for Stun Media. If an erroneous staff page was created with my name, it is a mistake. I thank you for bringing it to my attention. I have asked Stun Media to remove the erroneous page, mentioning my name, via email. I really appreciate all the work that wiki editor Jeff (smiley) has done to help me. He is like having an older brother, who looks out for my well being. Thank you Jeff (smiley)!!--Robtencer (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't work for them but obviously felt so strongly about them, your wrote a Wikipedia article on Stubmedia, what a hero! 62.25.109.197 (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other x factor fan site, that accepts no bias and takes no money from advertisers to take their opinions. I love that the fansite is unbiased, and enjoy being around others that share my hobby. We are fans of the x factor. writing about something you are interested in, I still feel does not make someone have a conflict of interest, otherwise everyone who writes or contributes to wikipedia about things they are interested in, would also give them a conflict of interest. I also DO NOT work for syco, fremantle, ITV or NBC. why is it so hard to understand that I am just a fan, who loves a fan site for the x factor???--Robtencer (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I originally thought, admins and editors don't only take aim at deleting articles, they also take it personally, and go after new editors.--Robtencer (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not had any time to update the article, because I seem to be spending all my time contacting the admins who recommended the deletion. I am also expressing my opinion here. While the second article I created was allowed to be discussed, the original editors/admins who speedily deleted my article did not allow for any discussion. The only editing it appears that others editors have done to my article, is to remove almost everything I wrote. How can a page survive this form of vandalism, while it is being reviewed for content? --Robtencer (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think its best to move this to a user page for Robtencer to work on and prove notability if possible. He could read WP:notability and WP:reliable sources this may help in the direction he should take ...Moxy (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psybernetics

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

Fails WP:NEO. Google results for this term are for companies with this name. Prod removed by IP. mboverload @ 02:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Movies like The Matrix, eXistenZ, Ghost in the Shell , and Virtuosity give a theatrical representation of this concept, says the article. Yet none of these movies refer to this concept by this name. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Googling this term results in absolutely no instances where this word is even used as it is described in the article. sdornan (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move. The article basically says that the only difference Psybernetics and Cybernetics is that the former is the connection between machine and mine, while the latter is the connection between machine and body. This difference is a very minor one, and the psybernetics would technically fall under Cybernetics. Delete or maybe move to Cybernetics, if it turns out to be an actual term. (Searching the internet shows no evidence of this. In fact, Google asks "Did you mean cybernetics?"). Thank you, -Liwolf1 (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A book search turns up some relevant hits but taken collectively WP:DICDEF applies 77.99.4.20 (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite (song)

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

The song is not notable per WP:NSONGS. Aside from the fact that there is not enough information to warrant a detailed page (which in itself breached NSONGS]] it has not charted, was not covered by several notable artists and has recieved no awards etc. I cannot understand why the prod was contested. In my eyes this should be an uncontested deletion as the information can be easily mentioned at the album's page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - article contains one reference linking to MSN for a "review"? That aside the song completely fails WP:NSONG. If the song is ever released as a single i support recreation of the article if it charts. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 01:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Promo single with no underlying information, redirect to Keeps Gettin' Better. Candy o32 01:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Someone has already recast this as redirect, but without closing this AfD. Herostratus (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments go back and forth but the deletion arguments based on lack of third party significant coverage are stronger policy based arguments than the keep arguments which fail to present such sources or argue sufficiently why they should confer notability. Polargeo (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin

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

No notable third-party coverage. Q ^{T C} 06:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep One of Wikipedia's great strengths is its leading-edge coverage of computing developments, greatly outpacing print media. Whilst it is fair to say that Bitcoin and a small number of similar systems presently have unimpressive numbers of users and are not widely known, they are an important innovation that will be discussed within academic literature as well as certain computing / cryptographic spheres. I think the proposal to delete this article misses the significance of this realm of computing which, admittedly frontier at present, is definitely of value for Wikipedia. prat (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC), computing professional, long term wikipedian and elected English wikipedia administrator[reply]
- "will be" discussed in the literature … "not widely known" — In other words not yet a part of the general corpus of human knowledge and not yet documented. You've just made good arguments to support a case for deletion, per our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. Uncle G (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is 'the general corpus of human knowledge'? In my opinion that's a ridiculous notion to put forward, as most humans know nothing about most things. Fundamentally, since there are real services accepting Bitcoin as payment, it's obviously a real system that deserves reference.prat (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you think that the corpus of human knowledge is a "ridiculous notion", then working on an encyclopaedia is not the project for you. Uncle G (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do not twist my words. What I said was that using "a subject is not in the general corpus of human knowledge" as an argument is ridiculous, since most information in most articles is completely unknown to most people. prat (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The project can be verified to exist, everything else is original research. How is a wikipedia article that is a copy of the original website useful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.35.117 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, Bitcoin has made the Slashdot frontpage recently: [21]. 91.32.175.1 (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and hold on for a little while. I figured that the deletionists would get ahold of this article sooner or later, and in fact considering the attention it got on Slashdot it surprised me that it took this long. The article has certainly improved substantially since it got the Slashdot coverage, but the issue with notability is something that can be argued per the usual guidelines. For myself, I think the verifiability argument can be thrown out the window as all of the claims made in the article can be verified independently. The original research guideline is a bit trickier and may be more problematic. The same thing that keeps UFO researchers from posting wild theories does keep this from being accepted too, on the same grounds. I think that it will become something much more notable, but that hasn't happened yet and this is bleeding edge stuff. I guess the race is on now to see if anybody else in the next week might publish something, or a hard search to see if there might be some bona fide 3rd party sources of information that are discussing this topic (beyond blogs or other such stuff). --Robert Horning (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'See Uncle G's comments above. The first version came out a a year and a half ago and there still isn't any reliable third party coverage, I wouldn't call that bleeding edge. Q ^{T C} 23:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a Google search came up with several third party commentaries and reviews of the project, but I'll admit that the quality of those sources may seem a bit lacking as they are mostly blog entries. That gets real fuzzy on what is a reliable source. Some of the sources may be considered "reliable" but that is a matter of opinion on the topic. I've also seen where some topics like this will get a commentary like "delete for now, but undelete or rewrite when reliable 3rd party sources are written". Yes, I get that too. Bleeding edge is a relative term anyway and this is all subjective. As per the strictly technical term of two or more 3rd party sources, that can indeed be found for this article. The rest is weighing if those sources are sufficient or merely the blogosphere talking to itself at the moment. They are, however, 3rd party commentaries that are not coming from the creator of the software and that indicates at least a certain level of notability. Now if that is sufficient for the current quality requirements of Wikipedia is where the question lies. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This smells like an ad. Needs a rewrite if kept... Carrite (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for publishing "bleeding edge" original thought, or to promote your new software concept or business model. Even computing topics need to show long term historical notability and historical, technical, or cultural significance. Every reference is either internal or trivial. The article is also advertising, and focuses exclusively on the features this product offers and its alleged advantages. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Electronic cash systems are a perfectly valid topic and cross-references to existing implementations allow Wikipedia depth without extending the core article to undue length. This one may need extensive work as an article, but deletion is a bad solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cb6 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with all due respect, I do not think that's really relevant, as the fundamental problem is lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I can find no such coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is one "credible" 3rd party source that I think would be indisputable: http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source/open-source-innovation-the-cutting-edge-582?page=0,2

As to if at least one more credible source could be found.... that is debatable. I do think this does refute the original proposal for deletion that "no credible sources can be found", although I'll admit that just one source is quite weak. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least 18 independent third-party businesses accept bitcoins as payment. Every single one should be considered notable third-party coverage. It's easy and risk free to review some random program on the Internet, but these companies have put their money where their mouth is. Here are 15 companies and here are 3 exchanges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.24.100 (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. The sources citing Bitcoin may not be the most authoritative, but I think we should WP:Ignore all rules in this case. Why? Because Bitcoin is a unique innovation in that it's a) an electonic cryptocurrency b) anonymous/pseudonymous and c) fully distributed and doesn't need a central authority to function. The theory of such currencies has been discussed in academic literature for years but Bitcoin is the first working implementation that fulfils all criteria above. And to my knowledge, it is currently the only working implementation in the world. Those two facts make it notable enough in my opinion, and Bitcoin's inclusion in Wikipedia improves the educational value of the Electronic money article. --American Antics (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. It's hard to get third-party sources for niche software like this. News organizations aren't interested. See, for example: I2P, Entropy, GNUnet, Nodezilla, OneSwarm, and OFFSystem. None of those have a single third-party source. Theymos (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please. I came here for information and was delighted to find it. That information is both important and verifiable. Deletion is like the death penalty - not corrective at all. If you don't like the content then improve it, but please don't edit it down to zero. Dizm (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, please have a go yourself and see if you can find some coverage in reliable sources. If I had found any when I searched, I would have added them. Also, Theymos, the state of other articles isn't relevant to this discussion, other stuff exists. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that noting other articles which have shaky references is only giving fodder to get those other articles nominated for deletion instead of trying to fix the problems with this article. It is a failed argument. Still, are sources like this one (which clearly is 3rd party) reliable? That fits source #2 for strict notability requirements and something that I've seen in previous deletion discussions be sufficient to save the article. That this is a blog may be true, but is this an expert in the subject area? That is certainly something up for discussion. I've made my attempts at finding reliable sources that aren't blogs, but there isn't much. OK, I just found something else: This article in the Hartford Advocate. Stuff is out there, but it does take some digging. It is not exactly true that there is no coverage in "reliable sources". --Robert Horning (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per American Antics' comment. Also, Nmap recently added signatures for Bitcoin -- not sure if that counts as significant. Disclosure: I'm a contributor to the project. — DataWraith (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of further outside sources can be found on the Bitcoin forum: [22]. — DataWraith (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Ok, it looks like there may be enough, I'll take a look later to see what I think of the quality, but you all should be aware that posting a note to a forum like that to attract attention is verboten, see Wikipedia:Canvassing, since it attracts folks with similar points of view. As editors here we are supposed to be neutral. Contributors to the project need to be very careful regarding conflicts of interest, and how wonderful the software is has nothing to do with it's notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to ask.... is this a threat to silence dissent against deletion by intimidation, or is it a genuine concern that there might be some people off-wiki that are discussing the deletion of this article that isn't included here? As editors, I find it impossible to be neutral on all things, and for somebody to make a presumption that we must always be neutral is sort of a joke in many ways. Disclosure is useful and IMHO important in the editorial process, and a reasonable attempt at writing an NPOV article should be made, but that shouldn't stop you from expressing your point of view on talk pages and certainly not expressing a point of view in deletion discussion. There are several problems with the Canvassing guideline as mentioned here, and its application far too often involves what I believe to be abusive mis-use of administrative privileges to promote a certain point of view. Basically that is a very dangerous weapons that is more often mis-used than used properly. I'm sorry if this is getting off-topic, but it is an issue that concerns me and notification to a community like a wikiproject certainly isn't excessive canvassing. Why should notification to a non-wikipedia community be any different? Posting a note to a forum of this nature certainly shouldn't be "verboten". Yes, if you would like, I can take this discussion elsewhere to finish. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not meant as a threat at all, but rather a caution to those not familiar with WP procs. But I think the policy on canvassing is very important, because making a notification to an interested group of people who normally do not edit WP generally leads to a bit of a mess which usually has the unintended consequence of working against the goals of the interested group. And while I agree that true neutrality may not be achievable, it's still a worthy goal. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: A list of sources was posted late in the discussion, so further discussion seems warranted; I should mention that I find most of the keeps above to be exceedingly weak at best. T. Canens (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All but one of the new sources are either primary, blogs, or trivial mentions, not enough to establish notability. Sorry, but now is not the right time for an article on this. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to the first keep comment: ...they are an important innovation that will be discussed within academic literature as well as certain computing / cryptographic spheres... The prerequisite for a Wikipedia article on anything is for the words "will be" to become obsolete, with "has been" becoming more accurate. See WP:CRYSTAL. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I went through and cleaned up the article a bit. IMO, the only two reliable sources providing any sort of significant coverage are the first two, the Inforworld article, and the article from the Hartford paper (which also appears in another online newspaper). Those of you who have come here from the bitcoin forum should keep in mind that WP's policy is that blogs generally do not qualify as reliable sources, the exception being if a blog is associated with a newspaper or journal that presumably provides editorial review. Passing mentions, forum discussions, and the like don't carry weight. Also, if the article is deleted, the author can request that it be userfied (put into the user's own space), where they can work on it more. Deletion is not prejudicial--if good sources come up with time and are added. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your effort an at least including those references. I am not sure if the "P2P Foundation" qualifies as something peer-reviewed or by somebody with strong credentials in the area, so I really don't know if that qualifies as a reliable source or not. That is the point.... I simply don't know enough about peer to peer networks to know who is credible in the area. I do know that scholarly research on the topic does go into different circles than traditional computer science research in part due to the legal issues that surround peer to peer networks and a sort of anarchism that also accompanies much of that particular community who works on that kind of software in general. Yes, I know there are ACM Journal articles about peer to peer networks as well, and it would be very nice if there was something specifically about Bitcoins showed up in one of those journals. Perhaps it will some day but it isn't there now which is the point that I happen to agree with you on.
  I happen to agree that the quality of the sources is currently rather weak. It may get better, but that isn't a guarantee. I wouldn't object to a deletion with the presumption that when better sources do come along that it can be re-created or undeleted without prejudice.... presuming that better sources are found that fit better with Wikipedia policy. This is a borderline notability issue, and it is notability that I think is the only legitimate argument for deletion. Other reasons for deletion (lack of NPOV treatment, etc.) are not reasons for deletion but are a case for re-writing. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at Robert Horning's first source in detail. It's not, in fact, written by Michel Bauwens at all, so Michel Bauwens is not very relevant to the reliability of the source. It's credited to "Aran, of Organic Design New Zealand". It turns out that it comes from a wiki, this page on this wiki in fact, written only last month, by someone with the pseudonym "Nad". A quick perusal of that wiki reveals no mechanisms in place for ensuring that people really are who they claim to be on their user pages, or that their autobiographies are accurate. So identification of "Nad" for the purpose of evaluating xyr credentials is stymied. And then there's the timing and the linking. Notice that the article links several times to Wikipedia, and post-dates this article by more than a year. So it's hard to rule out the possibility that Wikipedia is the source here. Returning to Michel Bauwens, I note that xe isn't writing originally on this subject, from expertise, but repeating others. In this article that xe wrote (leaving aside that this is another wiki with identification of pseudonym problems) xe explicitly cites this Wikipedia article as xyr source of information.
So where is all of this information coming from? It seems that it's coming circularly, from sources derived from Wikipedia itself, and thus based upon unsourced and unverifiable contributions made by this article's creator (Pratyeka above, notice.) and others over the last year; from sources that aren't independent (such as the material sourced to the inventor of the scheme); and from sources whose authorships, and thus whose reliability, are not satisfactorily determinable.
The Advocate article would be a better source. It's written by an identifiable person, whose credentials and reputation for fact checking and accuracy can be determined. But it devotes just over 100 words, 1 paragraph plus a sentence, to this subject, before talking about its main thesis (electronic cash in general and who controls Internet); and those ~100 words are, it transpires, a simple regurgitation of the description of the subject by "Its creator Satoshi Nakamoto". Non-independence strikes again. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm at least trying to provide an argument in support of notability, and will admit I'm straining at gnats here. Thank you for at least looking at these sources as that is the debate I was hoping for. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm entirely with you on that point. Uncle G (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has been established. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 02:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on that, please? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No -- I think it's evident that this article is backed by sources that show notability if you look at the References and External Links of this article. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 22:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I see there are references that establish nothing more than mere existence. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot is user-powered. The article would not be accepted and voted up to front page status by the technical community if it were not notable - and it's still in beta! There's no reason whatsoever to suggest that it is not a notable project. All evidence points to the contrary. prat (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blanchardb says that no references here are viable. Uncle G established that some references come from Wikipedia by being re-written and then sourced back to Wikipedia. This is bad referencing and nothing establishes notability. Miami33139 (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a ballot

Would be nice to know why this template above was added. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 22:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That template is often used when an article has been brought up off wiki in a forum or other internet watering hole of folks interested in the article. The purpose is to let folks not familiar with WP policy know what the relevant policies are, most importantly that an AFD discussion is not decided by raw voting--sometimes people new to WP assume that the number of !votes is important, when really it is both the number and the quality of the reasoning in line with WP policy. Let me know if that's not clear. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get why it's used. Just not why it's been used in this instance. If you could link me to perhaps where this has been linked externally, that would help to clear it up. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their forums might be a good place to look first. Q ^{T C} 05:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DataWraith posted a link to the bitcoin forum thread about the deletion discussion here, claiming there were sources listed there. It all appears to be in good faith, however. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there also appear to be Single purpose accounts !votes who were likely directed here from the forum post. Q ^{T C} 14:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion discussion of this article also happened on Slashdot, although it should be noted that the AfD wasn't started until after the discussion died down there as well (just a few days later though). Still, I would contend that it was due to the attention from the Slashdot discussion that brought about this AfD by those both critical of Wikipedia and of a notion to delete the article. The article itself was linked directly on the main Slashdot post. If anything, the quality of the article has improved substantially since the increased attention. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

In line with the 'not a ballot' concept, here's a summary of the main points raised on either side of the debate.

Keep

The project can be verified to exist
Notability has been established
Electronic cash systems are a perfectly valid topic and cross-references to existing implementations allow Wikipedia depth without extending the core article to undue length. This one may need extensive work as an article, but deletion is a bad solution.
At least 18 independent third-party businesses accept bitcoins as payment. Every single one should be considered notable third-party coverage. It's easy and risk free to review some random program on the Internet, but these companies have put their money where their mouth is. Here are 15 companies and here are 3 exchanges
I think we should WP:Ignore all rules in this case. Why? Because Bitcoin is a unique innovation in that it's a) an electonic cryptocurrency b) anonymous/pseudonymous and c) fully distributed and doesn't need a central authority to function. The theory of such currencies has been discussed in academic literature for years but Bitcoin is the first working implementation that fulfils all criteria above. And to my knowledge, it is currently the only working implementation in the world. Those two facts make it notable enough in my opinion, and Bitcoin's inclusion in Wikipedia improves the educational value of the Electronic money article.
Please. I came here for information and was delighted to find it. That information is both important and verifiable. Deletion is like the death penalty - not corrective at all. If you don't like the content then improve it, but please don't edit it down to zero.
the quality of the article has improved substantially since the increased attention

Delete

It's not notable
- Notability has been established
No notable third party coverage
- You can't get much more notable in online technology coverage than front page Slashdot coverage.

.... I propose that based on the above we simply finish this debate - the article should be kept. Thanks to all comers. prat (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While these are good arguments, I should note that the Slashdot article itself was written by Bitcoins contributors and discussed on the Bitcoins forum. That independent editors need to review the article submission before it is posted on the front page is true and some sort of "fact checking" is done before that post happens, I wouldn't put Slashdot as the "gold standard" of technology coverage. I would put the ACM Journal or IEEE Spectrum as much more reliable sources of information for ground breaking computer technology, although information about open-source software applications are less likely to make it into those kind of journals for various reasons.

A cryptosystem such as Bitcoin's is less likely than other subjects to be published in conservative industry media such as the two journals you suggest. prat (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the 3rd party sources is certainly quite lacking and mostly blogs... and even that is mostly plagiarized from other blogs and sources. I would put the number of "quality" sources at best at just 3-4 sources, and even that is something subject to debate and sort of stretching the truth. The rest is either original research (pulling information directly out of the source code of the software) or using the primary sources of the creator of the software. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the number of good sources is limited, but would point out that even in the sources that can be characterized as good, most are passing mention, not significant coverage. The Maymin article is the best in terms of coverage, but the "views are his own" disclaimer suggests that it is considered more of an opinion or editorial piece than a regular news piece, and occurs in two local newspapers. I'd also point out that of the "keep" arguments:

The project can be verified to exist does not have anything to do with notability.
Notability has been established is still up for discussion.

If people still believe it's not notable, then please explain why? People are spending the time and money to build real world businesses on this system. prat (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic cash systems are a perfectly valid topic and cross-references to existing implementations allow Wikipedia depth without extending the core article to undue length does not have anything to do with notability of this topic.

Incorrect. The author is saying that it is undesirable to bloat the Electronic cash systems article to include this much information on Bitcoin. The implication is that in discussing such systems, Bitcoin is a notable subject that cannot be excluded. prat (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least 18 independent third-party businesses accept bitcoins as payment does not have anything to do with notability, and the argument that Every single one should be considered notable third-party coverage does not conform WP:Notability.

If this becomes a deciding factor, then maybe we should change WP:Notability. prat (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to I think we should WP:Ignore all rules in this case. Why? Because Bitcoin is a unique innovation in that it's a) an electonic cryptocurrency b) anonymous/pseudonymous and c) fully distributed and doesn't need a central authority to function. Uniqueness, innovation, and other characteristics are not, as far as I know criteria for establishing nobility.

There's a reason why he said "ignore all rules", and it wasn't to explain the criteria for notability... Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 14:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please. I came here for information and was delighted to find it is not an argument establishing notability. Joy at finding information does not equate to significant coverage in reliable sources.
the quality of the article has improved substantially since the increased attention is, I hope, true, but does not have anything to do with notability.

In short, I still think we are falling short of notability in this case, despite the best efforts of a number of people. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the above argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT, no where has actual reliable, verifiable, and third-party sources been provided. Q ^{T C} 07:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Prat, if you wish to attempt to change the rules for notability, by all means have a go, but that's not relevant here. Considerations as to possible bloat of Electronic cash is also not relevant here--that belongs on the talk page for that article, and to be blunt, that argument seems at first blush perhaps disingenuous since that article it not very long (not to mention completely unreferenced, but that's a separate issue). It is not incumbent upon us to demonstrate why Bitcoin is not notable, but rather to demonstrate that it is--can you point to a policy that suggest that the number of companies who choose to use a product makes it notable? Can you point to a reliable secondary source that shows that a large number of companies use the software? Can you find any additional sources that conform to relevant policies, such as WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second summary

Basically there are a small number of people saying the article should be deleted on the grounds that it's not notable enough. Then you have real Wikipedia users saying they want it kept. You have existing media coverage, in reasonable sources, which is amazing for a project at this stage of growth. You have businesses built on the thing. You have references from other Wikipedia articles such as Electronic money. Articles exist unchallenged for similar projects such as the Ripple monetary system. Cryptosystems are a subject where people seek approachable explanation, and Wikipedia's collaborative model can help to offer that. Even if the system was to disappear tomorrow, it is a part of our world, our cultural and economic history. It deserves description. This article should be kept. prat (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, a review of WP:N, WP:RS and WP:OTHERCRAP might be in order. I think this project might well become notable, but it's not there yet, as I do not see significant coverage in reliable srouces, from the point of view of WP's policies. But then, I'm imaginary, and not real. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to unlist this from AfD. Someone else has to. I originally started the article and have written a fair amount on it so I don't feel it's up to me, having people re-listing it for deletion even once I'd brought it back from the dead and arguing for it to be saved, to actually make the final decision. prat (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to sock farm. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a great reason! Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 10:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Rubbo

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 24th June 2010. WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability". Papaursa (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has a lot of problems, but the main one is that the subject doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Its lack of sources is another major issue. Astudent0 (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Likeminas (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following the comments in the nomination. Janggeom (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Librarians in popular culture

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is a trivia list with some original research thrown on top for good measure. It's survived AfD a couple times before, yes, but the last close was a "no consensus", and the three years without improvement since the last one really speak for themselves that this is not an article that will be turned into something worthwhile. What little encyclopedic content there is in the lead has already been duplicated on the main Librarians page. --erachima talk 01:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Largely unsourced trivia and OR. It's nothing but unsourced fluff. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Keep per cleaned-up revision, detritus is now gone. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've removed the accreted trivia. A little original research remains but the bulk of the article is sourced from reliable third-party sources - see the reference section. --Zeborah (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've now removed the original research as well. There may be a few more things that could be done to tidy it up, but this (and the list I created last AfD of additional references) should make it clear that the topic passes notability with flying colours. --Zeborah (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, when the phrase "Librarians in popular culture" returns 26 Google Scholar hits, it does not bode well for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 08:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very strong argument. I replaced Librarians for Plumbers and I get plenty of results. Are you suggesting, there should an article for Plumbers in popular culture also? Likeminas (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with "Loan officers in popular culture" and got no results at all, even in the general Google search. My position is that if a topic has been treated by secondary sources, it deserves either an article or a merge to another article. Abductive (reasoning) 23:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The lists which have now been moved to the talkpage are dreadful as far as scarcely-relevant cramming is concerned, but the sources in the article (and I believe it should be an article, not a list) coupled with those coming up on google scholar and books speak to this being a perfectly relevant subject which is notable. It may be that the article needs to cover both perceptions of librarians (a history which is well covered in a number of sources) as well as how they're portrayed in fiction, it may also be that ultimately this belongs as part of the librarian article. In the meantime, this is fine IMO. Someone another 11:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zeborah and Someone another. Legitimate sources, a coherent subject.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Librarians; there's no need for a separate entry when a section would suffice. Likeminas (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a good example of a segmented article title, in which two topics (librarians and popular culture) have brought together to form an entirely novel and original topic that has not been published anywhere except Wikipedia. There is no sourced definition for this topic, and there are no sources that provide coverage of the the topic directly or in detail that could be used to support the title. This article could just as easily be called "Librarians in the media", "Librarians in fiction", and the title does not disguise that its subject matter is, as the nominator states, a "trivia list" loosely related to the articles Librarian and Libraries. This is a good example of a topic that has failed WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:MADEUP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? This is far from an original topic. The article contains no original research. Everything in the article is sourced from scholarly articles that specifically and explicitly discuss librarians in popular culture. (Granted some of these articles focus on subtopics like librarians in film, librarians in young adult novels, etc, and some have focused on librarians in specific popular works, but I don't think you'd suggest Wikipedia articles on each of these subtopics.) In the Google Scholar search Abductive links to, the title of the first result is "Recasting the debate: the sign of the library in popular culture"; the introduction of the second says "Personality tests, studies, and surveys go to great lengths to examine or repudiate the image of librarians in popular culture"; the abstract of the third begins "This review of the literature discusses the image of librarians in popular culture". And so on and so forth. Even more articles on the topic are listed on the article talk page, dating back to 1975: this subject is incredibly well-covered in the scholarly literature. In short... just, seriously, what? --Zeborah (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. User:Gavin.collins's comments are doubly counterfactual in that the articles already contains multiple sources which address the topic directly and his view of policy is a personal one which is not supported by consensus. His attempts to push his idiosyncratic views have been shut down recently by adminstrators at WP:ANI and he should please not misrepresent their status here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Until such time as the topic itself is remains unsourced, it will be nominated for deletion. Whether it is an original topic or not is a matter of opinion. So far there are no sources to suggest that that the topic itself is notable. However, I doubt there is an administrator of sufficient guts and intelligence to acknowledge this fact. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability requires that a topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (and further defines these terms); this article very much fulfills these requirements. What specifically does it lack that would make it notable in your opinion? --Zeborah (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject matter that the sources cited in the article address directly and in detail is that of librarians, pure and simple. I think there is a misunderstanding here about the difference between an essay and an Encyclopedia article: In the same way Wikipedia does not allow essays about "Librarians in books" or "Librarians in libraries", it should not have an article about or "Librarians in non-fiction" or "Librarians in popular culture". Whether the source of an article is popular culture or non-fiction, or is about studies of these sources, all of the coverage is about librarians per se. "Librarians in popular culture" is simply one type of source from which information about librarians is gathered, it is not a topic in its own right. Popular culture is drawn from many media, such as literature, film and television, but librarians are not one of those sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, none of the sources cited are about librarians per se - they're not about real librarians at all, but rather are specifically about how (fictional) librarians are depicted in popular culture. (WP:NOT#ESSAY forbids "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic"; it explicitly doesn't forbid "the consensus of experts" which is what this article consists of.) -If you disagree with this, what would a source look like that you would consider to be about "librarians in popular culture" per se? --Zeborah (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are correct and sources in this article are not about librarians per se, but instead address the topics of "Fictional librarians" or "Librarian stereotypes", this is still a world away from "Libarians in popular culture". Fictional characters and sterotypes are both cultural phenomena, but Wikipedia does not have articles on "Fictional characters in popular culture" nor "Stereotypes in popular culture"; rather, this article is based upon a mis-categorisation of the sources. By contrast, "Fictional librarians" or "Librarian stereotypes" may well be notable topics (e.g some of the sources in this article address these topics), but putting them toghether in an essay conflicts with WP:NOT#ESSAY. Putting fictional characters and stereoptypes together because it is possible to infer that they are related by category based on passing mentions of "popular culture" is the wrong approach contravenes WP:GNG inclusion criteria based on "significant coverage" that must be direct, not infered. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would a source look like that you would consider to be about "librarians in popular culture"? --Zeborah (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic has great notability and would be easy to improve further using scholarly sources such as Librarians and party girls: cultural studies and the meaning of the librarian which address the topic directly. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surprisingly this seems to be a sufficiently notable topic in its own right. The current article looks OK. I haven't checked it in detail. Any problems that might cause a massive further loss of content (I am talking about actual content, not the silly trivia lists that have been removed already) should trigger a (temporary) merge, not a deletion. Hans Adler 17:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure what it looked like when it was nominated, but this one is of the few cases where an "in popular culture" article actually sources to studies of the depiction of something in popular culture, the reason being that there is a popular culture stereotype for a librarian that doesn't match up with all librarians (although it does seem to match up with quite a few in that profession). Geez, the very word conjures up images of old ladies who say "SHHHHH!!!" Mandsford 01:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see not OR or anthing other than referenced work. Web Warlock (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the few properly done "in popular culture" articles we have. It isn't an indiscriminate trivia-list and it approaches the subject from a scholarly perspective. Them From Space 11:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ackerman's Law

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

Neologism created by author. Since the original source is now defunct it is impossible to verify whether Ackerman ever said this; it could be wrongly attributed to him for political purposes. The sources for the quote are known for political bias. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 01:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the "Neolgism" argument. The quote provided in the Wiki page has been substantiated by a number of respected and legitimate sources, as well as on other Wiki pages. I'm not sure what more would be needed to prove the quote is accurate. ImNotBlue (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. None of the sources cited refer to the quote as being called "Ackerman's Law." Until that happens, we must assume that this name is a neologism invented by the article's creator, which would violate our policy on original research, of which WP:NEO is merely one particular case. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search comes up with two results for 'Ackerman's Law'. One is about steering mechanisms ('Ackerman's Law of Steering'). One about social stability with a changing population (as defined by architect, Frederick Lee Ackerman, 1878-1950). I couldn't find any evidence of the phrase being routinely used in the context suggested in this article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

x

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hodara Real Estate Group. JohnCD (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hodara

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

CMata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject founded Hodara Real Estate Group, which is the only reason he is notable. He is not notable beyond that. Favour a merge to that article, but listing here to get consensus as I feel it may be disputed. Not entirely sure that Hodara Real Estate Group is itself notable. (SPA.) Christopher Connor (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to list your resume, especially one as self-serving as this one. I would encourage nominator to look into the notability of the real estate group as well. "Has conducted over $4 million in property sales to date"? In current real estate markets, that's chump change. --MelanieN (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hodara Real Estate Group per nom. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Pocket

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

I deprodded as there a source in Czech provided that gives coverage of him,[23] but I don't think he's notable. There seems to be a DJ from Montreal called DJ Pocket who gets some hits, but it doesn't seem to be the same guy. I'm not finding significant coverage. Fences&Windows 20:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Nuujinn (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Existing references appear to be completely self-promotional. Miami33139 (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities with industrial engineering faculty

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

Delete. WP is not a directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom, not a directory. Also, this list seems to me that it is unverifiable. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fairly obvious case of what WP:NOT is about. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Likeminas (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eklipse (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like it was created [24] to eject such material from Industrial engineering. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A similar deletion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of universities with soil science curriculum. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOT. Its content may be true, but I can't think of a use for such a list.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch ·comms 02:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanisław Drzewiecki

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

Disputed PROD. Notability within WP:MUSICBIO is nowhere near asserted, let alone established. Only sources are self-published. Rodhull andemu 22:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is not the publisher of Polityka. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct; but this is the English language Wikipedia and sources in the English language are preferred. Unless there's a translation of that page (which of itself may not be enough to establish notability, unless it mentions major awards, etc.) sorry, I see no reason to alter my position right now. Rodhull andemu 22:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources in search. Many in foreign language but quite a few in English. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Won the 2000 Eurovision Young Musicians. Edgepedia (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that the article was created by his managers before being stubbed for copyright and other reasons. [25] Christopher Connor (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. —fetch ·comms 02:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darwish M.K.F. Al Gobaisi

AfDs for this article:

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

As stated at the previous AfD, we cannot simply let unreferenced BLPs lie around forever (13 months and counting in this case). If he's notable, let it be shown through reliable sources. If not, we must delete. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks, at first glance, that his notability is confirmed via UNESCO - but lack of WP:RS negates this. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Unless some significant coverage and references can be provided immediately. Dengero (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's an "editor-in-chief" of the mentioned encyclopedias. Mar4d (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V, WP:V, WP:V. If you can prove the claim through reliable sources, great. But so long as the claim remains unreferenced, no one is under any obligation to lend it credence (WP:BURDEN). - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Mike Cline (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports clubs owned by other sports clubs

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

per WP:NOTREPOSITORY this is an indiscriminate collection of internal links, due to globalisation more and more companies are swallowing up more than one football club it isn't anything notable any more. Mo ainm~Talk 16:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the internal links thing is a problem, ask for List of stadiums by capacity to be deleted as that is worse than this. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Mo ainm~Talk 19:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 06:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - articles such as List of feeder teams in football serve more purpose than this article. The contents should be merged into sport-specific, referenced lists. Giant Snowman 06:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is any verifiable content to merge, I would support that. But since there are, like on all of The C of E's articles, zero sources cited there is nothing verifiable to merge. I have already removed one inaccurate claim from this article, a brief check shows me there are several other inaccurate or highly dubious claims on there. Articles such as this harm the credibility of the encyclopedia. O Fenian (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So London Irish Amateur is unsourced then? I did create that one and it's sourced so I'm afraid your point that all the articles I have created are unsourced is incorrect. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. O Fenian (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an older revision, not the one that was there before you redirected. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first version, thus proving that your claim of "I'm afraid your point that all the articles I have created are unsourced is incorrect" is not disproved by that particular article. Since the articles you create are generally replete with factual errors, I suggest not starting any further unsourced article since this is an encyclopedia not a place for you to publish things you believe to be true which are actually not. O Fenian (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the 1st revision, but it was eventually sourced. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utter trivia, unknown selection rules (if any). I expected something non-trivial (like the Formula 1 team ownership history) ... but the list says "these few clubs (why these?) own farm/feeder/reserve clubs... they even share names!" What a curious discovery that even needs no references. East of Borschov 11:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see where this is going so I have userfied it with the hope of maybe bringing it back in future after improvements and sources. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edward Maya. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stereo Love (album)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:SOURCES, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUM, WP:NMUSIC, WP:HAMMER, WP:CRUFT, WP:MOS and WP:IBX PopMusicBuff ^talk 15:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PopMusicBuff ^talk 15:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You already voted via your nomination. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a such thing as WP:GUIDELINECRUFT? But seriously, redirect to Edward Maya. Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edward Maya. There are a whole bunch of things wrong with this nomination. WP:SOURCES, WP:MOS and WP:IBX are not part of the process of nominating an article for deletion. They are reasons to expand or improve the article, which is done by either fixing the article text yourself or by adding edit tags to the top, such as "the article needs additional citations" etc. (See Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup.) When it comes to sources, the nominator should make a good faith effort to go out and search for reliable sources rather than just conclude that the article should be deleted because nobody else has added any sources so far. Also, referencing WP:CRUFT in this nomination makes no sense because that term applies to excessive amounts of geek trivia, which this article definitely does not have. The nominator is closer to reality on the notability guidelines and WP:CRYSTAL. It appears that the album will be released sometime in the near future but I cannot find any reliable sources for a confirmed release date. But the album already has two singles that charted very high in Europe so the album will have a good chance of achieving notability whenever it is released. Therefore the article can be redirected to the artist for now. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect since it seems to be the consensus so far. PopMusicBuff ^talk 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Paddy Games

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

Ok. I checked ~~Google~~Scroogle, and found that alongside the Ireland stuff, this must be be poker too... so I was dug out on sources. On the other hand, there's a COI problem. Turns out the poker thing might be notable... but this isn't. —I-20 the highway 15:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are no longer a problem, but still the COI issue is left. —I-20 the highway 17:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More coverage is needed. Invitations has been sent to notable people like Usain Bolt and such, but all-in-all it seems to be a non-notable event started by a non-notable person. Dengero (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the creator seems to be the said event starter. I would've speedied it under blatant advertising. Just to say. Dengero (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of DC Comics characters: K. JohnCD (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kristogar Velo

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

No mentions in any reliable sources about this character who appeared once in a six page story. Cameron Scott (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So is there a good merge target for this guy? List of fake green lantern imposters doesn't seem to exist. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: K. I don't see enough independent coverage to warrant a separate article. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not enough coverage to WP:verifynotability of this for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UGA Accidentals

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

Articles fails WP:MUSIC. I would prod, but a prod was removed in June 2009. TM 05:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to have sufficient album releases to pass WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Gibson

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

This artist appears to have nothing currently released, but there is a claim to notability here; being the John Lennon Songwriting Contest. However, I have taken a look at the contest website, and cannot find a mention of this person (although without a search option I'll admit the possibility that I missed it). A google search of "John lennon songwriting contest "emanuel gibson"" turns up three hits: this page, a myspace friends page, and a page at dogstarmusic.com that makes no mention of Emanuel Gibson. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. No sources on the songwriting contest, or anything else. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs found regarding songwriting contest, fails WP:MUSIC. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkole

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

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikkole albums and a related CfD debate, I feel we need to discuss the notability of the singer behind the albums. Consider this a procedural nomination. Courcelles (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I nominated the album articles for deletion and considered nominating this article also. There are reproductions of press at Nikkole's official site; most seem to be of the type that result from PR blitzes or press junkets. I tend to discount those sorts of sources since they raise questions about how independent they are from the artist and/or her label or PR firm. I lean toward delete based on the complete lack of charting for any of her music but am not going to weep bitter tears if this is retained. If kept the SPA User:Seeinc (as in S E Entertainment, Inc., Nikkole's label) needs to refrain from editing further per WP:COI and the article needs to be vetted for extraordinary claims. Otto4711 (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but with heavy heart. I just can't find the necessary WP:RS to establish her notability under WP:MUSIC. Her Ghit count is very low - which is surprising if we take the article at face value. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable recording artist. Lack of sources and evidence it passes WP:MUSICBIO. Created by her label which is always a red flag. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Creative

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

As far as I can tell, Allmusic invented this genre/classification, and they are the only ones (of note) to use it. Personally, I think the term is so vague as to be meaningless (here is their page about it). The article cites a second entry at Allmusic ([26]), but it does not mention the term "Modern Creative", nor does it actually mention all the musicians listed in the article, much less place them in a distinct "Modern Creative" scene/genre. I've made previous comments (e.g. in July 2007) that we (Wikipedians) have set up a number of articles and categories based on Allmusic's classification scheme, for the simple reason (as far as I can tell) because Allmusic does it that way. But with such vague terminology, I'm not sure that Allmusic's genre/categorization scheme is something we ought to emulate. I have already added an attributed bit about Allmusic's Modern Creative genre to the free jazz article (diff). Delete. Gyrofrog (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Gyrofrog (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JAZZ and WP:GENRE notified. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Normally Allmusic is considered a reliable source but this is a very brief and not very helpful. A google book search turns up just one source I can get to, and that seems to suggest that this is just an alternative name for free jazz. I will keep looking before I make a decision.--SabreBD (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just thought I'd add something I have also added at Talk:Modern Creative: the first (1994) edition of the Allmusic Guide to Jazz assigns "modern creative" to a number of artists who don't seem (to me) stylistically similar (compare No Wave), although it (the book) never defines what "modern creative" means. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I'd previously said on the article Talk page, this is a borderless and arbitrary categorisation of music/ians. If you're "modern" and "creative", why shouldn't you get dropped in here? No genre, no affinities, just a couple of commonplace words being run together. AllyD (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been a professional jazz reviewer for years (though not for AMG) and a fan for much longer and can assure you that absolutely no-one in the music world (musicians, fans, any reliable reference guide OTHER than AMG) uses the term. And I have absolutely no idea what it means to boot. Unless someone can provide convincing citations then it should go. -- ND (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I simply cannot find sources that indicates this is anything more than an occasional tag. There has been a genuine attempt by regular editors to find material for this topic, but it seems that it is not available.--SabreBD (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch FilmWorks

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

This unsourced article, dating from 2008, is about an organisation which does not appear to fulfull WP:ORG. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such a great number of available sources[27] world seem indicative of this Dutch company meeting WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Many are in the Dutch language understandably, but enough are in English. Send it to WP:Cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Company is notable, but current page needs expansion. TwoRiversWC (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No notability indicated in the article, and the Dutch article (of which this appears to be a translation - interestingly containing the same typo 'knowlegde' (now corrected in both)) - is no better. In fact, it even lacks the link to the company site. How many of the 'available sources' would in fact give the coverage (and depth) required? Peridon (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep Peridon (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Company might be notable but no proof is offered in 'article'. No news on this company in Google News archives since 2008, one 2010 mention in Google News. No sources cited for all asserted distribution deals. 'No refs' notice dates to May 2008. While it might be possible, no editor has seen fit to try to source this article and to try to prove its notability in the intervening 2+ years. Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. So it sat unimproved for two years. I only just heard about it myself when it was brought to this AFD. Expansion and sourcing has begun, but help from any Dutch-reading Wikipedian would be greatly appreciated. WP:NOEFFORT is a concern that can be addressed with just a little help... and WP:UNKNOWNHERE does not mean it lacks notability THERE. And to User:Shearonink... it is in Google archives before 2008... even as far back as Jun 18, 2000.[28] And to source a distribution deal, all one need do is search for "Dutch Filmworks" + "Film name"... not at all impossible, just will take some work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find Notability, that's great. I just didn't see it at this first pass and don't have the time to do loads of research right now. I'll be glad to be proven wrong. Shearonink (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no question of notability after the list of independent news sources posted by User:MichaelQSchmidt above. This needed expand and cleanup not deletion. I have expanded it. -84user (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments and efforts by User:MichaelQSchmidt.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coherent (company)

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

Notability is not inherited from a notable person. Is obvious spam. Only one outside source which interviews primary subject. Quick Google news search yields no results. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 02:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. This is apparently a tech business with more durability than most, one that might be notable, but whose vague name stymies attempts to research it using search engines. Adding "laser" does not help, because spatial coherence is a defining property of lasers. And my attempt at crafting a more closely targeted search query failed.[29] So we're left with the text of the article itself, which is little more than a directory listing with a list of services offered, and does not really establish that this business, as opposed to its founder, has any "long term historical notability" or a significant impact on history, technology, or culture. If someone who knows the field better can point me to sources that establish significance here, I'd be happy to switch. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. This is one of the NASDAQ company's, see Forbes and a notable company within the lasers community (speeking as a physicist who has worked within the atomic physics field and used a few lasers during research). CNET article about the company. A search for Coherent Inc at OptoIQ yields about 291 results. Is this enough for notability? --ojs (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:LISTED advises that being listed is not sufficient for inclusion, and I can't find anything that brings this over the notability line. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bartcop

AfDs for this article:

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

Blogger. Nominated for speedy as spam. Initially I actioned it thus. Then I noticed that the speedy tag had been applied by an IP and that the article has been around for seven years! How come nobody in this time has managed to add any evidence of notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the answer to your question is that there is no significant coverage in reliable sources or notability. Fails WP:BIO. Claritas § 20:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom de plume of a notable blogger.--_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sesel's rationale in the first discussion. Calling this site, which is apparently updated once a day and sometimes not even that often, a "blog" is really stretching the term. Şłџğģő 17:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have heard of this person so he is probably notable. The article is in very poor shape however. Borock (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider reading WP:IKNOWIT. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will the closing nom note that the only "keep" votes have been saying WP:ITSNOTABLE and absolutely nothing else. Clear cut no-consensus at worst. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suggo's/Sesel's rationale clearly goes beyond WP:ITSNOTABLE. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was just thinking the same. It's kind of obvious people aren't looking at the first deletion discussion. Şłџğģő 17:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The site seems to get name-checked enough in general accounts of the left-wing blogosphere to merit a mention here. We might therefore direct readers to a suitable article such as blogosphere. Deletion would be unhelpful. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Mike Cline (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Feasts of Israel

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

Unsourced, Original Research/Synthesis whose sole purpose is seemingly to push a particular point of view. While this may be welcome on various sites on the internet, it is inappropriate for wikipedia. Avi (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clarify opinion of nominator. -- Avi (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Enormous POV problems. No opinion on worthiness for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A Google Books search turns up mentions of this concept (and especially of Zola Levitt's book of the same name) in a number of other Messianic and mainstream Christian books.[30] There might be room for a properly sourced sentence or paragraph or two on this concept somewhere in an appropriate article such as Messianic Jewish theology. However, the current article has numerous WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems, and, lacking sources, I don't see any clear way to raise it to anything like an acceptable standard. Redirection to Zola Levitt is also a possibility. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe nonsense from repulsive fringe group. JFW | T@lk 21:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One giant POV push. Cleaning the POV and opinion stated as fact would leave a blank article. Two homemade Youtube videos as sources? Please. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Messianic Jewish theology as this seems to be a topic among Hebrew Christians, as can be seen by the over 12,000 Google hits for it, but there is definitely no such notion within normative Judaism at any time in its history. IZAK (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This article is about the views expressed in a published work. Levitt may have been guilty of OR and POV, but an article about the views that he expressed is neither. The question is whehter this is too WP:FRINGE to warrant an article. Since I am not a Messianic Jew, I am not competent to judge. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. No reliable sources. Only references are two YouTube videos. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly Merge as per IZAK and others above, but subject seems to be at best dubiously sourced. John Carter (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Basic grammar of Ido. Ido Linguo.
^ Grammar of Occidental/Interlingue in Occidental translated into English: part 8. Page F30. January 5th, 2009.
^ Grammar of Interlingua. Alexander Gode and Hugh Blair.
^ Introduction in English. Dr. C. George Boeree.
^ A complete grammar of esperanto. Ivy Kellerman. March 2005.

[ido-1] Basic grammar of Ido. Ido Linguo.

[occidental-2] Grammar of Occidental/Interlingue in Occidental translated into English: part 8. Page F30. January 5th, 2009.

[interlingua-3] Grammar of Interlingua. Alexander Gode and Hugh Blair.

[linguafrancanova-4] Introduction in English. Dr. C. George Boeree.

[esperanto-5] A complete grammar of esperanto. Ivy Kellerman. March 2005.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]