Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 26

< 25 October	27 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. WP:NOR/OR/insufficient reliable secondary sources on which to base this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nagualism (Carlos Castaneda)

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

Article is largely OR. The question is whether there are sufficient 2ndary sources to base an article upon Castenada's view of Nagualism. So far, I think not, but figured to bring it here so others could weigh in. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely OR, except for content copied from other pages. Lots of personal reflection. Questionable relevance. Ringbang (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Beginning January 21st 2010 this article began a process of extensive revision. Numerous additional sections were added along with numerous internal and external links. This is a work in progress. One that has not been concluded. At that time (1/21/2010) a warning template citing no references were provided, it was removed on October 13 th 2010 and a new template added stating only primary sources of references are contained within the text, 10 days after the revised template was added. That was 18 days ago at this writing. 6 days ago the template requesting deletion was added. The subject matter of this articles is very controversial. Nagualism has it's detractors, people that will go to numerous means to silence it's philosophy. Criticism of Castaneda's work is suspect, often based on conjecture, few if any facts, opinions based on distorted facts, making most lacking in credibility. 10's of millions of books were sold by Carlos Castaneda. "Believers" of Nagualism, as presented by Don Juan Matus, persist to this day. Numerous sources of material regarding Nagualism exist though the linkage between Mr. Castaneda books and Anthropological content will need further research.

The material as presented with further revisions should remain in Wikipedia. --76.235.57.3 (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is from --Toltec Guardian 17:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)

Comment, honestly, if it were that controversial a subject it would be easy to source. The problem is, we don't do original research here. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, From [Verifiability]

When a reliable source is required

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.[2]

I object to your seemingly hasty attempt to remove the article. It shows bias, that as the page shows progress you have attempted to remove it.

--Toltec Guardian 17:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)

Warrior777, with all due respect, I see that you are essentially a single purpose account have possibly have a conflict of interest. You may be too close to this subject personally to be editing this article. In any case, the fundamental problem is that the material in the article is not supported by citations from reliable sources, and thus there is no evidence of notability. Basically, as an encyclopedia, we require that a subject of any article be covered by other sources from which we draw our information. Before nominating this article, I sought reliable sources (as wikipedia defines the term) on the nagualism and Castenada, but did not find any. Castenada's works are primary sources, and thus not suitable for use as sources (we do not research topics directly), what is needed are references to books, magazines, scholarly works, or similar that discuss Castenada's version of Nagualism in some detail. As a practitioner, do you have any such material that can be use as sources for this article? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments,
About this comment you made, "You may be too close to this subject personally to be editing this article." After a close review of your Wikipedia material over the course of "less then" the past year. You may not be experiences enough to recommend the deletion of any Wikipedia article. This review of your submissions also showed an emphasis on removing material with no additions regarding any subject on the Wiki. what-so-ever, again showing your inexperience. Keep plugging away in time maybe you'll get it.
The purpose of the Wiki. is very clear to me. The information I'm presenting is accurate with appropriate references made throughout the text citing its accuracy to Castaneda's books. Painstakingly, impeccably, accurate in fact.
My apologizes for not making the Wiki my sole avocation in life.
I am fully aware of the articles weaknesses at the moment and will state again more clearly, sourcing it will require more time. Your attempted searches regarding finding relevance information for the article are insufficient, with all due respect of course.

--Toltec Guardian 12:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)

Before I noticed that this article was up for deletion—and, therefore, before I voted delete—I took a stab at improving it. This involved purging a lot of information that was out of the article's scope, purging content already recorded in other articles, cleaning-up the "See also" section, improving the use of quotations from primary texts, copyediting and reorganizing to conform to the MoS, etc. After about an hour, what remained were a few paragraphs that amounted to exegesis of primary sources (i.e., original research), and no qualifying secondary sources. If Nuujinn hadn't already nominated it for deletion, then I would have. Since it was already nominated, I scrapped my edits because by that point I did not feel that the article was objective or salvageable.

I don't think the issue is finding the time to identify secondary sources. Looking for publications that support the original research in the article doesn't change the fact that the article is OR, and in places a personal exegesis. As for the having enough time, the same problems have plagued the article since a user split it from nagual nearly four years ago. In fact, since that time the article has only become encumbered with more OR. – Ringbang (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ringbang for your constructive suggestions. The following changes have been made to the article. Quotes were removed from fairuse material contained within the article. An "Also See" section has been added and some less relevant material was removed from the "Also see" section for brevity and a portions was alphabetized.

Now about these comments you made ............

What specifically do you believe is "information that was out of the article's scope", Please be specific.
Items that have been used from other Wiki. sources regarding Carlos Castaneda work should in fact be moved to this article and not as you have suggested, "purging content already recorded in other articles".
As you suggested "copyediting" (copy editing) is a very subjective point considering the composite nature of content by Wikipedia editors, a daunting task requiring perhaps years to correct. Yes, I am aware that the Wiki. has editorial guidelines regarding tone and bias. I suppose more time will be needed to bring the article into compliance with your request.
What specific suggestions might you make for improving the articles structure regarding the MoS. Please reference these if possible.

To insure the materials accuracy the article is in some ways, exegesis". Those more knowledgeable then those responding here will also be checking the material for accuracy.

--Toltec Guardian 10:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)

For the time being, most of the above is not really an issue--yes, there are issues with how the article is written and it's scope, and yes, the OR would have to go, but if the article remains, those can be dealt with later (and please do be aware that in this case, the most likely way to deal with them would be as Ringbang describes, by stripping the article down to little more than a stub and starting over). The critical issue at the moment is the lack of significant coverage of the articles's topic in reliable sources establishing notability. Please read those two policies if you have not done so heretofore, but the shorthand version is basically that we need to find some coverage of Nagualism as practiced by Castenada in books, magazines or newspapers, and reference those in the article. Nagualism in general will likely not do, since we have an article on that already, and Castenada's works won't do, because they are primary sources (and someone writing about themselves or their work does not establish notability as that term is used here). If such sources cannot be found, the article will most likely be deleted, since having such sources is a requirement for all articles on wikipedia. Please let me know if this is not clear or if you have any additional questions. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:38, 2 November 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. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Planning - Personal

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

Very unencyclopedic. Bad page name. (interestingly, other contributions from same user (ElissaBuie (talk · contribs)) seem to follow a similar pattern. See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FPA_Future_of_Planning_Workgroup) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic in tone; Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Appears to be an unsourced original research essay. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator appears to be well-intentioned, but s/he doesn't quite seem to understand how Wikipedia works. I left a friendly message on his/her talk page. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. We might consider steering the author toward WikiProject Finance, as they clearly have much to offer - but, as you note, some guidance is in order. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:10, 28 October 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 (and salt)—clear consensus rooted in Wikipedia policy has been established. Yes, there are multiple independent sources that mention Bowles in passing, but his treatment in all but one of these sources is not "significant" in any definition of the word. — Deck iller 00:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Taylor Bowles

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

Recreated article on fringe candidate for President in 2008. It was previously deleted but a speedy delete was declined. He was not on the ballot in any states and there is no proof he received any votes. There was a strong consensus to delete the article in 2007. TM 21:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 06:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN cleanly, redirection is not called for given that he wasn't on the ballot. I find nothing to suggest that the old consensus should be changed in this case. Ray^Talk 06:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fringe activist with no notability in any WP-accepted sense of the word. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and above comments. Non-notable fringe candidate.--JayJasper (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NOTNEWS. I'm OK with redirecting news items like this as a plausible search term if an appropriate redirect can be found. Location (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete and salt. This is the ultimate fringe type of non-notable political candidate. Consensus has not changed on this issue, and in fact has hardened to delete such articles. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 27 October 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 consensus is that this is basically a list of external links, and as such should be deleted -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of active drive-in theaters

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

Absolutely nothing's made the article better since the last AFD, so I'll say the same rationale again:

North America-centric list, used mainly as a linkfarm to link to nearly every drive-in's website. Minimal attempts have been made to source the article or remove the huge number of links. While there are plenty of theater directories online, most of them are based on user-submitted information and therefore not reliable, so I have no idea how a list of this sort could even be sourced. Furthermore, this list seems to be a big violation of WP:NOT#DIR and I don't see how it's any different from, say, a list of store locations (which is also not allowed per WP:NOT#DIR). I'll admit that I'm interested in drive-in theaters myself, but I'm not going to let WP:ILIKEIT stand in the way of a list that can't easily be sourced.

(To elaborate, I can't find verification besides the drive-ins' own sites for the most part to verify that any of these are still open.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. - such a list might be important in illustrating the attrition of such theaters, but no reliable secondary sources exist that can verify the list's content and keep it up-to-date. Such information is also available on other web sites. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm unconvinced. A number of the arguments above have no basis in policy or guideline; that drive-ins are largely a North American phenomenon, that other websites may contain the same information, that sourcing the article isn't easy or that the drive-ins' websites are often used for verification that they still exist are not valid grounds to delete. There are a lot of sources here, and that the article hasn't hit an undefined percentage of links sourced to newspapers isn't a valid ground either. Ravenswing 21:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most of the links are to the cinemas' web sites. At any rate, it would be hard to maintain reliable sources on such a topic, since these cinemas could close at any time. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: No different from any business, enterprise, organization or sports team, many of which come and go, and likewise not a valid deletion ground. Ravenswing 13:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Wrong. Per WP:V, this stuff needs to be verifiable. Also, just because other existing articles/lists are also poorly cited doesn't say anything about this list. See the essay section: WP:WAX. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply: Wrong; many of these items are verified. And you're making a straw man argument; I never said those other existing articles/lists are poorly cited, nor do I claim this article lacks citations. My argument was to your implication that the long-term survivability of drive-ins should be a consideration in sourcing. Ravenswing 17:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I normally find most NOT#DIR arguments uncompelling, I'm forced to agree with the nom on this one. Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTLINK says Wikipedia articles are not a mere collections of external links or Internet directories. Include a link to here or here in the external links section of the Drive-in theater article and leave it at that. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 06:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a repository for external links or a directory of non-notable entries. Almost every entry in this article has no article on Wikipedia. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it seems to be American-centric doesn't mean its not a worthy article. -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ravenswing. The argument that the theaters' own websites aren't reliable sources for their current status is clearly spurious; we allow sourcing of such information fom article subjects generally, so long as it is not overly promotional or otherwise self-serving. It would be beyond pedantic to insist on substitution of referencing to the theater tables in the relevant local newspapers, requiring cumbersome frequent updates while providing, at best, the same information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:33, 2 November 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midway Drive-In (Illinois)

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

Last AFD (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midway Drive In) closed as keep. Sources were presented but closer look shows each source to be very, very trivial (one sentence mentions) or incidental local coverage. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have done some preliminary work to reference this article (It certainly did not need all of the Citation needed's added by the nominator based on the external link references). If someone can get access to the Sauk Valley News, Tribune, and Herald, many of these good references could be added. Certainly claiming that the theater has the oldest screen in the state is a claim to notability, and it seems to be backed up by other sources. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Fifty two thirty. Racepacket (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per last AfD, quality of sources was already debated. Sources also claim its the first in the state, and a "landmark"--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 28 October 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 keep. Even though one editor opines this AfD should run 7 days I'll be bold and close it: Sole deletion rationale has been convincingly refuted, no delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor of Exmoor

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

My fundamental objection is WP:NOTNEWS. This animal has just been shot and killed. Until today it had little or no coverage anywhere. The fact that it only made the news because it was killed means its notability is questioned and it doesn't deserve an article. Simple Bob (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep largest known land animal in Britain seems like a worthy claim to notability for me. Also, this source was published in 2009 regarding the stag's notbaility. Jolly Ω Janner 21:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable ecological piece, has a twinge of WP:NOTNEWS but that can be fixed by clean up. It has established notability. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of notability and coverage. Maybe a little newsy but as it's likely no bucks as large as this one remain he should maintain his fame indefinitely. Beach drifter (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- clearly notable. Just because it's in the news doesn't necessarily mean it violates WP:NOTNEWS; this is clearly of enduring interest and relevance. Can we get a snow close on this AfD so as not to scuttle the article's chances at WP:DYK? Reyk _YO! 21:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why bypass due process just so you can get a DYK? The AfD should be left to run its course. --Simple Bob (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't affect the DYK chances anyway. If it qualifies, all that happens is that it get's put in a holding pen until the Afd concludes, before returning to the queue. MickMacNee (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"enduring interest": hmmm: I suspect it will get very few page hits in March 2012, but I doubt any of us will remember to check. Kevin McE (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let it run its course. I just happen to think the most appropriate course would be for Simple Bob to recognize the emerging consensus and withdraw the nomination. Then perhaps a speedy close. My76 Strat 00:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But anyone want to try an argument based on a variation of BLP1E?! Sources from before the shooting remove WP:NOTNEWS basis: Daily Mail 1, Daily Mail 2, The Times and Telegraph as above. Took an odd bit of searching to winkle them out mind... Bigger digger (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep purely on grounds of these articles prior to its death: the notion that one out of the 300,000 plus deer culled each year is of ecological importance, or that we need an article on the largest individual animal (but restrict that to land mammals) is ridiculous. Where is our article on the largest creature in Bolivia, or Chad, or Korea. Kevin McE (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain is an enclosed island, which means that land animals are more unique than the other countries you suggested, which have land borders with other countries. Also, the UK is home to the second largest number of Wikipedia's viewers, so it's obviously going to become a notable topic for an English encyclopedia. Jolly Ω Janner 23:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I would argue that Great Britain is in a unique position when it comes to large wildlife given its long history of human civilization and deforestation. Beach drifter (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK: what about Africa's largest individual? The largest land mammal in the Americas? A month ago hardly anyone could have told you what or where Britain's largest land mammal was, and today no-one can tell you the successor to the "title" in Britain. Nor can anyone verify with any confidence at all that this animal absolutely deserved the accolade: any measurements have been estimates made from a distance. Pure press hype, with negligible factual substance behind it, and no enduring importance. However, the threshhold for GNG is reached by the press's willingness to publish meaningless stories, because agency sources pass on items that don't really deserve much more than local rag coverage and these provide cheap material with which to fill pages. Kevin McE (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources published prior to this newsworthy event negate the concerns of WP:NOTNEWS and the fact of the current coverage coupled with the prior publications demonstrate notability beyond WP:1E. I am also concerned that AfD was the first reaction of the nominator. A read of WP:BEFORE indicates other actions might have been more appropriate. My76 Strat 23:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep add this source BBC 2009, who interviewed Donnelly separately. So - enough early sources, each independent in multiple ways, enough depth, enough persistence, not-one-off. And today, the Los Angeles Times has a photo of the front page of The Times UK, and its rather big pic of the Emperor (3 columns x 2/3? - nearly half-page anyways) and above-the-fold headline, constituting independent verification of the prominence of the coverage (on one rag anyways). --Lexein (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had the coverage related solely to the animal's death, then I could be persuaded that NOTNEWS was a valid arguement. The 2009 coverage gives notability by reason of continued coverage. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:44, 27 October 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy body healthy mind

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

Does not appear to be notable, claims of notability seem to be implausible. It has not received "countless" Freddie Awards, a google search shows that it was a finalist on only one occasion, and did not win the award. Quasihuman (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup.... maybe keep? It's currently unsourced, but appears to imply that it was broadcast nationally, which would make it notable. Good candidate for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find much sourcing. It does seem to have been a series, but oddly, I could find nothing about it at the PBS website. Here and here are promos from local Public Television stations. Hard to search for, since the phrase "healthy body healthy mind" is used so widely by many websites and commercial operations, but I really couldn't verify this show as notable. The article history is strange; it looks as if the original creator tried to blank the page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MelanieN. It seems to be beyond repair. Lampman (talk) 16:01, 1 November 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central Nevada Desert Basins

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

See the discussion on WP:RIVERS talk; this was created by an editor that has been making disruptive edits, it is not a notable subject under Wikipedia guidelines, furthermore it relies mostly on a single source, the USGS-HuC page. The article does not state how the subject is notable and how it differs in any way from the surrounding spread of the Great Basin. How is this series of watersheds notable? Is it geographically, or biologically, or climatically, distinct? No it isn’t. They don’t even outlet to the same lake or river. Look on the map in the article… it’s just random. The article describes one valley that lies between the Humboldt and Walker basins, another one south of Las Vegas, one near the White River Valley, one south of the Humboldt headwaters… what?

Delete per nom. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject is covered by Great Basin and I don't think this is a likely search term that would warrant a redirect. Kmusser (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (changing to neutral). It is a distinct watershed, with its own Hydrologic Unit Code (1606) - for more sites mentioning that code see this search [1]. Hydrologic units defined by the US govt are not random. Here is a precipitation map by the Natural Resources Conservation Service showing its borders and precipitation status: [2]. It's quite large and more statistical data is available. A USDA agricultural census of the watershed can be seen here [3]; its title is Great Basin Water Resource Region 16 - HUC6 Level Watersheds. This is encylopedic information. Novickas (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to neutral. There is a lot of info in here already, all relevant to the topic, and I'm a little sad to think of its removal, but I take the analogy to zipcodes - currently not acceptable here without wider coverage in secondary sources. Someday, maybe, for both. Novickas (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS - a little more info. There are 21 major hydrologic units in the US and 221 subregions. [4]. This one is a subregion [5]. Novickas (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not a watershed – it is a series of endorheic basins and valleys. It isn't physically distinct from the rest of the Great Basin as far as I know. How is it geologically, physically, climactically, culturally different? It doesn't drain to a common point either. Why is this notable and distinct from the rest of GB? Shannon ^talk _contribs 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is that reliable sources (and you can't get much more reliable than the USGS) treat this as a distinct unit, not any of our subjective ideas of importance. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The USGS hydrologic units are not the same thing as watersheds - from the page you linked to "A cataloging unit is a geographic area representing part or all of a surface drainage basin, a combination of drainage basins, or a distinct hydrologic feature." They are created by USGS specifically for reporting and making maps of hydrologic data, that doesn't automatically make them a good way for wikipedia to organize our river-related articles. In this case USGS combined 24 small basins that have almost no hydrologic data into one big polygon for data reporting convenience. You are right in that the unit isn't arbitrary, these basins are connected by USGS' lack of data about them - is that a good combination to base an article on? Linking to stuff about the Great Basin Water Resource Region isn't really relevant - that matches up with our Great Basin article which is fine. Kmusser (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What connection does a hydrologic unit not being the same thing as a watershed have with whether we should have an article about this topic? The whole thrust of our "no original research" policy is that we follow such authorities as the USGS rather than making up our own classification scheme based on a couple of editors' personal opinions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s anyone’s “personal opinions”, it probably isn’t mine or the opinions of anyone here. Our WP:RIVERS conventions which were set quite a while ago generally define watersheds as the land area that drains into a particular point. But away with guidelines and on to my main question that you sockpuppets still haven’t answered. (Yes I know that Hike796, Mmcannis, the anon IP editors, and probably Novickas are the same person. Is it that hard to tell? :D) HOW IS THIS REGION DISTINCT FROM THE REST OF THE GREAT BASIN??? And can you find a source other than the USGS if you really think this is a notable subject? Otherwise that’s breaking the policy that no article should rely on a single source – in this case the USGS. Even though yes, USGS is a reliable source, but it is only one source and we really need some other sources. If you can’t find this in any publication that isn’t by the USGS, that’ll be a problem for this article. And lastly, why not just create a page called “List of U.S. Geological Survey hydrological units”. We here on Wikipedia still doubt the notability of a geographic region that doesn’t differ significantly from what surrounds it. Following this example, I could create an article called “Northeast Gulf Coast hydrologic region” comprising the watersheds of the Brazos, Trinity and Colorado Rivers and claim it is notable because it comprises a tad bit over 100,000 square miles. Shannon ^talk _contribs 20:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please calm down so that we can have a civil discussion and withdraw your ridiculous accusation of sockpuppetry. Secondly, as I said in my previous comment, it doesn't matter whether this is a watershed or not, as the definition of what this "thing" is is a matter that can be fixed by editing, rather than deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never accused YOU of sockpuppeting, I was accusing the two or three editors that are editing those articles, as well as the multiple IPs. If you answer my question of why this subject is significant other than the fact that the USGS uses it for cataloging convenience then maybe I will withdraw from this AfD altogether.Shannon ^talk _contribs 21:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your reply to my comment you used the phrase "you sockpuppets", a clear accusation against ME. You also explicitly accused another long-standing editor, Novickas, with absolutely no evidence, unless you think that the fact that more than one person questions your position automatically makes them sockpuppets. Please withdraw both of these accusations. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because by itself it isn't really a topic, it's one subcategory of a larger classification scheme. Is every category of every classification scheme a government agency comes up with notable? No one is proposing an alternate classification here, just that not every category of the USGS scheme necessarily warrants its own article. And to Shannon, I'll second the chill out - the disruptive edits we've been having to deal with really is a different discussion from this AFD. If the consensus here is keep I could probably rewrite the article so that it's actually about the HUC rather than its current incoherent state. Kmusser (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only made the sock accusations because I noticed very similar editing patterns and wording/edit summary styles in the edits of certain users. But Phil you still did not answer my question about how the damn topic is notable in any other way. I note that although the article has a fair amount of refs, all of them except one is attributed to the USGS, and the one other is for the USDA which is closely affiliated with USGS... Shannon ^talk _contribs 01:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, so far I've seen exactly one solid reference besides the definition that is actually about the subject (that is #5 in the article). The rest have all been either passing mentions that it exists without any content, or maps of something else that use the USGS HUCs in general as a background layer. Kmusser (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before commenting here, I checked WP:Common outcomes. It read 'Major geographical and geological features featured on maps, such as lakes, rivers, mountains, mountain passes, etc., generally survive AfD.' Having found it on an online map (now in the article, and it is apparently updated every month), and seeing it as a major geographical feature (by virtue of its size and being one of the 221 USGS hydrologic subregions), I agreed that it deserved its own article. IMO all 16 US hydrologic regions and all 221 subregions deserve articles, and they can co-exist peacefully with other geographic articles. It is very sparsely inhabited and doesn't seem to have attracted much attention, mostly stats collection; all the same, its existence is verifiable in reliable sources and because of its status as an HUC there are a fair number of stats. I see this AFD as a test of the viability of the USGS hydrologic units on WP; they probably all overlap with other river, basin, ecology, culture articles. They might have fewer non-US-government sources than those do, but to my mind their verifiable definition by the USGS justifies separate articles. Novickas (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a compromise, since I am still completely against having over 200 of these articles on Wikipedia, but I find it impossible to get my simple point through to you guys. How about creating one page, that lists all the hydrologic subregions, perhaps just adding to the hydrologic code article that already exists. Shannon ^talk _contribs 06:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A list would be good as a complement to the articles, but it couldn't include individual maps, which are an important feature of geographic articles. Novickas (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(@Shannon1) It would be much easier to discuss a compromise if you were to drop the aggressive attitude. Your "simple" point has got through to "us guys", but some of us disagree with it. I'm not prepared to enter into any further discussion with you until you start communicating in a civil manner. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a geographic feature though - the geographic features would be the individual drainage basins, which should and for the most part do have articles of their own - this is a grouping of basins for USGS' classification scheme. I think the HUCs are comparable to Zip Codes, you can find lots of maps with zip codes on them, lots of statistics arranged by zip code, and zip codes collectively are certainly notable - but we don't generally have articles on individual zip codes unless they're famous for something other than just existing (e.g. 90210). Kmusser (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The zip code analogy makes sense to me. Many of the USGS's HUCs are clearly "arbitrary" and designed to separate drainages into conveniently sized areas without always conforming to specific watersheds. Here's an example. Subregion 1704 is called "Upper Snake: The Snake River basin to and including the Clover Creek basin". HUC units within it include such things as 17040212 "Upper Snake-Rock". Here is a map (low quality) of the Upper Snake subregion's HUCs. The Upper Snake-Rock HUC is simply a portion along the Snake River that doesn't fit into any of the other HUCs with more significant tributaries. You can't tell from this map, but the American Falls and Lake Walcott HUCs include large areas that do not drain to the Snake at all, rather sink into the ground here and there, into the Snake River Plain aquifer. Sometimes the USGS's combines streams into HUCs, as you can see by names like Greys-Hoback, Beaver-Camas, and Snake Headwaters (I'm linking to rivers pages if we have one). Anyway, this is just the first few examples that came to mind. Point is, HUCs do not consistently relate to watersheds the way one might think. Coastal areas are especially prone to oddness of this type, due to there being many small streams draining directly to the ocean. Examples: HUC 17100101 "Hoh-Quillayute", 17100102 "Queets-Quinault", 17100106 "Grays Harbor" (not a river at all, and into which quite a few separate rivers empty), 17100203 "Wilson-Trusk-Nestuccu" (heh, some spelling errors there, USGS!). HUCs are widely used for many purposes, so they are clearly notable. But zip codes are also widely used for many purposes. I'm not sure offhand if we have pages for individual zip codes (surely not all zip codes, but maybe some?), and I'm not sure what argument one would use against the idea of having such pages. But it does seem like a good analogy here. Pfly (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure it should be deleted due to lack of notability. However, reading the article made me highly confused. I understand it is about the USGS HUC subregion 1606 (which incidentally is identical to HUC "accounting unit" 160600), but beyond that... well I won't describe the problems in detail. The ecoregion info confuses me in many ways. I can't figure out what the Arid Footslopes might be, nor what purpose the "Tonopah Basin" section serves, or how it related to USGS HUC 1606, other than apparently being located in the same general area. Skipping over the random-looking map confusingly captioned "CNDB points extend into the Mojave Desert", what's with the long table? Lots of detail, but...why? The main text is confusing enough. The table takes it to another level. ...I'm left...speechless. Can this be salvaged at all? Pfly (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the table is confusing but that could be worked out. The Tonopah Basin section, maybe a good-faith effort to show that the entity does encompass some unique ecological regions as defined by the state of Nevada. Could be condensed. Novickas (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How am I being not civil? Maybe the problem is that you keep blatantly offending me. I'm not going to take this sock thing too far as this is not WP:Sock investigations. Though if you keep mentioning it, I'll take it there. But the main point is why do you condense all these valleys into a single subject. Supposedly each of these valleys/drainage basins is notable in its own right, and many of them already have articles. How about changing the name of the article to "List of endorheic basins of Nevada". User:Phil Bridger you aren't making a strong argument because all you're doing is complaining about how you thought I accused you of having sockpuppets. Shannon ^talk _contribs 17:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability of these individual units is what is questionable. If this is important and a notable general topic, then someone can create Hydrologic Unit Code and include a list of these units in there maybe using a series of tables for each type of unit. The table entries could include details like the locations and broader unit names. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a HUC subsection in this article.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:45, 1 November 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. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Takayuki Toyomitsu

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

Unsourced BLP for which I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources (thereby failing WP:BIO). I also cannot determine whether he has ever played in a first division match, which would at least convey some notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be shown from WP:RS that this athlete has made a first-squad appearance and/or other significant coverage conveys notability per WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 06:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had proposed deletion months ago, but it was contested because he made one appearance in a cup match. He's still playing in the amateur leagues, and I see no evidence of notability aside from that one match. I don't think it's enough. Jogurney (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:26, 29 October 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runako Charles

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

Looking at this article, there appears to be no information indicating how the subject meets WP:BIO/WP:ATHLETE and very little sourcing to show WP:GNG. To elaborate, he appears to have played in junior/summer/club/developmental leagues that have been sponsored by major basketball bodies, but has not actually appeared in a professional league game (the article itself considers his career to date "semi-pro") or in actual international competition. For example, the article claims he is a junior member of the Newcastle Eagles, but nothing indicates hat he has never appeared on their first squad. Likewise, the other tournaments and summer leagues mentioned are either non-notable or otherwise ambiguous ("an annual summer tournament in Belgium"... does it have a name?). I've excised a lot of the irrelevant fluff, but most of what remains is still just that. Statements such as "he was the cornerstone of the team, leading them to numerous victories in a variety of leagues and tournaments" and "he soon became known for making flamboyant assists, as well as being a deadly 3-point marksman" are gratuitous puffery and do nothing to indicate notability. A lot of the text appears to be an attempt at asserting notability (including through association with other athletes/coaches, such as the statement about the ESL indicating "consisted of professional players and coaches from around the globe") without actually doing so from WP:RS. No prejudice to recreation if he actually does become a notable player some day, but WP:CRYSTAL applies. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed (when notifying the creator) that the primary author of this article is User:Tjcharles, which may also indicate conflict of interest. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 06:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only coverage from reliable sources that I could find was this local coverage of a college game. He doesn't pass the general criteria nor does he meet WP:NBASKETBALL. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per User:Whpq. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:54, 29 October 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 merge to Transformers: Generation 2. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rage (Transformers)

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

Last AFD was procedurally closed due to having a rationale of "cruft" and nothing else, but I think this needs a proper AFD. Subject is dubiously notable, sources are super thin and probably not reliable. Also, there is a growing precedent that almost none of the Transformers are notable as judged by the recent mass of Transformers AFDs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Transformers: Generation 2, a group that this character belongs to. Mathewignash (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Transformers: Generation 2. There's no reason this needs to stay, and every reason this should be merged. --Divebomb (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a compromise to deletion. No sources exist that can WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Allen for IPv6 18:08, 30 October 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UniPaaS

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

Advertisement for a non-notable software product, an application development environment. References are all to press releases. Google News Archive finds only more of the same.[6] Contested proposed deletion claims that this is notable due to coverage by industry analysts like Gartner, but that kind of coverage is not enough for notability, since those analysts' bailiwick includes entire industries, so their coverage does not amount to an independent judgment of significance; and at any rate their products have very small circulation outside the trade. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Yworo (talk) 22:21, 29 October 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 deleted. -- Longhair\^talk 00:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FPA_Future_of_Planning_Workgroup

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/FPA Future of Planning Workgroup

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

Disputed PROD. Non-encyclopedic/non-notable. Appears to being using Wikipedia as a business tool Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The FPA Future of Planning Workgroup (FOPW) has as its purpose to facilitate the growth and evolution of the Body of Knowledge of the Financial Planning Profession. Body of Knowledge for these purposes is defined very, very broadly to encompass all areas of knowledge a financial planner needs to practice the art and science of financial planning, including, but not limited to, the CFP® Board Topics including their addendum Topics, and including business, practice management and career development topics.
The FPA FOPW will gather Champions who will take on the role of Instigator. Persons with particular interest in one or more areas of knowledge relevant to the practice of financial planning are being invited to join our ranks as a Champion.

Should have been speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is not to advertise anything, in fact, there is nothing to advertise as this is a non-profit workgroup. I am trying to invite others to participate in using Wikipedia to help define and evolve the Financial Planning Body of Knowledge. There are several other Wiki pages that are gathering and referencing resources w/r/t the Financial Planning profession. The purpose of this page is to lead people to those pages to participate in the gathering and referencing, and to begin to define a process for evolving the Body of Knowledge. User:ElissaBuie —Preceding undated comment added 20:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The motive doesn't have to be profit for something to be advertising. Promotion of a concept, etc., also counts as spam. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete advertisement. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G11 as blatant spam, so tagged. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:01, 26 October 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 Grand Canyon Unified School District. PhilKnight (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Canyon Elementary School

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

Not notable elementary school JeongAhn (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grand Canyon Unified School District per usual practice for elementary schools.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wikipedia standard practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 21:43, 30 October 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa School of Arts and Sciences

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

Subject is non-notable. -Vaarsivius (Talk to me.) 19:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is coverage by Tulsa World and it is a charter high school. Wikipedia has a lot of articles covering high schools. Racepacket (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is always relative when it comes to schools, and I can say personally that in Tulsa, Oklahoma (where the Tulsa School of Arts and Sciences is located) the subject of this school is indeed notable. Why is this less notable than other high schools in the same category? Friginator (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Could perhaps do with a ref or two, but as a charter school I would think it notable. I notice that the nominator seems to use the same sentence - at least in the other AfDs I've encountered that name in. Could I suggest that a slightly more informative nomination would be a good thing? Peridon (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; WP:OUTCOMES#Education tends to give high schools de facto notability unless the information violates WP:V. Also, as an aside to the nominator, simply stating "[s]ubject is non-notable" is a very weak deletion nomination rationale that almost borders on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominator is a new editor, and just started an account two days ago. Also hasn't yet made too many real edits to articles, yet has nominated five articles for deletion using Afd in the last 8 hours (This one, Joe Lake, Mucklewain, Richard S. Baron and Mike Hammer: Murder Takes All). In my opinion, this deletion discussion seems to be coming from a bit of over-zealousness when it comes to editing, and not any substantial lack of notability. Friginator (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per standard practice for verifiable U.S. high schools.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above. According to my own standards, it passes. It is an accredited charter school. It has a significant staff size that indicates it is a large enough high school. There is at least one reliable source to verify its existence. The new editor may not be aware of the rules, but I think this discussion refreshes the consensus about high schools as pre se notable. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 28 October 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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Hale

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

Not a notable individual per WP:BIO1E, WP:SOLDIER, and WP:VICTIM (or WP:PERP if that's your POV). While tragic, his killing hasn't had any lasting impact; there was an initial uproar about Delaware State Police's actions, but all coverage (mostly trivial) died off within a few months, the shooter was not charged with anything, and the three year limit for the lawsuit has quietly expired. Additionally, almost every possible source I found was not reliable or even pretending to be neutral. As much as this incident gets my blood boiling, I don't think it merits an article on Wikipedia. bahamut0013^words _deeds 18:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's rationale. Unless something significant and neutral showing the impact of this incident can be provided, based on the available sourcing, it appears that the incident was newsworthy but not notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. POV also seems problematic and they may be some legal issues given the wrongful death lawsuit (although I am no expert of this at all). Anotherclown (talk) 02:56, 28 October 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen cocktail

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

prod tag was removed probably by article author Melaen (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a deletion rationale? "Prod tag was removed probably by article author" tells us nothing about why you think the article should be deleted. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the article be deleted?

Sorry, but I don't see why my article is nominated for deletion. I have studied a lot of scientific material in Russian which explain how this drink works and which prove that it has a positive effect on the body. Numerours clinical trials have proved that tyhe oxygen cocktail can be part of oxygen therapy. All the links and references are provided. Most documents are unfortunately only in Russian but I'll try to find some info in English. And besides, the following article has not been deleted.They have a lot in common, though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_bar As far as I know one can buy oxygen cocktails in oxygen bars. Anyway, can anyone explain, why you are going to delete the article? What exactly is wrong with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnJoyce (talk • contribs) 20:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite -- it should be possible to rewrite this so it is encyclopedic. Whether or not we think it effective is irrelevant. I removed a speedy G11 tag--let the AfD decide. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pseudo-science, verging on how-to guide and no evidence of notability. "Thousands of oxygen molecules" indeed - an ordinary cup of coffee contains millions of oxygen molecules! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but those who tell it's pseudo-science have not read the whole article. Please, do read the information about clinical trials. --EnJoyce (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So which is the link to these clinical trials? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discription of the clinical trials and the links to them. Unfortunately all the clinical researches were held in Russia and that is why all the information is also in Russian. But that does not mean it doesn't exist:

http://www.rmj.ru/articles_3556.htm

http://o2pena.ru/article1.html

http://o2pena.ru/article6.html

http://www.pirogovka.ru/pdf/2007/09_2007.pdf

http://www.rmj.ru/articles_5521.htm

http://www.vikom-krk.com/o2/30/19-19

The gynecological department of medical rehabilitation of “Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after academician V.I. Kulakov” organized the research of using the oxygen cocktail as means of medical rehabilitation. Hypoxia (oxygen starvation) reflects itself in the worsening of the blood supply of tissues and systems of the body which is proved with the help of the diagnostics with ECG, rheoencephalography, rheography of the pelvic cavity and Doppler velocimetry. Hypoxia has a negative influence on fetal development during pregnancy. Lack of oxygen may lead to pathological failures in metabolism and functioning of essential parts of the fetus’ body as well as increase the likelihood of birth-related injuries.

It is proved that using the oxygen cocktails as a part of the complex therapy of the center’s patients (including children and teenagers) suffering from inflammations of uterine appendages, optimizes metabolism and reflex processes, activates antioxidants in the plasma. As a result the efficiency and psychoemotional state of the patients are improved. This is demonstrated by the numerous medico-psychological researches. Hypoxia has the negative effect on the fetal development during pregnancy.

In 2005 the Research Center of Children’s Health (Russian Academy of Medical Sciences) studied the efficiency of the oxygen cocktails as a part of the complex therapy of school and pre-school children suffering from chronic diseases of the respiratory and digestive systems and children who often have chills. During the research patients took 200 ml of the oxygen cocktail on a daily basis. The clinical researches demonstrated that the oxygen cocktail has no side effects, does not cause changes in the stool, sickness and vomiting, activates metabolism, reduces fatigue and stimulates efficiency and the immune system. All the patients suffering from pathological diseases of the respiratory system and 85% of the children suffering from diseases of the digestive tract showed improvements in the state of health. The efficiency of the oxygen cocktail used for prevention and therapy of placental insufficiency and fetal hypoxia was proved during the clinical researched organized in 2006 by the obstetrics and genecology department of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia.--EnJoyce (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear moderators, I have edited the article according to your suggestions. Hope this will satisfy the criteria of Wikipedia.--EnJoyce (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment mine - copied from article talk page

I'm not saying the Russian stuff is rubbish - although I have a view about both oxygen bars (outside Tokyo, perhaps) and cocktails that they are both in the realm of pseudo-science (or possibly - to use the term used by New Scientist's 'Feedback' column - fruitloopery). The article is worded in a rather promotional tone. Promotional may not necessarily by advertising of a particular company, but can be of an idea. I feel the tone doesn't fit in with WP:NPOV. Apart from which, If extra oxygen was needed by people, inhaling it would be far more effective than using it by squirting a lot of it into the air in making the cocktail and swallowing the rest as froth. The carbon dioxide from beers and fizzy drinks comes up as burps - the oxygen from the cocktail is going to come up the same way. If any is absorbed in the stomach, it won't be worth the cost of all the effort involved. This is at best fringe 'complimentary medicine' to me - and I would like to see sources that show it is any more use than gold-plated power lead connections for hi-fi - or at least show that people are using it. Sources that are reliable and in English. I can cope with French at a sub-technical level, but not Russian. Stuff can be incorrect in itself but still be notable - as witness the articles about certain notable hoaxes. Whichever this is (I'm not saying that the cocktail is a non-existent hoax product...), sources we can use are needed. Peridon (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep. I was asked to comment here, but instead went ahead and quickly (within 10 min) cleaned up the article (surely, further improvement needed, so tagged). Incidentally, I can confirm first hand that the subject is real, i.e. that there was a network of Soviet medical institutions studying the effect and supplying the product. This part is encyclopedic. I can't comment whether any medical effect exists apart from placebo and bodily stimulation by a healthy drink :) Seriously, the article was rather spammy and used sources hosted by sites selling the cocktail. Those may not stay. I have/had doubts whether this article was part of a promotional campaign, but AGF it was not. Materialscientist (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though I concur that the science of this idea is at least questionable, that is not a reason to delete - or we would have no article on homeopathy. The article may need copy-editing, NPOV improving, dubious science debunking (with RS, of course), etc, etc, but these are also not reasons to delete. As Materialscientist notes, the subject is real, it is being applied in some form (to what result is debatable, but still), it is the subject of numerous sources. Thus, this is definitely an encyclopedic topic - hence my !vote. This is not an endorsement of the article in any of its drafts. EdChem (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability standards. A quick 'news' search turned up verifiable, third party references, such as this one from 36 years ago. I am not commenting on scientific validity of the article's subject, only its notability. I agree with EdChem that this is an encyclopedic topic. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 13:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I now accept that the author was not promoting commercially - I see so much spam in New Accounts that anything that looks like it's in a tin looks like it's spam.... I hope EnJoyce will accept my apologies and understand where I was coming from. As with homeopathy, there should be an article on this if it is referenced properly - and with any contra-references too, of course. (This is despite my personal view that this is another way of selling fruit juice expensively - see also Smoothie....) I would like to see references in English, and do not necessarily trust all clinical reports. It should be remembered that doctors and clinics have been known to produce reports favourable to the tobacco industry. (And on occasions, worse...) Peridon (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Spammy in tone. My medical vocabulary in Russian is poor but I will say that I don't see any really compelling sources in the Russian language footnotes. All of them deal with the so-called "oxygen cocktail" no more than tangentially. A Google search for "Oxygen Cocktail" does return enough results that I think this probably passes muster as an encyclopedia-worthy topic (pseudo-science though it may be). Tone of this article needs to be corrected and the sourcing needs to be anglicized. BTW, Russian language footnotes should include English translations of title in parentheses, per WP standard style. Carrite (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We're not here to judge whether the stuff works or not; we are just trying to decide if it is notable, and it clearly is. All the references at the article are in Russian but there is plenty of stuff available in English, for example St. Louis Post Dispatch 2001, Sydney Morning Herald 1986, Los Angeles Times 1977. A rewrite with English sourcing would make this an obvious keep. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 1 November 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hammer: Murder Takes All

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

No notability whatsoever. Also poorly written: "is a 1989 starring" -excerpt from article. -Vaarsivius (Talk to me.) 18:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Simply stating "[n]o notability whatsoever" is unconstructive. Likewise, it is quite obvious that the subject of the article is a film, given the stub tag and the categories; typos in the lead sentence are not a legitimate reason to recommend deletion and can be fixed easily. For what it's worth, I've added some basic information and fixed the prose, but as a made for television film that was effectively a sequel to a notable television series that has an article, The New Mike Hammer, this appears notable enough. Additional sources beyond iMDb are needed. At worst, the content can be merged to the article on the series, but outright deletion is unsubstantiated. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Hammer.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The quality of the writing is, in most cases, not a relevant issue in the case of Afd. The article-stub meets the guidelines laid out at WP:NME, especially due to the fact that the film in question is part of a larger franchise. Also, the film features an early appearance by Jim Carrey, one of the most well-known comedy actors in the world. This also is clearly notable. The stub needs cleanup and expansion, clearly, but deletion doesn't seem like a constructive measure in this case. Friginator (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was broadcast on national network. No objection to an editorial merge with other Mike Hammer content, but there's no need to mandate that as an AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 28 October 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stormcloud

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

Reliatively minor Transformers character, no assertion of notability. Divebomb (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - multiple minor characters, none of which has notability. --Khajidha (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It lacks content and notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Allen for IPv6 18:12, 30 October 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splashdown (Transformers)

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

Relatively minor Transformers character, no third-party sources. Divebomb (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pretender (Transformers) as that's a page about him and his kind, and it has proper third party sources. Mathewignash (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor character, not notable. --Khajidha (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non notable Transformer character Dwanyewest (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Allen for IPv6 18:10, 30 October 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 concensus is that there are insufficient reliable, independent sources to show that this author meets the criteria for inclusion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Neil Falcone

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

Author of minor fiction that has been published in magazine. The citation to "With Many Shades, Fantasy and Science Fiction" is to a blog. Article was created by a member of the subject's undergraduate fraternity. (See Peter Shalvoy and Aaron Raitiere below.) Racepacket (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Seven (7) day review period as per Deletion review ends at 18:16, November 2, 2010.--Cmagha (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the purpose of this note is. The admins/editors who close AfDs all know about the seven day period. However, nominations can be relisted (i.e. the discussion period extended) if the closing editor believes that more time would be likely to generate a clearer consensus. Is that what you meant? Voceditenore (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These sources are sufficient to prove threshold notability. While some of the sources are non-traditional media, they come within Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing. With respect to Racepacket’s allegations of editor conflict of interest, Racepacket ought to be careful. The Cornell WikiProject page lists Racepacket as a former member of the Cornell University Board of Trustees, Class of 1973. Is this article not within the Board of Trustees guidelines for suitable identification with the University? Does techno music, blue grass music and horror fiction somehow convey an image the Cornell Board of Trustees would rather not present? How can we tell Racepacket is not conflicted in his or her initiation of an AfD. Indeed, who from the Cornell community is talking with Racepacket, guiding Racepacket’s actions. The article is neutral in its writing and the sourcing confirms notability. And what about Racepacket’s articles, many of which are on Cornell topics? Are those conflicted if this one is? Wehatweet (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC) — Wehatweet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - I disclose my potential COI, but most of the articles I edit have numerous contributors. Here we have articles that are created by an SPA who specializes in documenting recent alumni of a particular fraternity chapter. I don't see notability from substantial coverage by independent secondary sources. Racepacket (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:Author.4meter4 (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources establish the subject exists. They fall short of showing the subject meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The substandard governing this case is whether , given the lack of substantial depth in coverage, the remaining multiple independent sources establish notability or whether those multiple sources are trivial coverage insufficient to establish notability. Given that the subject has published through competitve processes, which include eZine reviews, the remaining independent sources do establish notability. Accordingly, I vote to keep.Tea36 (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC))— Tea36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong delete This is basically an unreferenced (and seemingly unreferenceable) biography of a living person. I have removed per WP:BLP the date and place of birth as well as other biographical information including where he lives and the name of his child. No reference whatsoever was provided for those personal details and until one from a reliable source can be found, the material should not be re-added. I also changed the text to reflect what the reference actually said concerning his story "Six". It generated seventy on-line votes not "reviews" as had been stated in the article.[7] (This story also generated 5 two sentence comments by other website users.[8]) All sources are merely links to his own online published stories and a couple of very brief mentions in blogs and other self-published websites. Comprehensibly fails WP:AUTHOR as well as WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Voceditenore (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment – Voceditenore (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrator. This debate has been influenced by confirmed sockpuppets through checkuser: User:Wehatweet and User:Tea36.4meter4 (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the above. Not sockpuppets after further checkuser. See final admin notes at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cmagha/Archive – Voceditenore (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Again, we see generation differences between reviewers. The eZine scene is where publishing is going, yet the detractors are seeing such work as evidence of inferiority. Multiple works by author were competitive, writing which had to compete against others. Lebowski 666 (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Generation differences" have nothing to do with this. Publishing exclusively in online publications (provided they are notable in themselves, and where there is significant editorial control over contents, not simpy "send us your story and we'll publish it") is not a problem per se. The problem is that all of the "references" provided simply attest to the fact that these stories exist and have been written by this person. There is no coverage of either him or those stories, apart from this single sentence in an article about an entirely different subject (the ezine attempting to go print again) [9]:
"Although we did recently publish a story titled “Six” by a new author named Ryan Neil Falcone that had nearly 70 votes, which is pretty good, for MC and for Ryan—congratulations Ryan and we wish you well on your future writing endeavors."
There is not a single review provided in any kind of publication. Wikipedia's standard of notability is not dependent on fame, importance to other people, popularity, or accomplishment. It is dependent on whether a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You may not like those basic and essential criteria, nor the criteria for a reliable source, but that's what you have to work with here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviewing the criteria for retention, notability is achieved by a minimum of two secondary sources. We ask whether the sources are sufficiently reliable so as to be independent, and if so, are there enough sources to establish ‘notability.’ Reliability is assessed through three criteria: (1) the nature of the work; (2) the creator; and (3) the publisher. These three indicia are also assessed in the context of the article’s subject. With respect to notability itself, we look to three different criteria: (1) significance not requiring original research (2) reliability; (3) secondary sourcing; and (4) independence. Significant coverage does not require the article to hold the subject as the main topic of the work. Reliability requires verifiable citations; sources may be published works in all forms and media. In additional, literary work falls under notability guidelines for people, but “[f]ailure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.” The context framing this article subject is electronic magazine, or “eZine” horror, supernatural and psychological thriller writing; this is not a Pulitzer genre but is worthy of coverage by Wikipedia as it is reflective of American popular culture. Within the eZine context, the subject has been published in two secondary sources, and publishing was competitive. Unlike a blog, competitive publication requires peer review. His work in Macabre Cadaver was selected for publication and received a reader rating of 5, out of 5 (“Awesome”). Subject’s work in Absent Willow Review met the criteria of that magazine, which is designed to highlight new talent. The Review is the fastest growing online magazine of its type and publishes great works of speculative fiction. So while the actual works are primary sources, the competitive rating of the article and the magazine editors’ decision to publish them are secondary sources of note in this eZine genre. With respect to reliability, Macabre Cadaver and the Review serve as aggregators of talent, vehicles of competitive notability; the subject of the article is more than a happenstance author in this genre; and the publisher stands aloof from the author, surveying the genre field. As for notability, significance is achieved in that original research is not required. The work is reliable for the reasons stated above. The two sources are secondary, in they themselves are not the work of the artist, but rather the aggregator of promising talent. Independence is achieved by the competitive process; the editors are deciding what is published, and not an editorial blogger. Beyond Macabre Cadaver and the Review, there are seven other sources, secondary or otherwise, serving as a vehicle for the publishing of the subject’s primary works of art. Black Petals is run by book reviewers, and screens competitively. Micro-horror published a subgenre serving as the flash fiction or short-short venue. The general goal of a microfiction is to tell a story, set a mood or depict a scene in as few words as possible. Selection is competitive. Dark Fiction Spotlight specifically features the horror genres secret and established talent, it compensates, and the works are published based on reader review and assessement. The Foliate Oak Literary Journal is a student-run publication, but it publishes both student and non-student work. The decisions of each of these editors and their readers, in the aggregate, provides sufficient reliable sourcing establishing notability of this Wikipedia article. As for the arguments to “Delete”; talk overstates the WP:Author standard; clicked on the sources and noting their nature mitigates his argument. The article is within the WP:Author standard. Edward321 gives a conclusory statement, but does not articulate a rationale. Voceditenore provides the best contra-rationale, but that rationale is tailored for the print, and not the eZine, media. For these reasons, and for lack of effective argument to the contrary, ‘Keep.’ Cmagha (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All this wall of text says is that you think Falcone passes the notability criteria because he has verifiably had 9 stories published in online magazines. Note that the 10th will allegedly be published in Death Head Grin in December, but Falcone's name appears nowhere on the site. Five are one-man, self-published websites which don't pay authors but offer "exposure". [10], [11] , [12] [13] [14]. One has a staff of three but likewise doesn't pay [15]. One has a staff of four, doesn't pay but occasionally gives what they call "token prizes" ranging from $50 to $15 (No evidence that Falcone has won one of these)[16]. One with an indeterminate "staff" pays a share of the sales if the story appears in its yearly anthology (Falcone's has not.) [17]. One is a student magazine [18]. One, Macabrecadaver.com, the most professional of the lot, pays a flat rate of $10 per story.[19].
This may be an "achievement" of sorts, but is no evidence of notability whatsoever. No awards, no reviews, no articles about the author or his work which are key to establishing the notability of an author. And no, my rationale is not tailored to print. Macabrecadaver.com publishes lengthy articles, interviews, and reviews, but has nothing about Falcone or his work. Absentwillowreview.com also has interviews [20] and "Editor's Choice" Awards [21], but Falcone appears in neither. None of this is surprising, since he appears to only have started publishing his stories seven months ago. Voceditenore (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest. Several voters at this particular AFD have an admitted Conflict of Interest. The subject of this article is/was a fellow member of a fraternity at Cornell with User:Cmagha, User:Lebowski 666, User:Wehatweet, and User:Tea36. This conflict of interest extends to several other current AFDs, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Shalvoy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Raitiere, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination). 4meter4 (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Lebowski 666 does not have an affiilation to the fraternity [22], only to the article's creator, Cmagha. [23] Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Help me understand why you these people conspirators, and yet this activity is not problematic at this point, and at this point. We just check in, read and comment. But this is coordination at these points, isn’t it? It seems all right. Coldplay3332 (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay3332, you have cross-posted the above from AN/I. You will find the responses to your query there, including a reminder of the advice an adminstrator gave you here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC) updated Voceditenore (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet guidelines for notability. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - activity by editors with a COI is deeply troubling and closing admin should weight the views of this group of editors accordingly. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - meets notability, reliability and verifiability as stated above; and I have no COI in this matter. Coldplay3332 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be notable per WP:AUTHOR, as the individual is not an important figure widely cited by peers, is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, has not created a significant or well-known work that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, nor has their work won significant critical attention. I'm afraid that this article appears to have been created simply to promote the author. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources in the article, and I didn't find anything during my online search (aside from obscure fan sites).--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 23:02, 2 November 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane (Transformers)

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

EXTREMELY minor Transformers character, extremely unlikely reliable sources exist to verify notability. Divebomb (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very minor, not notable. --Khajidha (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is lacking in sources and content. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Allen for IPv6 18:08, 30 October 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. There is no clear consensus here - although numerically there are just more "keeps", a few of these appear to be SPAs, and furthermore would appear to be working together to keep articles which they think should be kept. However, I am closing this without prejudice against a speedy renomination should it be considered necessary -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following a request to re-evaluate my close, I have now done so. Taking into account the co-workers involved here, which would count as one single person (see WP:COWORKER), and the SPAs, the consensus is in fact to delete the article, as there is insufficient evidence that the subjects meets the notability criteria -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Shalvoy

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

Artist does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Although there is one source of FOXNY, it is not substantial coverage. Article was created by an editor who belonged to the subject's undergraduate fraternity. Racepacket (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Seven (7) day review period as per Deletion review ends at 17:58, November 2, 2010.--Cmagha (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the purpose of this note is. The admins/editors who close AfDs all know about the seven day period. However, nominations can be relisted (i.e. the discussion period extended) if the closing editor believes that more time would be likely to generate a clearer consensus.[24]. Is that what you meant? Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These sources are sufficient to prove threshold notability. While some of the sources are non-traditional media, they come within Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing. With respect to Racepacket’s allegations of editor conflict of interest, Racepacket ought to be careful. The Cornell WikiProject page lists Racepacket as a former member of the Cornell University Board of Trustees, Class of 1973. Is this article not within the Board of Trustees guidelines for suitable identification with the University? Does techno music, blue grass music and horror fiction somehow convey an image the Cornell Board of Trustees would rather not present? How can we tell Racepacket is not conflicted in his or her initiation of an AfD. Indeed, who from the Cornell community is talking with Racepacket, guiding Racepacket’s actions. The article is neutral in its writing and the sourcing confirms notability. And what about Racepacket’s articles, many of which are on Cornell topics? Are those conflicted if this one is? Wehatweet (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC) — Wehatweet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article lacks sufficient independent coverage to establish the notability requirements at WP:Music and/or WP:Creative. All of the sources appear to come from blogs and other un-reliable sources that do not meet wikipedia's standards at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Even the fox news link appears to be a form of blog or self-publishment without the rigourous fact checking that would go into an official article by a staff reporter.4meter4 (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I stated in another AfD, Conflict of interest (in either the article's author or the editor who nominated it for deletion) is irrelevant to whether an article should be kept. Please do not clutter this discussion with commentary on other editors and their motivations and focus instead on what this discussion is supposed to be about. To be kept, the article's subject must pass at least one of the 12 notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. I have formatted the references to make them clearer and have searched pretty exhaustively for any further references (under a variety of search terms, and in a news archive to which I have a subscription [25]) without success. Unfortunately, at this stage the article's subject doesn't pass the first one:
1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable"
The only work cited in the article which qualifies as reliable, non-trivial, and independent of the subject is the short spot on Good Day New York (Fox news). Most editors would not consider that "multiple" coverage. Analysis of remaining references:
• Padgett, Ray, "Under the Radar: edibleRed", covermesongs.com, July 23, 2010. (website with reader-generated content – not considered a reliable source)
• "Shalvoy Music". Retrieved August 1, 2010. (not independent of the subject)
•The Hudspeth Report, "Lava", April 2001 (one-line mention of Shalvoy as simply the DJ in a review of an Atlanta dance club – trivial)
• Paula Abdul's New Show, World News (nothing at this link concerning Shalvoy – failed verification)
• Audio: Melanie Fiona - It Kills Me (ShalvoyMusic Remix), soundcloud.com, December 2009 (simple audio file uploaded by Shalvoy himself – trivial and not independent of the subject)
• Track listing: Black Crowes & Gov't Mule, Hempilation, Vol. 1, thepiratebay.org (one-line mention of Shalvoy as having been the voice used on one track – trivial)
• YouTube, Video: Straight Up by Paula Abdul, Collette McLafferty (edibleRed) featuring Peter Shalvoy (one-line comment on Shalvoy by the uploader – trivial, not a reliable source, and possibly not independent of the subject as well) Note also that this is a cover of a Paula Abdul song by another artist, not Paula Abdul
Wehatweet, given this, can you explain which one of the remaining 11 criteria the article's subject meets instead and why? Alternatively, you can provide further references which do satisfy Criteria #1. Voceditenore (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both detractors are struggling with the new media on this one; Shalvoy is a heavy in the DJ world. Admittedly, this ‘scene’ does not embrace the amount of text and print you want, but Wikipedia does not require. Article meets notability criteria Nos. 1 & 4. his caught me by surprise, as I thought “multiple” would be six or seven. Turns out, “multiple” just means more than one. Amazing what you learn as a Wiki Defender. With respect to No. 1, there are cites to 3 articles from multiple reliable non-trivial published works independent of the musician. Meets No. 4 due to his role in the Paula Abdul tour. Part of what the detractors are struggling with is generation. “DJs” are no longer the guides with the mirror balls in a disco; they became artists in their own right for Gen X and Gen Y. These ratings are showing older, Baby Boom prejudices. Glad to see conflict of interest is properly not an issue in this article. But why is the allegation not struck in Racepacket’s opening allegation? Lebowski 666 (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like I've said in a similar AFD talk page, the misstating of the standard is disappointing. It has been represented as far more rigid that it actually is stated in the Wikipedia guidelines. See Notability, which states, “Many who spend significant time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an encyclopedia article. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.” Accordingly, I do not think arguments about how trivial a couple sources are should be enough for deletion, especially when there are this many sources that arguably establish notability in both Number 1 and 4 of the guidelines. Therefore, I vote to keep due to the fact that at least 3 of the sources are non-trivial and reliable enough to establish notability.Tea36 (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of any further additions of sources which meet the criteria. (a) Both of the above editors are focusing exclusively on the word "multiple" and ignoring on the first and key part of the criteria "Has been the subject of". In other words, this person is sufficiciently notable that they have been the main or one of the main subjects of the sources cited, i.e. not trivial mentions. (b) They are also ignoring the second key requirement that these sources be reliable and independent of the subject. The only one which qualifies per (a) and (b) is the Fox spot.
Similarly the subject fails to meet criteria 4. "Has received non-trivial coverage of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Where is the non-trivial coverage from a reliable source, independent of the subject, in which Peter Shalvoy's contribution to Paula Abdul's tour is the main or one of the main subjects? So far not even one has been provided.
Lebowski 666, simply asserting that "Shalvoy is a heavy in the DJ world" is not a valid argument. And, yes, I am fully aware that modern DJs are considered artists in their own right. However, there is no evidence that this particular artist is notable. Can you please list here the two sources apart from the Fox spot which you consider to be non-trivial and reliable? Tea36, as I pointed out to you at this AfD, if you are proposing that widely accepted guidelines should be completely ignored in this case, you will need to come up with a better argument than the ones you have provided so far. And to both of you, conflict of interest in the article's creators and editors is not germane to whether the subject mets the critera for inclusion. But conflict of interest/close relationship when !voting in an AfD discussion is germane, as was pointed out to both of you [26] [27] after this sockpuppet investigation. Voceditenore (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviewing the criteria for retention, notability is achieved by a minimum of two secondary sources. This subject was the feature of a FOX TV station morning show broadcast in the largest media market in the United States, New York City. He was also the subject of note in Will Ferrell’s award acceptance speech on MTV. Note, Ferrell just doesn’t thank Shalvoy, he lauds him and Shalvoy’s weekly DJ gig in New York City. Supporting these two secondary sources is a listing of original works, which strongly reinforce notability.
- Reviewing the criteria for retention, notability is achieved by a minimum of two secondary sources. We ask whether the sources are sufficiently reliable so as to be independent, and if so, are there enough sources to establish ‘notability.’ Reliability is assessed through three criteria: (1) the nature of the work; (2) the creator; and (3) the publisher. These three indicia are also assessed in the context of the article’s subject. With respect to notability itself, we look to three different criteria: (1) significance not requiring original research (2) reliability; (3) secondary sourcing; and (4) independence. Significant coverage does not require the article to hold the subject as the main topic of the work. Reliability itself requires verifiable citations; sources may be published works in all forms and media. In additional, musicians fall under notability guidelines specific to their art, but “ failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.” This discussion has presented standards as absolute, which are not – in fact – so rigid.
- The context framing this article subject is the DJ music genre, its venues and its supporting institutions. These are hard subjects to document, in part, due to the preference of this community for oral/aural and electronic communications. With respect to reliability, note the two secondary sources providing the basis for notability are a morning newscast and a network awards show; the artist in question was the subject of interview in the newscast and the subject of comment in the awards broadcast. The publishers of both the newscast (FOX) and the awards show (MTV) are sufficiently detached from the subject to meet that criteria’s needs. With respect to notability, see the reliability analysis above. These are secondary sources not produced by the subject and they are independent of him.
- It may help those who are not immersed in the context of this article to consult other Club DJ articles. You will find them similarly, or less, sourced. Yes, other articles are not precedential, but they do provide benchmarks for the means by which the Wiki community applies its standards. A general survey of just the “A’s” on in the DJ category reveals: Africanism All Stars; Al B. Rich; Mark Anthony (DJ); ATB; Aubrey (producer); Audio Impulsion; Dave Audé, Arnej(documentation includes a My Space link); Ariel (DJ) (documentation is primarily scheduling material); DJ Antoine (accepted, incredibly, on a sole citation to the subject’s own website); Altar (dance music band) (left lingering for a year . .. ); DJ Baby Anne and Andrew K (left lingering for two years . . . ); Steve Angello (left lingering for two and a half years . . . ). These last which have lingered with tags for extended periods of time may well be worthy articles. What you see hear is the challenge of documenting a robust, aural form.
- This article meets or exceeds the standard in this genre; it is documented by at least two, independent secondary sources, ergo ‘Keep’. Cmagha (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As stated above, the Fox piece is not a Fox News article. Is is self published on a blog are of the Fox News website. It is not written by a Fox News staff reporter. Also, Will Ferrell's admiration of the artist hardly confers notability either by wikipedia's criterium.4meter4 (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd consider the Fox piece valid. But as I said, it's the only one. The YouTube snippet of Will Ferrell mentioning him in a long list of "thank you"s for Ferrell's MTV Award (not Shalavoy's) is not, and frankly grasping at straws. Cmagha, it's not difficult to document "this robust aural form" if the DJ in question has recordings with notable labels (Indie or otherwise), has documented charted singles, has won awards, etc. etc. Do you have any evidence of this? Re the appalling articles you've listed as a reason for this one to be kept, they should be put up at AfD too. You really need to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions especially, "other stuff exists". I've put a list of past DJ AfDs on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Peter Shalvoy. Take a look at the ones that were kept. I don't think this one meets the grade, and even one of those kept, DJ Miko, is currently very bizarre. Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest. Several voters at this particular AFD have an admitted Conflict of Interest. The subject of this article is/was a fellow member of a fraternity at Cornell with User:Cmagha, User:Lebowski 666, User:Wehatweet, and User:Tea36. This conflict of interest extends to several other current AFDs, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Neil Falcone, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Raitiere, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination). 4meter4 (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Lebowski 666 does not have an affiilation to the fraternity [28], only to the article's creator, Cmagha. [29] Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Help me understand why you these people conspirators, and yet this activity is not problematic at this point, and at this point. We just check in, read and comment. But this is coordination at these points, isn’t it? It seems all right. Coldplay3332 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay3332, you have cross-posted the above from AN/I. You will find the responses to your query there, including a reminder of the advice an adminstrator gave you here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC) updated Voceditenore (talk)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet guidelines for notability. FOX source misrepresented. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - activity by editors with a COI is deeply troubling and closing admin should weight the views of this group of editors accordingly. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - meets notability, reliability and verifiability as stated above; and I have no COI in this matter. Coldplay3332 (talk) 14:39, 2 November 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. A redirect has been created to List of robots in Transformers Animated as it is a viable search term. There is no consensus for the merger of any content. Mkativerata (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoketron

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

Minor Transformers character, extremely unlikely reliable sources exist to verify notability. Divebomb (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of robots in Transformers Animated. Plausible search term. --Malkinann (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No major coverage found on CBS, CNN, et cetera. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You have got to be kidding me. --Divebomb (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very minor,not notable. --Khajidha (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - To the list Malkinnan mentioned. He was actually plot important. NotARealWord (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, man, you know an article is in big trouble when the one and only reference is to someone's Twitter(!) Delete, no reliable sources, nothing verifiable enough to merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That twitter post is a post made by the maker of the show talking about the character he made. It's valid enough as a source of info on the character, but the article does need more to be kept. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even a whiff of reliably sourced notability, just fancruft from...a twitter line? Tarc (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Allen for IPv6 18:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Twittter is this the best inclusionists can musters up as evidence for notability. Its does not matter if delete is the majority vote an inclusionist will merge it anyway.Dwanyewest (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Alright. First of all, an AFD result does not disallow further editorial actions. If it did, I probably would be blocked or at least warned by now about turning deleted articles into redirects. Second of all, the Twitter thing is not being used as evidence of notability. You can't use a statement by the creator of a show as evidence of notability of a character from said show. And last but not least, you have been told to stop dropping loaded terms like "inclusionist". It would be a good idea to do so. --Divebomb (talk) 16:07, 31 October 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. PhilKnight (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Wind

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

Minor Transformers character, extremely unlikely reliable sources exist to verify notability. Divebomb (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for once I am in agreement with the editor. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Transformers Classics, this is a plausible search term. --Malkinann (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very minor, not notable. --Khajidha (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Allen for IPv6 18:10, 30 October 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 merge to Spy Changers. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R.E.V. (Transformers)

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

Minor Transformers character, extremely unlikely reliable sources exist to verify notability. Divebomb (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Spy Changers, as that's a page about his team. Mathewignash (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mathewignash. --Khajidha (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Allen for IPv6 18:12, 30 October 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 consensus is to delete - not enough consensus emerged for a merger or redirection -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chase (Transformers)

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

Minor Transformers character, only one non-fansite source in the whole article. Not enough to establish notability. Divebomb (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Throttlebots. A character that is worth mentioning but not necessarily notable enough for its own article. JIP | Talk 19:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete fansites are not CREDIBLE indpendent sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added a third party source today, plan to find more later. Should be a sign that such sources exist. Mathewignash (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. The highly generic name doesn't even sound like a good redirect. --Khajidha (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think having a generic sounding name is sound reasoning to delete a fictional character. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added another references about Chase in IDW comics today. Mathewignash (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're kidding me right? Nowhere in that link is Chase actually mentioned. It's a two-three sentence summary of a comic he appeared. Therefore, bad source. --Divebomb (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It mentions by name the TEAM Chase is on. You don't need to mention the specific member of a team by name to make a clear statement. The source says the THROTTLEBOTS appeear in the story and Chase is one of the Throttlebots. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm going to need a Template:TransformersVote pretty soon, as this is the same story every day; not even a whiff of reliably sourced notability, just fancruft from toy/comic-cons, guides, and the like. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was actually considering making a template, if only to be able to make a list of all the goddamned minor characters that need to be merged/redirected/deleted. --Divebomb (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Having a generic note against Transformers articles instead of addressing the article individually would imply not considering each article on it's own merrit and just blanket voting against them. Probably not a good idea. If reading each article and then commenting on them is too much trouble, you don't have to vote on them at all. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I know that. I only want a list of minor Transformers characters for discussion purposes. --Divebomb (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since 99.9% of the articles nominated are, to put it mildly, shit, addressing them en masse would be the most productive use of time. For clearly bad-faith, ill-advised nominees (i.e. we had ones for Bumblebee and Soundwave last month), then obviously such a generic message wouldn't be used. But for the record, my comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, an observation on the sameness of most of these articles. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Allen for IPv6 18:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added another non-licensed, third party book that had a paragraph describing Chase and the Throttlebots release in 1987 and what features the toys had. Mathewignash (talk) 22:40, 1 November 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard S. Baron

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

Only things that would merit notability is that subject recieved a Navy Cross, and a sub was named after the subject. -Vaarsivius (Talk to me.) 17:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a soldier of significance. Multiple news coverage on the soldier well before his death in 1942 from sources like the New York Times. This article has potential, and I feel the sources are enough to establish general notability guidelines. Vodello (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - article needing work is not a reason for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is a bit scanty, but the subject would appear to be notable. Peridon (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Vodello. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm currently on the fence. While normally the Navy Cross would not be enough to establish notability under WP:MILMOS/N, the fact that a ship was named after the subject would suggest a degree of notability (to me at least). ~~Ultimately though are there reliable sources and significant independent coverage? Currently the article is unsourced.~~ Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DANFS is the listed source. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would prefer an inline citation but I agree this article shouldn't be deleted. Anotherclown (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: having a US Navy ship alone is sufficient notability as far as I am concerned, but the Navy Cross is the cherry on top. Shame that it is just a stub, but that'll eventually change. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe that the combination of the Navy Cross and having a ship named after him makes this subject notable. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Anybody that has a US Navy warship named for him is notable - far more than most of the people listed on Wikipedia. I added inline citations to the article. --03:06, 1 November 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 redirect to Micromasters. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Rod Patrol

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

Minor Transformers subgroup. Extremely unlikely reliable sources exist to verify notability. Divebomb (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a article with yet again dubious fansite sources and questionable sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Micromasters. Normally I would suggest merging, but the Micromaster Patrols were only ever given actual characterisation in the Dreamwave comics, which I don't consider official biographies (in contrast to the Hasbro/Marvel biographies). Pretty much every other patrol is redirected there already. JIP | Talk 19:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Micromasters], the group he belongs to. Mathewignash (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Micromasters --Khajidha (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Allen for IPv6 18:14, 30 October 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. There is no clear consensus here. I close it without prejudice towards a speedy renomination~~ -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following a request to re-evaluate my close, I have now done so. Taking into account the co-workers involved here, which would count as one single person (see WP:COWORKER), and the SPAs, the consensus is in fact to delete the article, as there is insufficient evidence that the subjects meets the notability criteria -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Raitiere

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

Muscial performer who is published by his own label, has not won competitions, received widespread critical coverage, or otherwise met WP:MUSIC. It appears that article was created by an editor who is a member of the subject's undergraduate fraternity. Racepacket (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Seven (7) day review period as per Deletion review ends at 17:34, November 2, 2010.--Cmagha (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the purpose of this note is. The admins/editors who close AfDs all know about the seven day period. However, nominations can be relisted (i.e. the discussion period extended) if the closing editor believes that more time would be likely to generate a clearer consensus.[30]. Is that what you meant? Voceditenore (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These sources are sufficient to prove threshold notability. While some of the sources are non-traditional media, they come within Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing. With respect to Racepacket’s allegations of editor conflict of interest, Racepacket ought to be careful. The Cornell WikiProject page lists Racepacket as a former member of the Cornell University Board of Trustees, Class of 1973. Is this article not within the Board of Trustees guidelines for suitable identification with the University? Does techno music, blue grass music and horror fiction somehow convey an image the Cornell Board of Trustees would rather not present? How can we tell Racepacket is not conflicted in his or her initiation of an AfD. Indeed, who from the Cornell community is talking with Racepacket, guiding Racepacket’s actions. The article is neutral in its writing and the sourcing confirms notability. And what about Racepacket’s articles, many of which are on Cornell topics? Are those conflicted if this one is? Wehatweet (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC) — Wehatweet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am so busy taking secret orders from the Trilateral Commission that I do not have time left over to follow secret orders from Cornell's Board of Trustees about individual wikipedia deletion debates about secret society members. Racepacket (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Conflict of interest (in either the article's author or the editor who nominated it for deletion) is irrelevant to whether an article should be kept. Please do not clutter this discussion with commentary on other editors and their motivations and focus instead on what this discussion is supposed to be about. To be kept, the article's subject must pass at least one of the 12 notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. I have fixed the broken/non-existent links in the existing references and added another reference, but even so it still doesn't pass the first one:
1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable"
The only works cited in the article which qualify as reliable, non-trivial, and independent of the subject are two album reviews in one local newspaper. Most editors would not consider that "multiple" coverage. Wehatweet, can you explain which one of the remaining 11 criteria the article's subject meets instead and why? Alternatively, you could explain which one of the 6 notability criteria for composers and lyricists that the Aaron Ratiere meets and why. Voceditenore (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (updated Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:MUSIC, and WP:N. Raitiere has not been the subject of multiple independent sources. As as he was not the grand prize winner in the competition named in the article, he fails to achieve sufficient notability.4meter4 (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment although the author is now adding more references, ~~blogs like~~ the Murfreesboro Pulse and local coverage like a Cornell press release about an on-campus concert at his alma mater, do not count toward notability. Racepacket (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, the Murfeesboro Pulse is a print publication. (See [31]) and its reviews appear to be written by its staff, not its readers. However, the remainder of the "references" are trivial and/or not from reliable sources. Thus the coverage remains both very small and very local. Voceditenore (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, but the Murfeesboro Pulse reference is not a in-depth review. Racepacket (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two reviews are about as in-depth as you normally get in print publications. I don't see that as a problem. However, as I said below, 2 reviews in a small local publication are not sufficient in my view, although others may take a different line on this. Voceditenore (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The misstating of the standard is disappointing. It has been represented as far more rigid than it actually is stated in the Wikipedia guidelines. See Notability, which states, “Many who spend significant time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an encyclopedia article. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.” Accordingly, based on the article count I make and the need for ‘multiple’ sources, I vote to keep.Tea36 (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)— Tea36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Under that logic, any kid with a garage band can have an article. Why is this person notable? He doesn'e seem to meet even one of the 12 criterium listed at WP:Music. Further, with lack of multiple independent sources the subject fails WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Tea36 The "article count" you are basing your "keep" on is not a count of articles devoted to the subject, merely a count of the number of websites that mention his name, no matter now trivially. My real name appears on over 8000 websites. So what? If you are proposing that widely accepted guidelines should be completely ignored in this case, you will need to come up with a better argument than that. Voceditenore (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although additional references have been added, they do not offer substantial coverage of this artist, merely reflecting the fact that the performer is touring. Notability has yet to be established. Racepacket (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrator. This debate has been influenced by confirmed sockpuppets through checkuser: User:Wehatweet and User:Tea36. 4meter4 (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the above. Not sockpuppets after further checkuser. See final admin notes at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cmagha/Archive – Voceditenore (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Note to administrator under WP:COWORKER, "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives." Racepacket (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article meets notability criteria Nos. 1 & 8. This caught me by surprise, as I thought “multiple” would be six or seven. Turns out, “multiple” just means more than one. Amazing what you learn as a Wiki Defender. With respect to No. 1, there are 10 relevant cites, 7 of which contain more than scheduling information. Scheduling information accompanying by an editor or reviewer’s choice is non-trivial. These articles are therefore from multiple reliable non-trivial published works independent of the musician. Use of press release in one instance is merely to show touring in Upstate New York. Meets No. 8 because he took honorable mention in the International Song Contest, which required nomination. Glad to see conflict of interest is properly not an issue in this article. But why is the allegation not struck in Racepacket’s opening allegation? Lebowski 666 (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete But delete all the same. Two reviews in a local publication do not in my view allow the subject to pass on criteria 1. of WP:MUSIC, although some editors who also regularly participate in AfDs may take a different view. Nor does the subject pass criteria 8. ("Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.". Raitiere may have been nominated (by someone unspecified) to participate in the songwriting competition, but it is not an award in that sense. Note also that for the Pulitzer Prize, anyone including the persons/newspapers themselves can nominate a person or newspaper for a Prize. What counts are the jury's decisions of who the final nominees five nominees are. If anything, 9. ("Has won or placed in a major music competition.") would be relevant. But an "honorable mention" is not won or placed.
Lebowski 666, I'm afraid simple schedule announcements even accompanied by "editor's choice" (and not all the ones cited are even that) is still trivial. And to both you and Tea36, conflict of interest in the article's creators and editors is not germane to whether the subject mets the critera for inclusion. But conflict of interest/close relationship when !voting in an AfD discussion is germane, as was pointed out to both of you [32] [33] after this sockpuppet investigation. Voceditenore (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources show notability. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? None of the sources given meet wikipedia's standards at WP:Verifiability. Further, none of the sources substantiate any of the requirements at WP:Music or WP:Creative.4meter4 (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviewing the criteria for retention, notability is achieved by a minimum of two secondary sources. This subject was an honorary mention in the International Song Competition and has been the subject of interest in regional arts print media. The Murfreesboro Pulse surveys country, western and folk musicians in an area of the country known for producing this genre of music. Supporting these two secondary sources is a listing of original works, which strongly reinforce notability.Reviewing the criteria for retention, notability is achieved by a minimum of two secondary sources. We ask whether the sources are sufficiently reliable so as to be independent, and if so, are there enough sources to establish ‘notability.’ Reliability is assessed through three criteria: (1) the nature of the work; (2) the creator; and (3) the publisher. These three indicia are also assessed in the context of the article’s subject. With respect to notability itself, we look to three different criteria: (1) significance not requiring original research (2) reliability; (3) secondary sourcing; and (4) independence. Significant coverage does not require the article to hold the subject as the main topic of the work. Reliability itself requires verifiable citations; sources may be published works in all forms and media. In additional, musicians fall under notability guidelines specific to their art, but “ failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.” This discussion has presented standards as absolute, which are not – in fact – so rigid.The context framing this article subject is the country music genre, its venues and its supporting institutions. These are hard subjects to document, in part, due to the preference of this community for oral/aural and electronic communications. With respect to reliability, the song competition and the Murfreesboro Pulse are acknowledge sources reviewing this genre; the subject of their coverage is a competing and performing musician leaving a record through established tours; the organizer of the competition and the publisher of the Murfreesboro Pulse are established in this genre. With respect to notability, the coverage is signficant enough so as to not require original research; the links are provided. Reliability is established, see above. The sourcing is secondary, independent of the subject. ‘Keep’. Cmagha (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest. Several voters at this particular AFD have an admitted Conflict of Interest. The subject of this article is/was a fellow member of a fraternity at Cornell with User:Cmagha, User:Lebowski 666, User:Wehatweet, and User:Tea36. This conflict of interest extends to several other current AFDs, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Neil Falcone, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Shalvoy, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination). 4meter4 (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Lebowski 666 does not have an affiilation to the fraternity [34], only to the article's creator, Cmagha. [35] Voceditenore (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Help me understand why you consider these people conspirators, and yet this activity is not problematic at this point, and at this point. We just check in, read and comment. But this is coordination at these points, isn’t it? I think this is all right, isn't it? Coldplay3332 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay3332, you have cross-posted the above from AN/I. You will find the responses to your query there, including a reminder of the advice an adminstrator gave you here. Voceditenore (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC) updated Voceditenore (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet guidelines for notability. Sources of poor quality and insufficient to establish notoriety. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - activity by editors with a COI is deeply troubling and closing admin should weight the views of this group of editors accordingly. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - meets notability, reliability and verifiability as stated above; and I have no COI in this matter. Coldplay3332 (talk) 14:42, 2 November 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lela London

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

No evidence from WP:RS that this individual has any notability beyond being just another blogger/journalist. No indication that WP:BIO or WP:GNG are met. Attempts to assert notability for one event for allegedly being the person to uncover a scandal regarding the fashion of the "Harry Potter" films, but no actual reliable sources in the fashion world seem to have picked this up; i.e., no significant coverage in WP:RS. Any mention to the subject of the article in this context is very cursory and in sources of dubious reliability (blogs, etc.). --Kinu ^t/_c 17:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having put the speedy delete tag on the page, (which was declined) I'm still for deletion unless evidence of notability is established. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 17:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find anything beyond the one event. Grazia has picked up the story, by repeating her findings, but other than that I can't see anything to warrant an article about Ms London. If there are some reliable sources found about this event (other than those that just repeat her blog), then by all means it should be added to the film article (as per WP:ONEEVENT).(edit - just realised that I didn't add my sig. Whoops) Stephen! ^Coming... 00:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know she was in the Independent today. I will try to find the source. Ohsae (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 28 October 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 really hate having to push the delete button here. I will be glad to userfy/incubate this article if someone thinks they can find more on him. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rocco J. Antonelli

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

While laudable, Pvt Antonelli's record of military service does not rise to the level of notability defined by the relevant WikiProject. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although his service is admirable, a silver star does not meet the criteria. Racepacket (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unfortuantely whilst this is quite a good article IMO, despite the subject's worthy achievements I believe this doesn't meet our notablity guidelines per WP:MILMOS/N. Likewise it appears to lack reliable sources per WP:RS. Anotherclown (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: if you've ever been at an AfD like this before, you know I think that WP:MILPEOPLE is too stringent on notability from valor awards, and I feel that a Silver Star is usually sufficient in most cases. However, the referencing is very weak: Not really that many refs, none of it is third party, and some of them mention the subject only in passing. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Anotherclown, unfortunately without significant coverage in reliable sources, the article does not demonstrate notability for a Wikipedia article. More than happy to change my opinion if this coverage can be established, and indeed I wish to encourage the article creator to add this if they can as the article is of reasonable quality so I'd be more than happy to keep it if possible. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 2 November 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 already speedily deleted by Kinu. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teletoon TV on The Hub

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

Nice try, but ... WP:Hoax applies here. It's doubtful they've announced this yet. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not willing to go so far as calling it a hoax, but it's definitely lacking sources. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious hoax, seeing as the mentioned shows are already licensed by Cartoon Network in the United States. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Already with HubCruft and Hub hoaxes? No, it's highly doubtful that a new network would bring a block nobody's heard of in the United States to their channel, and as said above, another channel already has their shows. Also, what the hell is up with this assassination crap about the CEO (who has ZERO G-hits) being killed? Ridiculous. Nate • (chatter) 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well I see why this crap is ridiculous; yet another hoax from ClapBoy380, who has been a regular guest on AfD the last two weeks because of his hoax articles. I suggest an indefinite block as he's been warned more than enough times to knock it off. Nate • (chatter) 03:00, 27 October 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wen Wen Han

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

Non-notable actress. Seems to have been an important supporting actor in one film. I have not found any online reliable sources about her. The closest is some imdb info. (which has limited reliability). BLP's, especially of young people, are frought with potential for harm due to limited sourcing opportunities. Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs work, but I believe she has played a significant role in The Karate Kid (2010 film) according to the plot summary. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete This article doesn't say anything beyond what we have in the article for the movie and most sources call her Wenwen Han so we should have redirect at that name not this. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to The Karate Kid (2010 film)#Cast where she is already listed. While reliable sources are certainly available to any who look, Wenwen Han has coverage for only her one role in only this one film, making this a WP:BLP1E. For notability, this article is WP:TOOSOON and for this actress fails WP:ENT and its suggestion for more than just one (notable) role. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I agree that her appearance in Karate Kid (2010) might be sufficient to support her own article, I could not find a single piece of reliable information. Neither her date of birth nor her nationality seem verifiable. So I say delete, unless somebody finds any reliable information. Robinandroid (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have a source on her name. The movie credits show it as Wenwen. In case we do keep the article, we should at least correct the spelling. Robinandroid (talk) 12:50, 1 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Leap-Fraud

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

The article quotes or paraphrases a book of uncertain notability Vicky Ng (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find very few references to the title, and none within books or news articles. I cannot even find a reference to the author. Certainly neither seem to meet WP:GNG. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - what appears in a google search is the name only on some random blogs that don't appear to be reviewing the book. or even discussion the issues. In addition (and it's not a reason for deletion) the article blows. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears that an WP:SPA is using Wikipedia to write a textbook which fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and generlly fails WP:OR. - Pmedema (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, appears to be pushing a FRINGE historical POV. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is critical for peace and prosperity for all civilizations that scholars face the challenge to investigate religious terrorism at its religious foundation. The two volume work is the result of a decade long collaboration effort from across the globe, trying to understand the mechanism of religious terrorism and religious economics from within the historic frameworks of the three Judaic faiths. By nature of the topic and even though the authors approach the delicate topic with respect and consideration, religious readers of either faith might not approve with the conclusions and proposals for peace. Hence, the authors chose not to be disclosed in order to protect their families from potential terrorist retaliations. The Great Leap-Fraud will be available within a few weeks, which is why no other articles link to this article. Numerous reviews will be posted in the article immediately after publication. The bibliography of Volume I has been posted.

Vick Ng attempted to vandalize Wikipedia by removing the Category Jewish Terrorism throughout the encyclopedia and deleting the article(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Great_Leap-Fraud and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Great_Leap-Fraud&action=history). Giovanni.R.Hume (talk) 07:05, 2 November 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. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of mass communication schools in Metro Manila Philippines

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of mass communication schools in Metro Manila Philippines

List of mass communication schools in Metro Manila Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mass communication schools in Metro Manila Philippines}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

Delete Promotional. Essentially an advert for Radio Manila and then a telephone directory. Quityergreeting (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft or promotion. Article looks like a directory, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Peridon (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising. Should be moved to WikiPilipinas or another external website instead. Zollerriia63 (talk) 14:58, 2 November 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NZXT

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

Promotional. List. Notability. 3 of the 4 references are dead links. The Eskimo (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete No reliable sources for notability found, but the company's products seem to have generated quite a bit of attention in the blogosphere. --MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 1 November 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 close. No deletion rationale provided, no delete !votes standing. Assumingly the wrong forum but it seems there is no consensus to merge, either. (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent dance music

AfDs for this article:

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

Come on... it's about time it's merged with electronica. Special Cases ^{LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!!} 15:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Mr Special Cases offers no substantiation for his nomination. The previous nomination ended with 100% keep (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent dance music). A re-nomination is supposed to address the points raised in the previous discussion. -- intgr [talk] 16:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —-- intgr [talk] 16:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per previous AFD that was pretty much a snowball of keeps and per completely worthless WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Vodello (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks OK where it is to me. It's even referenced, which is not all that common in some of the areas of 'popular' music... Peridon (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator already suggested a merge with electronica a couple days ago, arguing that the term IDM is silly. I'm sure many agree, including my friends who semi-coined the term with tongue firmly planted in cheek, but the silliness is irrelevant, and the term has considerable traction, as the previous AfD revealed. The nominator also asserts that all the music in the genre "is plain dance music", which is a rather dubious claim. He found no immediate support for the merge and apparently does not want to talk about it, so he seems to be resorting to AfD instead. Further, as he's rather brief with his words, it's hard to tell if he seriously believes the genre doesn't exist, or if he simply doesn't like the name and wants it to be abandoned in favor of the term he prefers. In either case, he's suggesting that IDM/braindance/whatever is either an alias for electronica or or just a branch of electronica not notable enough for its own article. But even if it were treated as a branch of electronica, there's enough content that it'd need to be split into its own article anyway, and would need a name. We can argue about the article title (and already have), but that's not something that should be pursued through the AfD process. Trying to be constructive, I pointed out in the proposed merge discussion that electronica does sometimes refer quite specifically to IDM, and this is something that could stand to be mentioned in the article, if a decent source can be found (at present it's only anecdotal). However I also pointed out that the '90s/early '00s marketing efforts by major labels in North America resulted in electronica being far more often strongly associated with a much wider range of styles and artists, including relatively commercial, not-very-experimental "plain dance music" that few would categorize as IDM, so it wouldn't be correct to commit to any action which would imply that IDM (or whatever you want to call it) and electronica are perfectly synonymous. —mjb (talk) 04:18, 27 October 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. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hishmi Jamil Husain

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

No evidence that this person meets WP:BASIC or more specifically WP:ACADEMIC. A classic case of an autobiography and should be deleted due to WP:NOTRESUME. Smartse (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ugh... massively overlinked... too much blue! Article initiator and main editor is User:Hishmi, which would tie in somewhat with its apparently autobiographical nature. References are frequently unimpressive: He worked in the states of Haryana and Uttaranchal on awareness and development of agro-medicinal plant cultivation models. Dr Hishmi worked on inventory of medicinal plant to decide safe harvesting limits. Management and awareness on solid waste management, waste water management, rainwater harvesting, drip irrigation, cultivation of medicinal plant, rehabilitation of wasteland, use of biogas, making of furniture from Lantana (weed), use of solar energy and awareness on flora and fauna conservation for environment development. is referenced with a list of winners from a photography contest (he won a usb stick for a nice photo of some cows). None of the sources are about the subject. Non-notable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kajalask (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

*I think importance of environment management and selection for prize show importance of work global. Report on bird watching is also referenced which and several other valid citation not quoted. So this is not valid justification for non-notable. Before assumption visit library will be good idea to check citation of author rather searching on internet.

delete - though with some clean up first there just might be a modestly notable person under that puff piece. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - have you googled to check that? I have but couldn't find anything to suggest even modest notability. Smartse (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kajalask (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

* If you will search Hishmi Jamil Husain on google there are more than 160000 pages of search so please take little time get few relevant references.http://www.birdlife.org/action/business/rio_tinto/downloads/Rio_Tinto_Birdwatch_2007.pdf , http://openlibrary.org/books/OL21784745M/Proceedings_of_National_Seminar_on_Biodiversity_Conservation_Sustainable_Livelihood_with_Special_Reference_to_Millennium_Development_Goals_December_8-9_2005

Comment- Google search finds that Hishmi Jamil Husain is working as Project Manager in Amity School of Natural Resources and Sustainable Development (Delhi). He is active in various social networking sites. Also his name is found in online appeals and petitions! There are some appeals which he made in the UN Environment Programme, which anybody can make in this freely available website. Funny thing is he is a member of ‘American Biographical Institute’ which is declared as spam and his biodata is published in some paid publications of “who’s who”.--Ramansoz

Kajalask (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This is more than five year old refernce quoted. Check PIB site also. (http://www.ismatimes.com/p2.html, http://www.pib.nic.in/release/press_ph4.asp?kk=7/28/2009%205:04:23%20PM, http://igrdg.com/IGRDJ%203.htm, ) (talk raman 02:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

People are working round the clock so there should not any surprise when after valid reason things corrected.
He is in Research Advsiory Board of American Biographical Institute not in list of paid who is who so be correct when suggesting incomplete or incorrect comments. If you get this advisory postion send it to me. Have you check PIB reference also rather taking general sites. Rajeshking (talk)— Rajeshking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - Nothing special. --JeongAhn (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Hi JeongAhn:

**Dr Hishmi did his BSc from Aligarh so if you will check list of MSc from Geology you will not find his name. So you are confused. There is always assumption if you know very little and you assume what is incorrect.Rajeshking (talk)— Rajeshking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - I am surprised why tag is always removed ‘immediately’ without any valid reasons. I commented on this article on 16 and 18 October, but no effect. I also removed the link of the same article with reasons from the list of “notable alumni” (see article ‘Aligarh Muslim University’). Again, it was vandalized by IP Address (57.66.82.246). I also confirmed from the Department of Geology from where he did MSc. He is never cited by the University in the list of 'notable alumni' even by Geology Dept. One can also reconfirm from – (contact information removed)

Article to be deleted as it gives negative impression to wiki. raman 00:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramansoz (talk • contribs)

There are thousands of researchers with 100s of publications to their credit. Publishing is their job to get promotion and that alone does not make a person notable. The article fails to explain the impact of his research as will be required to be demonstrated by secondary sources / citations. How can a person with one or two book and that too without any single review (citations), can claim a notable person? I am 100% sure it is autobiography and Hishmi is himself working on this article with different IP Addresses.

**CommentThis seems limited thinking about only paper writing. Don't assume and think beyond that Dr Hishmi work on policy and sustaiable afforestation is landmark in environment conservation and development. Have you wrote any book with IBSN? Rajeshking (talk)— Rajeshking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. *Delete I have been trying to find reliable sources that give any indication of notability. I have been unable to find any. Edward321 (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can find it on Government site. Rajeshking (talk)— Rajeshking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relaible source use to find in books and libraries not only on internet.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless something adequate can be found in GS or other citation bases. I can find zero. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Kajalask (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC) *Comment[reply]

Note other cited refernce and add few plus in zero. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Hishmi+Husain&x=14&y=18

Incomplete information without valid varification put delete tag is not justified. I put reply after each query. Wiki is place where information or tag should not put in assumtion. Rajeshking (talk)— Rajeshking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No proper justification cited for proposed deletion tag. If there is room for improvement please improve rather kill time in pushing good things. Rajeshking (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)— Rajeshking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I did not find anything which support this deletion proposal. I think Rajeshking gave justification. Take note of positive aspects of page people who are giving discussion having some interest. Smartuse you are between two need to appreciate for your time. Hishmi (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No specific explanation given for deletion. hishmi.blogspot.com and several other sites clearly indicating valid references. I am not sure why valid sites and valid reference over looked, generator (Smartse)of this discussion page look biased for putting tag. Smartse is more interested in increasing number of contribution to wiki proclaiming 15000 time contribution. He and other his friends who look similar limited understanding. This is unclear since page created on 24th September and got approval from Administrators with reference. Now on 26th October four wise people or one wise person (sock puppet) with multiple IDs proposing for deletion with incorrect information and commented in few minutes time. I appreciate Raheshking bring good summary of understanding. Kajalask (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC) — Kajalask (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note Kajalask and Rajeshking have both been confirmed as sockpuppets of Hishmi, the article creator and blocked accordingly. Smartse (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its not worth as no convincing replies from the sock puppetRamansoz(talk) raman 00:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. This article is highly padded, making it harder to pick out anything that might be notable among all the fluff; the first three references don't even mention the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. sigh... It should have been speedy deleted as a non-notable person (rather than as speedy delete as a spam article). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand that academic qualification, 160000 pages on google search and Academies attended do not make any person notable and the article create in autobiographical nature this make the point that article should be deleted but It seems that Hishmi Jamil Husain is also inolve in some social work like sustainable developement. Two publication by ISBN may make him a notable person. Thats why my comment is for keep. Need other's comments on my comment.Aminami (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, these are not authored books. He just edited them as a secondary person! Not even reviewed, no citations – no certification, etc. Moreover, these books are not on vital topics. There are several books on this subject. -- Ramansoz(talk) raman 00:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taptop (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

These books are single authored by Hishmi Husain. The following links show it. 1. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Resettlement-Rehabilitation-Policy-Mass-entitlements/dp/3639073797 2. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Lithology-Characteristics-Related-ForestVegetation-SustainableAfforestaion/dp/3639069455/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285414596&sr=1-1

Importance of topic could evaluate that Central Environment & Forest Minister, Government of India took interest and released one of his book(^ http://www.pib.nic.in/release/press_ph4.asp?kk=7/28/2009%205:04:23%20PM). I did not find other single book on these topics except these two written by Hishmi Husain.

Comment I've reported this sock as well. SmartSE (talk) 14:33, 2 November 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wade (writer)

Coming across this deleted article 2 years on, I think Wade warrants an article. He is working with Rik Mayall again according to his website this year. He has gone on to do some other notable things. He has worked with comedian Charlie Chuck on an audiobook. here is an interview http://www.gigglebeats.co.uk/2011/11/you-only-live-once-thank-goodness-a-short-interview-with-writer-chris-wade/

He has also worked with Jethro Tull's Ian Anderson on a charity book called The Cat Profiles http://fabulousanimalrescueproject.blogspot.com/2011/07/chris-wade-and-cat-profiles.html As well as this he has monthly podcasts called Hound Dawg Radio featuring Dave Davies of The Kinks and Wilko Johnson. Wade has also been interviewed by such major shows on Talk Radio Europe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyTYEFvd-Mk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ724q--eWM http://www.booksyoulove.co.uk/book-reviews/author-interview-with-chris-wade/ http://alternativereel.com/includes/cult-fiction/display_review.php?id=00096

There are numerous interviews and reviews on his work. Would be good to see this article re examined and possibly published if that can be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.115.154 (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can find no substantial coverage in reliable sources to indicate this author would meet WP:BIO inclusion guidelines, though the (verifiable) association with Rik Mayall made me optimistic there might be some. A prod tag was removed by the article's creator. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a Rik Mayall fan I thought putting a page on about this writer would be fine with the rules of Wikipedia. He and Rik Mayall have worked together and there are various interviews where the writer of the audiobook promotes the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchy98 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frenchy98. I can indeed see evidence that the two worked together, but that's not enough alone to mean the writer necessarily merits an article in Wikipedia. (Similarly, self-published promotional material can never be used alone to establish that a subject should have an article.) Instead we have inclusion guidelines (called "notability") that essentially state an article's subject must have received substantial third-party coverage - i.e. been profiled and discussed at length in books, newspapers, journals, and so on - before they merit an encyclopedia article. I'm unable to find that kind of coverage for this writer, which is why I've proposed deletion here. If you're aware of any substantial independent coverage in sources like that, please do go ahead and add it to the article. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here is the writer being interviewed about the book. i tried to insert these links into the article but it is closed for me to edit now, so i am unable to paste them in. http://1stangel.co.uk/talkthetalk/chris-wade/ another one here http://www.scribd.com/doc/37736644/Hound-Dawg-Issue-10-RIK-MAYALL-INTERVIEW and here: http://magazine.brighton.co.uk/Noticeboard/Brighton-News/The-Rise-Of-the-Young-One:-Author-Teams-Up-With-Rik-Mayall-For-Hilarious-&-Disturbing-Adventure/39_111_3225#a i would paste them in but it wont allow me to do so. sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchy98 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry i managed to paste in an interview for the article, where he speaks of the audiobook with rik mayall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchy98 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Thanks for adding the links, Frenchy98. I've had a look at them:

Interview in Hound Dawg magazine - this one's certainly lengthy, but it looks from Hound Dawg's official website as though the magazine is a freesheet that Wade edits and publishes himself. Therefore it's not an independent source and can't be used to establish notability.
Interview at "Talk the Talk" - I can't find much information about this site, but I don't believe it meets our standards for reliable sources: the help and questionnaires pages seem to suggest that rather than having an editorial board that selects and interviews subjects, the feature subjects are self-selecting, and that rather than actually being interviewed they simply fill out a questionnaire and email it in. ("Can anyone fill out a questionnaire?" "Yes! Please do.") So that too wouldn't meet my definition of an independent source.
Interview in Brighton Magazine - this is the best of the sources, as Brighton Magazine does at least appear to be independent of the subject. But it also seems to be a tourist board magazine - that sails rather close to the promotional wind for my liking, and a single interview is not generally held to amount to significant coverage in reliable sources.

So for me, these still aren't enough to show the subject as notable. We can now wait to see what others reading the deletion discussion think. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

he speaks about it here too http://www.creativeboom.co.uk/leeds/2010/09/07/interview-with-chris-wade/

there is info on more projects here, his hugh cornwell book and malcolm mcdowell book http://www.zani.co.uk/Interviews.aspx?id=79 http://www.alternativereel.com/includes/articles/display_article.php?id=00074 there seem to be lots of interviews with him, but hey if it doesnt meet the requirements it dont matter really. My first time on Wikipdia so i was just seeing how its done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchy98 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable as the article stands. Self-published authors are always harder to establish notability for, but there's no independent referencing outside the interviews. (The Brighton one seems more interested in Mayall, but the other site does carry interviews with well-known people such as Piers Anthony - whom I cannot see 'emailing an interview' in. Could be wrong. He's a surprising person sometimes. I feel notability could be established in Chris Wade's case. Find more independent stuff. Working with Rik Mayall is a possible aid to notability. (Never seen him in action - not my scene - but he is well-known.) If this article goes, try again when there's more to go on. Peridon (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.alternativereel.com/includes/cult-fiction/display_review.php?id=00077 http://magazine.brighton.co.uk/Clubs-&-Music/Reviews/Hugh-Cornwell:-New-Wave-legend-Plays-Two-Landmark-Albums-Front-To-Back/21_45_3017#a Reviews here too. Searching on google u find a lot to do with wade, but the hugh cornwell and the cutey and the sofaguard are his best known stuff. The Hound dawg has some high profile interviews too, he s interviewed members of vlvet underground, captain beefheart, kinks and squeeze. also victoria coren and other people like arthur smith, rik again and ade edmondson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchy98 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC) and yes rik mayall is very popular in england[reply]

Comment: Thanks Frenchy. I took a look at these additional sources too: I do think they're better than the original ones, but for me they're still not sufficiently focused on Wade himself to really speak to his notability. They're interviewing him about McDowell and Cornwell, more than about himself. And though they do seem to be independent they're more at the level of zines than really professional-quality news sources. (Not that I think there's anything actually suspect about them, just that I'm not seeing evidence that they meet the standards of professionalism that WP:SPS sets out. So I think this stuff strengthens the case for notability, but I'm still not seeing a "smoking gun" of in-depth coverage of Wade himself in a heavyweight source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzonoir (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:55, 27 October 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 Joe Dudgeon . The consensus is clear that Joe Dudgen fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG and it also appears that there is a consensus to delete Magnus Eikrem as well. However, the arguments put forth by Graeme Bartlett (and Favonian weakly) suggest there is a chance he may pass WP:GNG so considering that issue in a separate nomination seems reasonable. The result for Magnus Eikrem is no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Dudgeon

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

The subject of this article fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not made a competitive, first-team appearance for a professional football club or for a senior national team in a FIFA-sanctioned match. – Pee Jay 13:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both fail WP:ATHLETE as non-notables. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Zanoni (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:ATHLETE does not supersede the general notability guideline - articles are sufficiently referenced to pass that. 96.39.62.90 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting comment to make considering that Dudgeon's article contains precisely ZERO references...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Magnus Eikrem per WP:GNG. Favonian (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Joe Dudgeon per nom. Favonian (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Magnus Eikrem as it has two independent reliable references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per the nom. The Eikrem references fail WP:NTEMP. --Jimbo^[online] 14:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, as the Eikrem references do not meet the "significant coverage" test of WP:GNG, as almost all of them are just passing mentions in reserve or youth team match reports. Also does not meet WP:ATHLETE as mentioned above. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Neither have played in a fully professional match. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Notable. Should not be deleted. Eikrem is captain of the Manchester United reserves and Dudgeon is notable too. Velociraptor888 14:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By what objective criteria are you judging notability? Neither Eikrem nor Dudgeon has ever played a first-team match, and until they do neither is notable by the letter of WP:ATHLETE. Eikrem is marginally more notable by virtue of the nature of his transfer to United, but there still aren't enough significant third-party sources covering him to justify keeping an article. – PeeJay 19:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eikrem has been in the first team squad many times ( including the game tomorrow) and his role as reserve team captain and a squad number justify not deleting the page. edit: This article also mentions that he may play in tomorrows match here:http://www.vg.no/sport/fotball/engelsk/artikkel.php?artid=10042198.--109.153.66.117 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Futurama episodes by broadcast order

AfDs for this article:

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

Clear duplicate of List of Futurama episodes, especially because List of Futurama episodes can be sorted by broadcast date. The first AfD was delete so WP:G4 apply? CTJF83 chat 13:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely redundant to List of Futurama episodes - where the tables can be sorted into broadcast order *anyway*. I don't know if it qualifies for G4 though (one of the mods will have to see to that). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Previous AFD was Snow Delete. Vodello (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Initial broadcast lacks any real substance if there is an intended production order and broadcast order that wasn't followed in the initial broadcast, but maintained in DVD release and in syndication.Luminum (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Couldn't the summaries of each episode displayed in here be merged in the other article though? I'm pretty sure it'd be more useful for people browsing the list in search for a specific episode, instead of being greeted with a list of just titles that some times (if not most of the time) is kinda useless, and having to go season by season to check what episode is the one they're looking for... --186.87.18.30 (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of The Simpsons episodes is a featured list, the best of lists, and has no summaries....I suppose you could copy and paste the summaries to the other page, making sure you note in the edit summary that you did it CTJF83 chat 04:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless any of the content can be reasonably merged somewhere. No need to G4 considering this discussion is in full swing. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 28 October 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Faulkner

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

This is an article for a person who is a candidate for office but otherwise lacks notability. WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3 addresses this point specifically, that just being a nominee does not automatically confer notability. This article also fails the general notability guidelines, as sources are to the personal campaign site, his ministry's website, and generic data listings in the NYTimes, Cook Political, and CQ Politics, plus a single story in a local news affiliate. I will also note that the Times forecasts a near 60-point margin for this race. Per the further explanation at WP:POLITICIAN on what to do with non-notables, a merger to the appropriate district page is a viable option to deletion. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: THAT TARC HAS NOT EVEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT FAULKNER QUALIFIES AS A FORMER NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYER FOR THE NEW YORK JETS. Please see: American football/Canadian football figures are presumed notable if they 1.Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league. This notability rule for professional football players can be reviewed here: Football, WP:NFOOTBALL.--InaMaka (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least temporarily. I did not do any independent research, so I can't confirm or deny any of the local coverage criterion, but this seems like an extremely poor time to nominate this page for deletion. This page has been up since March, and you wait until a week before the election to nominate for deletion? And no, I'm not accusing anyone of being partisan or even arguing against your nomination, it just seems like a common sense decision to not even risk making Wikipedia look partisan. To me at least, I'm not in a rush, and it makes way more sense to wait until next week to nominate this article. Bds69 (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. Per Bds69. There is no rush to kill this article. Election Day is a mere 7 days away. If the outcome of the election is as clear as the nominator claims then it will not hurt Wikipedia to wait seven days and let the clock run out on the contest. Also, removing a political bio 7 days before an election does hurt Wikipedia in that it gives the impression that Wikipedia is a hotbed of partisan tit for tat. Just wait it out and it can be redirected or deleted in 8 days.--InaMaka (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in 7 days - this article does not come close to being notable, but I don't want Wikipedia to be falsely accused of attempting to influence an election (in which Faulkner reportedly has 0 chance of winning). Racepacket (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP He is the GOP candidate for the house, there are some far less important/ notable people on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.244.18 (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to interject some basic facts here. The article has been nominated for deletion under the Politician notability rules, but please keep in mind that Mr. Faulkner qualifies for his own article in Wikipedia independently as a former professional football player for the New York Jets. So the point of this discussion is mute. Mr. Faulkner is PRESUMED to be notable under the rules for professional athletes. Please see: American Football Players (NFL). The fact that this discussion is even taking place in an example of one editor, Tarc, attempting to destroy the work of editors. When you combine the fact that Faulkner played for a full season with the New York Jets, his coverage in this campaign by the NY Times, New York Daily News, and New York Post then there is really isn't anything to discuss.--InaMaka (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. NFL football player, so the point is moot (not mute). Flatterworld (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, but passes WP:ATHLETE. It appears he was also an All-American in college: [36]. Location (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE. Ray^Talk 05:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite to emphasize his actual notability per WP:ATHLETE, rather than his hypothetical notability as a WP:POLITICIAN. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject of significant coverage by reliable third-party sources, with a great deal of independent national coverage from The New York Times, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and dozens of other sources. Nomination was made after the NYT profile so the nominator's search for sources may have been less that thorough. - Dravecky (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lee, Trymaine (October 25, 2010). "Newcomer Faces Hurdles in Challenging Rangel, the 40-Year Harlem Incumbent". The New York Times. p. A22.
Speedy Keep - former pro athlete. Carrite (talk) 22:06, 30 October 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Flerlage

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

This is an article for a person who is a candidate for office but otherwise lacks notability. WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3 addresses this point specifically, that just being a nominee does not automatically confer notability. This article also fails the general notability guidelines; 3 local interviews, one hosted on the candidate's own website. That's it. Per the further explanation at WP:POLITICIAN on what to do with non-notables, a merger to the appropriate district page is a viable option to deletion. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least temporarily. I did not do any independent research, so I can't confirm or deny any of the local coverage criterion, but this seems like an extremely poor time to nominate this page for deletion. This page has been up since March, and you wait until a week before the election to nominate for deletion? And no, I'm not accusing anyone of being partisan or even arguing against your nomination, it just seems like a common sense decision to not even risk making Wikipedia look partisan. To me at least, I'm not in a rush, and it makes way more sense to wait until next week to nominate this article. Bds69 (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP at this time. He was elected in the primary election. Flatterworld (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT. This request is taking the wrong path. The proper path is to use the Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates, invite all those involved in both articles, and discuss the issue until consensus is reached. There's no need for a rush to judgement in any of these cases. (Note: One person requesting a Merge is not a consensus, see Ed Potosnak example.)That's why these Merge Templates exist, and that's why they're (normally) used when the issue involves (but not necessarily limited to) a claim that a person is notable only for one event. If consensus is reached, then an actual merge of material rather than a simple delete, or even a delete and redirect, is done. See Scott Harper for an example of this. See Ann Marie Buerkle for an example of the opposite, showing no history at all of what was in the previous article. That article was actually deleted, then a redirect was added after the fact. That's why it's wrong to do deletes in these cases, and that's been the consensus achieved in many, many AfD requests for various political candidates over the years. An example of a non-merge redirect is Lisa Johnston (AfD consensus here). That's simply wrong, as a nominee notable even for an event still has notable information - it's just a question of where it belongs. There is no evidence of any actual merge of material in her case, which makes the election article shockingly unbalanced (aka Undue Weight). There seems to be a lot of confusion on the definition of 'merge' in these discussions. It is not a synonym for a redirect. There are two steps, and both must be taken. Or, the article should be allowed to continue to exist, with 'improvement tags' added as needed. Flatterworld (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least temporarily. per Flatterworld and Bds69. Man, what a waste of time and effort. There is merely ONE editor, Tarc, that wants to flat out destroy the work of many editors 7 days before Election Day. The information is going to be destroyed for no good reason other than Tarc wants to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. As to this particular article, just wait one week and then after Election Day there will be time to decide which articles are to be deleted and which ones will be merged. There is no harm to Wikipedia in waiting, but there is huge potential harm to Wikipedia in destroying editor's work prematurely. It makes Wikipedia look like a partisan free for all. Also, complete deletion is absolutely wrong. There are less destructive ways to handle these articles.--InaMaka (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado, 2010#District 6 per WP:POLITICIAN. While he seems like a great guy, no notability exists, or is likely from this candidacy (rated a safe seat for his opponent). Furthermore, the page is a thinly veiled campaign bio, arguably suitable for Speedy G11. Our guidelines on this one are absolutely clear. Ray^Talk 05:29, 27 October 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Meffert

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

This is an article for a person who is a candidate for office but otherwise lacks notability. WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3 addresses this point specifically, that just being a nominee does not automatically confer notability. This article also fails the general notability guidelines, as the scant coverage is purely local...Public Radio, the local NBC affiliate, and the Minn Post. The cqpolitics.co link is about the incumbent, with 2 Meffert name-drops about cash on-hand. Routine coverage. Per the further explanation at WP:POLITICIAN on what to do with non-notables, a merger to the appropriate district page is a viable option to deletion. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least temporarily. I did not do any independent research, so I can't confirm or deny any of the local coverage criterion, but this seems like an extremely poor time to nominate this page for deletion. This page has been up since March, and you wait until a week before the election to nominate for deletion? And no, I'm not accusing anyone of being partisan or even arguing against your nomination, it just seems like a common sense decision to not even risk making Wikipedia look partisan. To me at least, I'm not in a rush, and it makes way more sense to wait until next week to nominate this article. Bds69 (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP at this time. He was elected in the primary election. Flatterworld (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT. This request is taking the wrong path. The proper path is to use the Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates, invite all those involved in both articles, and discuss the issue until consensus is reached. There's no need for a rush to judgement in any of these cases. (Note: One person requesting a Merge is not a consensus, see Ed Potosnak example.)That's why these Merge Templates exist, and that's why they're (normally) used when the issue involves (but not necessarily limited to) a claim that a person is notable only for one event. If consensus is reached, then an actual merge of material rather than a simple delete, or even a delete and redirect, is done. See Scott Harper for an example of this. See Ann Marie Buerkle for an example of the opposite, showing no history at all of what was in the previous article. That article was actually deleted, then a redirect was added after the fact. That's why it's wrong to do deletes in these cases, and that's been the consensus achieved in many, many AfD requests for various political candidates over the years. An example of a non-merge redirect is Lisa Johnston (AfD consensus here). That's simply wrong, as a nominee notable even for an event still has notable information - it's just a question of where it belongs. There is no evidence of any actual merge of material in her case, which makes the election article shockingly unbalanced (aka Undue Weight). There seems to be a lot of confusion on the definition of 'merge' in these discussions. It is not a synonym for a redirect. There are two steps, and both must be taken. Or, the article should be allowed to continue to exist, with 'improvement tags' added as needed. Flatterworld (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least temporarily. per Flatterworld and Bds69. Man, what a waste of time and effort. There is merely ONE editor, Tarc, that wants to flat out destroy the work of many editors 7 days before Election Day. The information is going to be destroyed for no good reason other than Tarc wants to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. As to this particular article, just wait one week and then after Election Day there will be time to decide which articles are to be deleted and which ones will be merged. There is no harm to Wikipedia in waiting, but there is huge potential harm to Wikipedia in destroying editor's work prematurely. It makes Wikipedia look like a partisan free for all. Also, complete deletion is absolutely wrong. There are less destructive ways to handle these articles.--InaMaka (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2010#District 3 per WP:POLITICIAN. No notability for the subject exists, since coverage is trivial and purely in the context of his candidacy (for a seat rated safe for the opposite party, no less). Ray^Talk 05:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor a low bar for inclusion of biographies of active politicians. Independent media coverage of congressional-level candidates is massive and all Rs and Ds and most independents should be regarded as notable per se on this basis. Proximity to the election makes it even less compelling to delete this material now. Carrite (talk) 22:08, 30 October 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Potosnak

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

This is an article for a person who is a candidate for office but otherwise lacks notability. WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3 addresses this point specifically, that just being a nominee does not automatically confer notability. This article also fails the general notability guidelines; the refs in this article are to salary data, personal campaign websites, a general article about money going to gay candidates in the WBlade, a "where are they now?" blurb from a former membership, and so on. Minor, trivial coverage, absolutely routine for an unelected politician. Per the further explanation at WP:POLITICIAN on what to do with non-notables, a merger to the appropriate district page is a viable option to deletion. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least temporarily. I did not do any independent research, so I can't confirm or deny any of the local coverage criterion, but this seems like an extremely poor time to nominate this page for deletion. This page has been up since March, and you wait until a week before the election to nominate for deletion? And no, I'm not accusing anyone of being partisan or even arguing against your nomination, it just seems like a common sense decision to not even risk making Wikipedia look partisan. To me at least, I'm not in a rush, and it makes way more sense to wait until next week to nominate this article. Bds69 (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a giant discussion about this over at WP:AN/I, search for the "FREEZE" header. A user proposed such a moratorium, but this was pretty much rejected by the community. A week or so ago, I tried to take care of these non-notable politicians via simple redirects to the appropriate congressional district articles, but was summarily reverted this week on some of them. So this could have been taken care of last week, but that's out of my hands now. We have specific notability guidelines to consider; we don't, or shouldn't, consider real-world pressures. If someone is notable, then keep. If not, delete, merge, or redirect as appropriate. Judge these on their own merits. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then that looks like the place for this - I skimmed through it and pretty much every solid point, as well as every logical fallacy has been made, so I have nothing more to add. Like I said, I personally don't see why we can't just wait a week, but no one ever accused Wikipedia admins/editors of being too focused on common sense. Bds69 (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP at this time. He was elected in the primary election. Flatterworld (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT. This request is taking the wrong path. The proper path is to use the Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates, invite all those involved in both articles, and discuss the issue until consensus is reached. There's no need for a rush to judgement in any of these cases. (Note: One person requesting a Merge is not a consensus, see Ed Potosnak example.)That's why these Merge Templates exist, and that's why they're (normally) used when the issue involves (but not necessarily limited to) a claim that a person is notable only for one event. If consensus is reached, then an actual merge of material rather than a simple delete, or even a delete and redirect, is done. See Scott Harper for an example of this. See Ann Marie Buerkle for an example of the opposite, showing no history at all of what was in the previous article. That article was actually deleted, then a redirect was added after the fact. That's why it's wrong to do deletes in these cases, and that's been the consensus achieved in many, many AfD requests for various political candidates over the years. An example of a non-merge redirect is Lisa Johnston (AfD consensus here). That's simply wrong, as a nominee notable even for an event still has notable information - it's just a question of where it belongs. There is no evidence of any actual merge of material in her case, which makes the election article shockingly unbalanced (aka Undue Weight). There seems to be a lot of confusion on the definition of 'merge' in these discussions. It is not a synonym for a redirect. There are two steps, and both must be taken. Or, the article should be allowed to continue to exist, with 'improvement tags' added as needed. Flatterworld (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least temporarily. per Flatterworld and Bds69. Man, what a waste of time and effort. There is merely ONE editor, Tarc, that wants to flat out destroy the work of many editors 7 days before Election Day. The information is going to be destroyed for no good reason other than Tarc wants to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Also, the discussion that Tarc refers to above as "pretty much rejected by the community" is a complete mischaracterization of the discussion. The concensus was no concensus. As to this particular article, just wait one week and then after Election Day there will be time to decide which articles are to be deleted and which ones will be merged. There is no harm to Wikipedia is waiting, but there is huge potential harm to Wikipedia in destroying editor's work prematurely. It makes Wikipedia look like a partisan free for all.--InaMaka (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. News links above show sufficient coverage. Plus he is appearing on hundreds of thousands of ballots. I think WP:POLITICIAN (which is only a guideline anyway) should be changed so that a major-party nominee for Congress is generally considered notable. In the interim, let's not disappear this and the related articles. (Second choice: Merge and redirect.) Neutron (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need to revisit POLITICIAN after the election. The way it is currently written, it has a distinct inherent bias. It favors the incumbent candidate, which is clearly taking a political position.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the fourth candidate that Tarc has nominated during this final week of the election and the fifth one that I've seen. I've gone through and shown how the other four candidates clearly meet the GNG. POLITICIAN is a secondary guideline to be followed when the primary GNG criteria is not met. A quick websearch will show that Ed, just like the other candidates nominated by Tarc, has plenty of reliable sources covering him in detail. These Major party candidates for national positions get substantial coverage both locally and nationally (and in some cases internationally.) Apllying POLITICIAN is the wrong criteria as the candidates clearly meet GNG. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the systemic bias against candidates as compared to incumbents is a POV and needs to change.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This opinion is such a mess it is hard to know where to begin. First off, "bias against candidates as compared to incumbents" ? Um, yea...the person who already has a seat in the flipping Congress of the United States is unquestionably notable. To suggest that there is biased because there is an article for him and not automatically for all challengers is quite frankly unbelievable. Next, "A quick websearch" finds the sources that are presently in the article;

PoliticaltickerNJ. questionable WP:RS

It's PolitickerNJ, and it is used as a source in dozens if not hundreds of New Jersey-related articles, and seems to regarded by people who regularly edit NJ-related political articles (including me) as a reliable source for news. The site also includes columns and blogs, for which you would have an argument, but this is a news article. Neutron (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

www.cabaret-theatre.org, a "where are they now?" blurb for a former member
a source to confirm his Rutgers Glee Club presidency
Triangle Coalition bio, essentially a CV
congressional staff salary data
Washington Blade, general article about gay candidates and campaign cash, not in-depth overage of the subject.
outinjersey.net, again, a general article about the Stonewall Dems funding gay candidates

There is nothing in there that meets the notability guidelines. I am tired of these false accusations and vague handwaving at "keeps its notable!", when both are demonstrably false. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, the articles listed are the not the only one around, in fact according to Google, there are over 41,000 articles on Ed Potosnak Congress. Some of them include (not using any one source more than once):

The Star Ledger

WSLS TV

Huffington Post in depth on Ed

NJ today on Ed

Politico

Fox news bio

There is plenty of coverage on this guy, the fact that the article does not include them does not mean that it is a quick easy search to find other sources/discussion. The fact that there are 41K articles indicates a certain level of recognition/coverage.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have found generic, cut n pasted bios and a few casual name-drops. Who are you trying to kid here? Tarc (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2010#District 7 per WP:POLITICIAN. Coverage is purely in the context of the electoral cycle, amounting to news and not really in-depth coverage - that is to say, insufficient to meet GNG, so WP:POLITICIAN is controlling. Ray^Talk 05:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since this AfD will not close prior to the election date, and this is a contested race, I'm striking my comment in anticipation of the result. Ray^Talk 06:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being part of an "electoral cycle" is no different than a sports season or what have you. The fact is that there are over 41K ghits for Ed. Coverage is dedicated to him.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I favor a very low bar for active politicans for office as a public service. At the congressional level, third party coverage is typically massive and these sorts of challenges strike me as being sometimes partisan in motivation. I'm not saying that this is the case here, only that the proximity of the election should make us all move very slowly on any deletion decision. Carrite (talk) 21:59, 30 October 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 WoWWiki. Marasmusine (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wowpedia

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

The new wiki has no established notability separate from WoWWiki. The available sources include one blog and links to the two wikis themselves, which is not nearly enough to establish notability. It also remains to be seen whether the majority of users make the switch or not. All of the useful content here is already in the WoWWiki article, so no merge is necessary. Powers ^T 12:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to section), per the nomination. I've got a conflict of interest, however, as an admin of the new project. --Izno (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Does not currently have independent notability. I have notified the user who turned this from a redirect into an article. Reach Out to the Truth 13:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 13:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Reach Out to the Truth 13:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to [[WoWWiki], has no notability of its own. In future, it may replace WoWWiki, perhaps even in the near future, but for now its just not notable. Harry Blue5 (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment for now. I'm an editor on the wowwiki page, I reverted the original move of wowwiki to wowpedia (for pretty much the same reasons as are being offered here for deletion) and I declined the speedy on wowpedia in favor of bringing it to AfD. I think the page ought to be redirected for now; however, we should be careful about using the result of this AfD as a cudgel. The likely outcome given the problems with wikia and the preeminence of Curse in the WoW fan site world is that the fork will eventually result in wowpedia becoming the resource we see wowwiki as today. If and when this does happen a page move may be appropriate (which wouldn't really be impacted by the AfD) or a new article may be appropriate (if we consider the scholarly research on wowwiki as justifying a standalone article for the old site). When that happens I don't want to see a lot of froth and vigor over deleting it as CSD G4 or straightjacketing our options because this AfD determined the article was better left a redirect. Protonk (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So noted. Consensus can change. Powers ^T 22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now) – The Warcraft wiki was the subject of the articles cited here, because of its content and community, not its name. Both "WoWWiki" and "Wowpedia" have that content, and the users are split in an as yet unspecified ratio. I.E. both forks should have the same notability. For us to only have one article under either name, seems to me to be an attempt at predicting the outcome as to which will be the dominant resource in the future. If one of them withers, than that one should become a section in the article on the other.
It should also be noted that I am a user/editor of Wikia in general, and Wowpedia, as well as Wikipedia. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject was the Wikia site; that's what all of the currently available third-party sources were about. There are now two wikis with the same content, but the new one has not yet gotten coverage. The new one may come to be dominant, but we have to wait for the sources to catch up. Powers ^T 02:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much of the community has moved: —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. According to Wikia, there were just over 2000 active registered WoWWiki users before the fork.
2. Since the fork, over 1870 users have registered Wowpedia accounts.
3. According to Wikia, there are/were 22 listed WoWWiki admins. Of those, three are inactive, with no edits since before 2010. Of the 19 remaining, 13 have registered accounts at Wowpedia, with most explicitly moving to Wowpedia, and not just using both.
4. So—while I cannot speak to use by anonymous readers—as best as I can determine, over two-thirds of the former WoWWiki community has transitioned to Wowpedia.
Comment If the whole community has moved to Wowpedia and all that jazz, then they're still shouldn't be two articles anyway. If Wowpedia is the new WoWWiki then the WoWWiki article should be reworked to be about Wowpedia. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A few general comments, from someone who sourced the wowwiki article. First, a lot of the scholarly research was on wowwiki as a source (the site itself) and a community. Some of that obviously applies to the new site, but some does not. Just as a large fork of the English wikipedia may be notable but may not be considered to be covered by sources mentioning the english wikipedia before the split. Second, a temporary redirect to a wowpedia section on the wowwiki article may be the best answer...for now. As time goes on and some reliable sources talk about the transition (especially sources that contextualize the reasons for moving/forking), we can move wowwiki to wowpedia or consider building a new article. The nice thing about redirection is that it leaves the old content in the history. A possible downside is that it increases confusion for readers who may expect to read about wowpedia and find themselves on an article about wowwiki. Protonk (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Full disclosure, I am casual contributer to the WoWWiki/Wowpedia community and have contributed to both forks since the split. My comment: I was previously opposed to this page (see Talk:Wowpedia) as I felt it was predicting the future. However, the circumstances have changed a bit since my talk-page post. Assuming that MJBurrage's comments can be validated, we now have have a reasonable measure of the degree to which the editing community has moved. I would also add the evidence that comparing the activity feeds of both sites reveals that there is more edit activity at Wowpedia (though not by such a degree that I would describe WoWWiki as dead). However, when considering notability, I think that read-only activity must be strongly considered also. People who visit the site, but don't make edits, are the community at large that WoWWiki/Wowpedia provides a service to for which it became notable. I think that some measure of site visit activity should be considered. Also, if Wowpedia has truly replaced WoWWiki then it should be possible to verify this through sources. When I made my talk-page comment, this was not yet possible. The recent press release from Curse (which I believe is now mentioned in the article) helps, but I think editors wishing this page to remain (including myself) should support it with additional references. If we cannot find such references, then I will have to agree with those who wish to redirect this page to WoWWiki (for now). As this is fork is a recent event, and the situation is likely to continue changing over the next week, I think any decision made should be with the caveat "for now" as the future will be more clear once the dust settles. Ddcorkum (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - If they are basically the same thing, the main article should be expanded to include both. Wowpedia is not notable, WoWWiki is. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically what information needs to be merged? As I stated in the nomination, it appears that all of the useful information from this article is already in the WoWWiki article. Powers ^T 11:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not sure what could be moved over. There just doesn't need to be two separate articles, especially when one is not notable. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You suggested a merge but don't know what should be merged? You specifically said "the main article should be expanded"; what information should be added? Powers ^T 17:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - with the clear understanding that the article can be re-created once the new site builds notability under its own name. While WoWwiki has established notability, Wowpedia has not established that it has notability. This may ultimately change, but this article is premature - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and not a vehicle to promote a new website, even if it is a fork of an existing notable community website. At this time, it appears that the bulk of the community has moved; but that simply suggests that WoWWiki is nearing the end of its notable existance - it does not automatically result in Wowpedia inheriting that notability. --- Barek (talk) - 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is more sourced content now than when this discussion started, so if the article becomes a redirect, a merge would be required. As for notability, the project was the subject of the articles (not the name), and as the project is now at Wowpedia, it is notable under that name too.
  As for whether the version still called WoWWiki will remain an equally notable fork or wither, we should have that answer by the end of the year. A major expansion releases the first week in December, and how the two wiki's are edited in response will be the most telling. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 23:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you wrote would be accurate if this were a simple name change. It's not. Wowpedia is a fork of WoWWiki, not a rename. That means it's a new project, not the same project with a new name. Powers ^T 14:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Based on the number of active users at pre-fork WoWWiki, and the number of admins and editors that moved to Wowpedia, it is more accurate to say that a notable project moved to a new name, leaving behind an archive at its old name. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 13:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WoWwiki until such time as it's independently notable. The fact that the community is moving to a new Wiki is not notable enough until it receives significant coverage from reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal

Warcraft Wiki

If the pages are to be merged, a paged titled Warcraft wiki with redirects from both "WoWWiki" and "Wowpedia" might be best. I believe that if the pages are merged it should be under a generic name with a section on the pre-fork history followed by sections about the fork and the current status of each fork. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 13:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. For what its worth, as of today the number of accounts registered at Wowpedia since the fork has just passed the number of accounts active at WoWWiki prior to the fork. Since WoWWiki defines active, as any action in the last month, we wont really know how active post-fork WoWWiki is until sometime after November 20th. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:48, 2 November 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High IQ society

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

No reliable sources have been found for the article, even after repeated requests on the article talk page. After further diligent search and discussion on the article talk page, it appears that the few sources any editor has found about the article topic proper are solely self-published websites. Therefore the article is nominated for deletion discussion for lack of reliable sources. The article is primarily a directory of non-notable organizations rather than an encyclopedic discussion of the article's named topic. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bit of a WP:SOFIXIT there, and is that the sound of an axe being ground that I can hear offstage?

This article is a minefield. Vast numbers of societies and their largely self-published sources have come and gone, in an attempt to add particular societies to what is effectively a list article. Yet to extend this to the concept of such societies as a broad concept being non-notable is ridiculous. If High IQ societies are indeed all simply not a notable idea, I look forward to the nom's inevitable AfD for Mensa. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing problems have been noted by other editors for years, since before I registered my account about a half year ago. I thought that this would be a topic, by my wild guess, that would be easy to source, but I haven't found Wikipedia reliable sources about it myself, even though I keep an extensive source list on closely related topics where all Wikipedians can see it. After posting to the article talk page on more than one occasion, and after reading the entire editing history of the page, I thought it was time to see once and for all if this article can be sourced as any Wikipedia article ought to be sourced under the verifiability policy and its implementing reliable sources guideline. Fixing articles is a wonderful thing. I would love to see this article fixed. If it cannot be fixed, the existing self-published websites will still be visible on Google, so there is no need for a Wikipedia article on the topic. P.S. I have never, ever indicated any interest in deleting the article Mensa, which is considerably better sourced and is about an indisputably notable topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prune the article down to only what's absolutely referenceable if we must, but if that leaves us with even a single entry in that list, then the article is still justified. As one of those articles will certainly be Mensa, I can't see any scope for deletion of the entire set. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There already is such content on Wikipedia: Intelligence_quotient#High_IQ_societies And of course there is a stand-alone article Mensa, as I expect there always will be. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three whole sentences of such content. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the reasons why there are so few references in this article is edits like this, removing them. By the nominator of this AfD, no less. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply Is the thrust of this comment to say that there are available reliable sources that are not currently used to edit article text? That would be something to bring up on the article talk page. Wikipedia has a content guideline about self-published sources, so the concern would continue to be to find statements for article text that can be verified from other sources as well. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is rightly against using WP:SPS to demonstrate notability. However that's not the same thing as a blanket ban on their use at all. There is no policy or guideline requiring their removal, as you have claimed in your edit summaries on their deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before the nominator saddles up his AGF high horse, don't take my word for it take ArbCom's. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Checking sources is always a good idea. Yes, I agree, checking sources with careful attention to detail is helpful for editing articles. I welcome talk page discussion on any article talk page with any editor who has reliable sources for improving the article. I assume good faith in such discussions. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which bit did you mean? "Weiji's edits may raise some eyebrows"? Indeed. Then I saw your deletion of refs before taking an article to AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since WeijiBaikeBianji is affiliated with Mensa it seems a conflict of interest to continually remove data and entire groups, and even attempt to get an entire page deleted because it lists other High IQ societies, which is a major reason for having the page in the first place. "High IQ society" would be a more thorough resource more in the spirit of Wikipedia without such temperamental and aggressive editing.--97.104.185.233 (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Reply You wrote, "Since WeijiBaikeBianji is affiliated with Mensa" to which I would have to add this tag: ^{[citation needed]} I am quite amazed that there are continual efforts here, contrary to Wikipedia policy, to comment on the editor rather than on the editorial suggestion. I have already written here that if the article is sourced according to Wikipedia sourcing guidelines I would be the first to support its continued existence as a stand-alone article. And I certainly don't think that the topic shouldn't be mentioned at all, as it is already mentioned in the highly visible article Intelligence quotient. But because I have been an editor of an academic publication before, I have a strongly habituated concern for sourcing all article text on all subjects. Improving the sourcing of articles is a policy on Wikipedia, so I would expect all of us to have friendly agreement about doing that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Reply "I speak at National Association for Gifted Children-affiliated state organizations, for Mensa, and for other nonprofit organizations on the topics of mathematics education, organizing support networks for parents, and IQ testing." source:your own page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji Also, the page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient which you also edit only contains one society, Mensa. As far as commenting strictly on the editorial suggestion, I respect your input, but nevertheless it seems to show bias towards only having a single society on Wikipedia.--97.104.185.233 (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I speak [...] for Mensa" and you're seeking to delete an article that covers the other societies? Wow.

You should withdraw this AfD. Can anyone else say WP:COI? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* You do suggest a way I could rewrite my user page to reduce the possibility of misinterpretation. (I have just done that, before submitting this reply.) I have never been a member of Mensa. I have many close personal friends who are members of Mensa, as I imagine most persons commenting on this AfD do. I spoke at a session at the Mensa Annual Gathering the last time it was in my town, when it was a joint gathering with Mensa Canada. I was invited to speak there, as a volunteer, by local friends who are Mensans. If this kind of tenuous relationship with Mensa is assumed to be a basis "to get an entire page deleted because it lists other High IQ societies," then perhaps there are assumptions about Mensa among the members of those other societies that I would never have guessed. Lacking sources, I try not to guess. Only as I find sources will I support edits to article text that properly should be based on sources. Sources about other organizations produced by independent writers with a strong reputation for fact-checking would be an ample basis for mentioning other organizations in the article under discussion here, and perhaps in other articles as well. By the way, have you found any non-self-published sources about the activities of any high IQ society or about the general phenomenon of high IQ societies or about any notable member of any high IQ society since this AfD was posted, or has your research effort been confined to "opposition research" on a fellow Wikipedian? It's flattering that you consider me such an important issue here, but I fully expect the closing administrator, when this AfD is closed, to close it on the basis of Wikipedia policy for building the encyclopedia rather than on the basis of editors' unevidenced opinions of a fellow editor. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seem to be fewer on-line reliable sources on this subject than one might expect, but there certainly are some.[37][38][39][40][41][42][43] For example, a delightful 1985 article by the young Joel Achenbach in the Miami Herald's former Tropic magazine--the Herald is a pay site[44] but the text of the article can also be found at an archival site for the magazine[45].--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* This sounds like a basis for improving the article. Are you willing to take on adding article edits based on sources like that? That would be very helpful for the article. It appears that news sources may be the most available sources for this topic, and that's all right. I was expecting more information in academic books and journal articles than what I have found so far, so I thought I'd bring this up to a wider group of editors than the editors who watch the article's talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and block WeijiBaikeBianji) So nominator is affiliated with Mensa and persistantly deletes all else high-iq society related Wikipedia-wide? That's an eye-opener with regard to the motives. Not only should this article be kept, but all others deleted by this person should be reinstated and the person himself banned from editing. His mumbo-jumbo legal sweet talk should not fool anyone any longer.StevanMD (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and block WeijiBaikeBianji) More vexatious/crank editing from WeijiBaikeBianji. A first block of perhaps few days or a week should be issued for this aggressive attempt to scupper this page. Woodsrock (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Meanwhile, where are the sources? You are entitled to your opinion as a new editor. And any editor who wants to show that their opinion that an article can be well sourced is correct can do that by finding sources and making article edits based on those. But you are not entitled to your own facts. Wikipedia asks editors to express opinions about the edits and not about the editors. It would be wonderful to see some edits to that article that draw on independent reliable sources that put the topic into a broader context with more detail. We are all here to build an encyclopedia, not a blog, after all. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like those you delete? Thanks, but no thanks. As I said, no fooling with sweet talk. StevanMD (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andy Dingley. (Disclaimer: I am not connected to any of the societies listed, nor would I be. I did find a short Mensa produced test that was supposed to show you were Mensa level if you did it in 15 minutes. I did it in 4, sat on the loo. I've never wanted to be a table.) Peridon (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and block WeijiBaikeBianji) WeijiBaikeBianji is a bad faith editor on the subject of intelligence. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Kindly refactor the comments that violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF. There is actually a Wikipedia administrator who recently described me as a "a good faith editor who is trying to collaborate with other Wikipedians."[46] I welcome anyone who disagrees with how I edit to discuss that in a mature and considerate manner on my user talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and block WeijiBaikeBianji) Good editors adapt to the consensus of others, while bad ones such as WeijiBaikeBianji persistently delete anything that doesn't mirror their exact thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.185.102 (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a subject that is difficult to source according to the usual standards. An IQ society which purports to be so exclusive that only one in a billion can qualify is delimited to about five adult members in the entire world. Given the difficulty of acquainting those few candidates with the society itself, such a society could consider itself fortunate to recruit one of the five. One might assume that a society with a single member might not achieve Wikipedia's notability standards, even if the member himself (or herself) were quite famous. Compounding the problems with this page are these issues: (1) very few of these societies are widely known outside the circle of membership; (2) to my knowledge, only two people (Hoeflin and Langdon) really know very much about norming IQ tests with extreme upper-end discrimination, and the reliability thereof, and those gentlemen have not published much on the matter, nor anything at all peer-reviewed, to my knowledge; (3) the only famous group in the litany of otherwise obscure societies is not really a high-IQ group at all. MENSA is more of an above-average IQ society, which means that the true high-IQ groups have no champion to enter in the notability joust. Back to the point. Should the page be deleted? Beats me. From what little I know of what Wikipedia wants to achieve, perhaps deletion is the correct decision, but maybe it would be beneficial to let some other eyes look at the matter rather than leaving the final call up to a single editor, however fair he may be or unfair he may be perceived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle Scoopy (talk • contribs) 20:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Thank you for comment The sourcing issues are interesting. I had expected, because of the interest of independent scholars in the subjects of the Terman study in the twentieth century, that today there would be some number of independent scholars who would write dead-tree, peer-reviewed or professionally edited reliable sources about high-IQ persons (including the organizations they join and the experiences they have in those organizations). Reliable information on that subject is of great interest to me. Wikipedia has its policies as an encyclopedia and consciously differs in its mission from Google and some other useful online reference tools. Whatever the closing administrator decides here, I will honor that decision, assume good faith on the part of all other editors who commented here or who subsequently edit the same articles that I edit, and try to continue to find sources to add encyclopedic, verifiable content to as many of the 6,936,892 articles on Wikipedia I have time to edit as a volunteer. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:51, 31 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obelux

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

The article appears to fail to meet WP:ORG. There are no significant matches in Google News or any in Google Books. this article briefly mentions one product that may become notable but it is not yet in production and would thus fail WP:FUTURE. PROD raised but deleted by creator without discussion, merge seems unsuitable, so raising to encourage wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a business that makes LEDs. Unless there's some kind of showing that they have some kind of historical or technological significance in the history of making or finding uses for LEDs, they should not get a standalone encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Would require more secondary sources to establish encyclopedic notability. --hydrox (talk) 12:18, 28 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer books

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

A list of all books that deal with computers in some way. Will never be complete as there are hundreds of thousands of such books and hundreds if not thousands are published every day. Travelbird (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too general to be of any use. We already have Category:Computer books. Yoenit (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Might has well have a List of books. This is way too generic and of little value, per the concerns noted in WP:SALAT. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that "list of books" does surprisingly exist, but it is a generic meta-list of specific book lists. Tarc (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without an inclusion criteria it is just an indiscriminate list. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CLS states very clearly that we do not delete lists to favour categories. The potential size of the list is not a problem because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper. Where lists grow large then they may be restructured to form a tree structure as the List of books demonstrates. Note that some computer books have great notability and value such as The Art of Computer Programming. The suggestion that we should not have a list of such seminal works is absurd and contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the type of argument that could be used to justify a List of things article. "Computer books" is just too generic to be of any real value as a list. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^gab 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Inclusion criteria are far too general. This would have to be split into dozens of sublists to have any use (i.e. List of computer programming books, List of computer books about Windows, List of computer books about Macs, List of computer books about encryption, etc. etc. etc.) SnottyWong ^comment 23:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there seem to be only about 200 computer book articles and this is quite manageable within a single list page. There is not a problem here - just hyperbole. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are only 200 computer book articles right now (which I haven't confirmed) doesn't mean that only 200 notable computer books exist which would satisfy the inclusion criteria of this list. That is ridiculous. SnottyWong ^confer 14:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of computer books is far to broad. There are betters ways to organize such books in subcategories. AniMate 02:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aids in navigation, perfect for a list article, it only showing entries with articles on Wikipedia of course(I trimmed the rest already since otherwise we'd have thousands of books published each year added here, instead of those already proven worthy of note by having a Wikipedia article for them or their writer). If the list ever grows too large, then you can easily do a content fork for the various types. Dream Focus 09:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the list becomes too large to be manageable, we can break it down into subordinate lists. Lists of lists articles are perfectly OK, as Tarc appears to have found out to his surprise. Inclusion criteria (has its own Wikipedia article) are clear, topic is clear, it's is not indiscriminate. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list discriminates by the implied criterion for any list that doesn't contain any different inclusion criterion, i.e. that it lists only books that pass our notability guidelines. There is no requirement that such a navigational list should be superior to a category, as we can have both, but in this case the list is pretty obviously superior in that it includes the authors of the books. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is very odd to see an argument for deletion on the basis that we need to have additional similar lists (or broader coverage in the existing one. As usual, if there is a category for objects of a particular sort, there should be a list also--their advantages are complementary. And not being paper, we can handle lists of any size, just like we can handle any number of articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annual Digital Archive

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

NN project by a school computer club Travelbird (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I highly doubt a high school club assignment will ever be notable. Especially for something as mundane as digitising high school yearbooks.--hkr Laozi speak 12:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 28 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie L.

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

NN musicial with next to no pertinent Google hits for "Steven Lamont Grier" and very little beyond facebook/myspace/promotion page for "Stevie L. music" Travelbird (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability, no WP:RS, fails WP:MUSIC. Possibly a WP:CSD#A7 as there really is no claim of importance... unless the sentence fragment "Accomplishments: 07-08: Joss Stone" passes as one now? Eh. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC by quite a way. As an aside, the creator of this article, User:Lauren Ashley Estimada, is listed here, under the "Our Team" heading, as part of the marketing team of Studio92, where the subject of this article is a producer. Just a small conflict of interest there methinks. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 28 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Swan: Vigilante

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

Delete, non-notable fictional character posted for self-promotion. The article is completely unsourced and does not assert any basis for notability, whether through the creators, the depicting works, the publisher, etc. It also appears to have been posted by the character's creator, who also posted a speedy deleted stub on the ostensible publisher. No relevant google hits turned up for "black swan" + "amy lawson" -wikipedia. postdlf (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looking for the creators through Google also doesn't turn up any relevant info. Not notable at all. Fram (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious WP:SPAM based on the primary editor's username. WP:NOT a free webhost also seems to apply. No sourceable notability whatsoever. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to advertise the work you hope to publish someday. Edward321 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto of everything that has already been stated. Would also like to point out that it links to no other articles link to it, because it is complete fluff and non-notable. Spidey104^contribs 14:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Only the lack of a "where you can buy..." clause keeps me from deleting it as G11. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. How can you write up a character page without mentioning what title it's featured in, and who publishes it? Why can't I find anything about it? Delete.Luminum (talk) 17:17, 1 November 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. --RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Institute of Nano Films

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

This Virtual Institute has virtually no sources, and doubtless has no physical existence. At first I thought it was about really short movies, but I was wrong. Deleted by prod and recreated. Abductive (reasoning) 07:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence this organization is notable. What I can dig up is press releases, etc., or brief mentions of its existence, but nothing that actually conveys notability. Borderline spammy in tone (i.e., the "Objectives" section) and COI noted, as having been created by User:Vinf gm. No prejudice to cleanup/recreation if sources can actually be found, but the article in its current state really doesn't say much of anything and it might need to be TNTed. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 28 October 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David G. Ludwig murders

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

Declined WP:PROD. My original deletion rationale was "This is not a notable criminal. The subject fails WP:PERP by a distance, and WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS by just as much." Prod noticed removed, the decliner stating, "Removed proposed-deletion-template due to invalid reason for deletion Subject is notable under WP:PERP: "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention..."" Brought here for the community to decide. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be another case of newsworthiness being misconstrued as notability. Mainly local news coverage with an article here and there picked up by other news outlets via the AP wire, etc. Does not appear to meet WP:PERP as indicated in the deletion rationale; no evidence this crime of passion is any more significant/interesting/unusual than any other. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally not notable, agree fully with Kinu.Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this crime both interesting and unusual. Your typical crime of passion is man kills wife/girlfriend. In this one we have a home schooled kid who documented fantasies of home invasions, brought a bag of weapons when called to his girlfriend's home by the dad, left the bag at the door when asked to but then shot and killed both parents (with yet another gun). Next he disappeared with the girlfriend who evidentially left willingly. Suggestive that it is more premeditated than passion, and at least a cautionary tail if you happen to have a teenage daughter. There are around 15,000 murders per decade in the U.S. alone, so if this is not unusual there must be hundreds (at least) of other cases that are very similar. Personally I'm not aware of any, and I would be interested to see a few citations of such. --Quisicaluser (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC) — Quisicaluser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You state the subject is notable per WP:PERP (as per your comment above and per your removal of the PROD template) and that you find it interesting, but the problem is that there are no WP:RS to back that up. All of the sources show standard news reporting that is typical in a murder case without any sources that have significant commentary about the case and treat it as unusual. To say it is unusual based on the news reports alone is borderline synthesis. Also, to wit, the figure of 15,000 murders per year is significantly low-balled; this source indicates 15,000+ murders in 2009 alone. Most murders are not notable in the encyclopedic sense. Wikipedia is not a database of every single crime, and there needs to be significant indication beyond the standard local news reporting common to most murders of otherwise to consider it encyclopedic. Likewise, to say "if this is not unusual there must be hundreds (at least) of other cases... I would be interested to see a few citations of such" is an illogical argument. To show this case is notable/unusual, it must be shown that it is notable/unusual from the sources about this subject, and not assumed to be notable due to a lack of citations about other similar crimes. After all, those hypothetical crimes are not the subject of this article. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my view, this article is a clear example of using Wikipedia as a newspaper: it has no enduring notability, it was created (originally as a BLP for David G. Ludwig) while the event was unfolding, and now it's long over. I see no benefit to keeping it around, and no recent improvements have been made to indicate otherwise. Athene cunicularia (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 28 October 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) 04:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granular Search engine optimization

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

Non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, unreferenced, no signicant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, original research per WP:NOR, ~~borderline WP:SPAM for company that's claimed to have invented it~~. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed WP:SPAM from the nomination, as the article no longer mentions or links to that company. Top Jim (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This term is not widely used in the search engine optimization industry, as evident by the 4 search results (including Wikipedia and the external link spam that the nom has removed). Now, normally GHITs don't matter, but when the subject of your article claims to be a term used in internet marketing, four results is just unacceptable. It's a marketing buzzword and a covert advertisement for a non-notable SEO company.--hkr Laozi speak 12:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for the reasons explained by the Hong Kong Resident. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and Hongkongresident; coatrack spam. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources about this neologism. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:40, 26 October 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Stoffer

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable enough person--anything substantial can be covered in the Real World and Electric Playground articles. Suggest no redirect as she is too obscure and it's not clear to which article this should be redirected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Real World: New Orleans#Cast. I think it is clear where the article should be redirected. If she's mainly known as a cast member on the Real World (which got her the role on The Electric Playground), why not redirect to The Real World: New Orleans#Cast?--hkr Laozi speak 08:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep or redirect - though seems like keep is fine. though as a blp article it needs watchers, and vigourous sourcing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The one bit of vandalism was fixed almost immediately and was fairly minor. I've been watching it since it was recreated and obviously others have been too. Hobit (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing in the article more than meets GNG. Notice there was a DrV recently where the userspace draft was widely accepted. See my [47]. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom's confession that he can't figure out where a redirect should point is a good indication that separate notability may have been established. Appears to have multiple independent RS'es covering her in multiple contexts. Jclemens (talk) 16:49, 28 October 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) 04:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Security Industry Association

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

This page, and Securities Industry Association which redirects to it, queried speedy delete "blatant copyrights violations from a page on the SIA's former website, available at [48]". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it is "selfcopyvio", i.e. the same man or company set up this page and the external page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article for quite a while and invested quite a bit of time in it. To summarize a little, the history of the page is the history of the page as it existed under the name, apparently from the start, of Securities Industry Association. The latter trade association was, until 2006, the organ of the securities industry, more specifically the equities (stock) market. In that year, it merged with a bond-oriented org. to form Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. I came at the article from the securities side and quickly, maybe more than once over recent years, noted and tried to correct the naming mistake. However I've never been able to just change the name due at least in part to my unfamiliarity with that Wiki process.

Anyway, in the recent history, one sees that the article, under (finally; or simultaneously to the inception of) the correct name, was in effect immediately deleted for "blatant copyright violation." I made a near-discouraged plea and the deletion was reversed and we're now just a candidate for deletion. One cannot, it seems, access the old talk page of the old Securities Industry Association page, where the course of the odyssey-to-date could be more fully tracked. Bits of it exist here, here, here, and here.

I'm not able to contribute to the article itself right now -- the discouraged/exhausted aura hovers, despite the boost from the temporary respite -- but since getting into this I've heard more about the book The Music of the Primes: Searching to Solve the Greatest Mystery in Mathematics (HarperCollins, 2004) by mathematician Marcus du Sautoy. It seems, now that I look, that neither the book or the author have made it to Wiki yet, but one Amazon customer review, quoting the book, says "'The story of the primes spreads well beyond the mathematical world' from quantum physics to computer security. With respect to computer security, 'The primes now affect all our lives as they protect the world's electronic secrets from the prying eyes of Internet hackers'" [my emphasis]. That's part of what I'd heard about the book. I think the trade org. for the security industry (which includes computer security) ought to have an article.

A couple of specifics.

Would proper footnoting to "SIA's former website" at archive.org be sufficient, maybe with quoteblock, to "clear" the offending content and set the stage for the article to go forward organically, perhaps with advisory template(s)?
Second, on the above-mentioned old talk page of the old Securities Industry Association page, I think it was, where discussion was proceeding about my name-change proposal, I worked out the template to refer inquiries about the Securities Industry Association to the successor SIFMA page. If that template could be retrieved, I'd appreciate it. It would of course be better than having Securities Industry Association redirect here. Maybe a reflexive template at SIFMA would be wise, too, since maintaining the distinction is difficult.

I'll rest my case with that for now. I expect I'll try at least to convert the Primes bit into a contribution to the article fairly soon. I am going to cross-post this input to my own user talk page because it looks like this page could disappear as part of one process or another going forward.

I do apologize for not immersing in all the relevant Wikipedia procedures. I know I've caused at least some inconvenience to fellow editors in the process. But I'm trying to bring what I can to the table at each step in the interests of the encyclopedia.

Thanks for past and continuing attention. Swliv (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatant copyright violation from [49] since its creation. Irrespective of the notability of subjects (or lack thereof), we simply cannot accept copyright violations. Attribution of the entire article as a direct quotation is insufficient to remedy the copyright infringement, as the extensive use of non-free text is incompatible with the brevity required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 October 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) 04:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TLF4277

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

Article appears to fail notability guidelines. Original article draft was full of copyrighted content, taken directly from the product info sheet of the article's subject. I am not an expert on this topic, but it appears that TLF4277 is just a model number of a specific power supply device, and is in no way notable above other devices in the same category. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very expert of the automotive field, but I've heard about TLF4277, cause this is the first automotive IC for active antenna supply, which integrated various functions for direct ADC interfacing greatly reducing the external components normally used on this kind of applications. It brings benefits of cost, space and reliability for the radio antenna applications. TLF4277 should be important because I know since its introduction other semiconductor companies tried to copy it and then have started to produce similar IC families. So it could be considered like the "first of a kind".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Infineon Technologies. I would support a keep if it was cleaned up, expanded, and referenced. But as of now, there's not enough content, so it's better to redirect to the manufacturer.--hkr Laozi speak 07:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ delete no indication of notability and a search just turns up datasheets and product listings, i.e. nothing you could call a reliable source.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On reflection I agree that deletion's better. It's not mentioned in Infineon Technologies, probably never will be, so as a non-obvious series of letters and numbers it will just confuse readers that discover it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No reliable sources or indication of notability. A press release isn't sufficient. It could be redirected to Infineon Technologies, but there is no mention of the product in that article and it can't be added due to a lack of sources. Therefore, I prefer deletion. —UncleDouggie (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per UncleDouggie. Hey Mid (contributions) 10:20, 31 October 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granfalloon

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

This whole article is all about a fictional religious group - except for the part that's probably original research D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although it was originally coined in the context of a fictional religious group, it has quite a bit of wider currency. There's quite a bit of dreck to wade through, but a Google Scholar search is productive. Article needs rewritten, not deleted. I've already gotten myself backlogged on cleanup requests, but I'll try to sneak some in here, too. 153.2.247.30 (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the now-classic concepts invented in an extremely notable novel. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Started in a novel, expanded from there to have its own independent notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick skim through the Google Books and Scholar results linked in the nomination show clear notability. I would advise the nominator to check the spoon-fed searches before saving AfD nominations. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:04, 28 October 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 merge to Horatio Hornblower#Ships_featured . Black Kite (t) (c) 10:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Justinian

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

I'm a big fan of Horatio Hornblower, but this is a bit much. There's no need to create an article for each ship he served on. They're mostly just plot summaries that are already covered in the novel articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Merge all to List of fictional ships from the Horation Hornblower series 76.66.196.13 (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Horatio Hornblower. The individual ships don't justify an article, but I don't even think a full list would justify one. There is a nicely formated and comprehensive list here, to which further information could easily be added. That, I think, would suffice.--Korruski^Talk 13:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have long meant to follow up on this consensus to cite/merge much of this content into Horatio Hornblower or perhaps a separate list. While I believe most of these ship articles can rightly be redirected with minimal, if any, merge, I believe there's sufficient fodder suggested at the Justinian talk page to instead believe that an article-by-article selective merge and redirect is the best course. --EEMIV (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Horatio Hornblower#Ships_featured or some appropriate target, per Korruski. Ray^Talk 05:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing nom If the consensus is to delete or merge these articles, a CFD should be started for Category:Hornblower ships. Ray^Talk 06:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Horatio Hornblower#Ships_featured as per most everyone. Edward321 (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I agree that these articles should contain a bare minimum of plot points. Geo Swan (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I disagree with creating a List of fictional ships from the Horation Hornblower series. HMS Clorinda is just as deserving of an entry in List of fictional sailing frigates. HMS Justinian is just as deserving of an entry in List of fictional ships of the line. Both vessels deserve an entry in List of fictional ships. If we cram all the details into a single article it simply isn't properly possible for other articles that want to link to the topic to do so. If something is worthy of a wikilink it is worthy of an article of its own. Geo Swan (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I have three technical reservations to the idea of redirecting these articles to Horatio Hornblower#Ships_featured. I know wikilinks to subsection heading is widely used in the WP: namespace. And I know that this technique is lightly used in the article namespace. This technique should not be used at all, in the article namespace because two of the most powerful features of our underlying software only work for wikilinks that link to a whole article. One contributor can innocently change a section heading, possibly only correcting a single character's spelling or capitalization. They have no way of telling that that section heading is part of an incoming wikilink, and that their minor correction will break the link. But it will break the link. Each use of this technique is a disaster just waiting to happen. If it is worth linking to it is worth a whole article. 01:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment -- Wikilinks to Horatio Hornblower#Ships_featured or Horatio Hornblower#Ships_Hornblower sailed in is a bad idea, because there is no "what links here" for section headings. The "what links here" feature is one of our most powerful features, and it shouldn't be sacrificed without a good reason. If it is worth linking to it is worth a whole article. Geo Swan (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Wikilinks to Horatio Hornblower#Ships_featured or Horatio Hornblower#Ships_Hornblower sailed in is a bad idea, because we can put Horatio Hornblower or HMS Justinian on our watchlists. We can't put Horatio Hornblower#Ships_Hornblower sailed in on our watchlists. We shouldn't squander the value of very useful features for no real benefit. If it is worth linking to it is worth a whole article. Geo Swan (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all -- for the reasons given above. Geo Swan (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Where do the weight, length and complement numbers come from? It's been a while since I last read the books, but I don't recall most of them being mentioned. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those people objecting to the merge to a section heading, I agree. Please note that my !vote was not to do this, but to merge simply to Horatio Hornblower. I only mentioned the section as the obvious place to put any useful content taken from this article. Other commenters may have misunderstood what I was saying, but their comments are not actually 'per Korruski' :p--Korruski^Talk 09:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, probably to a separate list. The ships might as well be fictional characters themselves, no? So why not their own list article? Jclemens (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and expand. Though there ought to be no reason not to have a combined article, in practice I consider it best to keep separate articles for all major elements of important fiction. If we merge into combined articles, content will be lost. Important content, by those who probably think it enough to have a list of the ships matched up with the years and the individual novels, without discussing the role of these key elements of setting in the story. There's a literature discussing it enough to provide some sources, some of which are mentioned in the linked talk p. discussion. The only hope for keeping content is to keep separate articles. That's not to say these are good or even adequate articles--they're sketchy and absurd, and something could be said for the view that the content is not worth preserving, and is best started over. I disagree with that approach. I think that for everyone here confident enough to can write an article from scratch, 5 or 10 people can expand one, often working bit by bit, as shown by the history of most of our good articles, and facilitating this is the main advantages of communal writing on a wiki in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to a separate list. Seems like a valid compromise for articles that are basically just WP:PLOT summaries which goes against WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge suitable way to treat nonnotable fictional content. Create a list and build that up. 24.114.233.34 (talk) 17:05, 2 November 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 consensus is to delete, but should a reliable source be found, I am happy to restore this article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English language idioms derived from falconry

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

I don't believe this is notable enough to warrant an article. It's a highly obscure topic which could be considered OR, and there are no refs. I propose either deletion or merging of the content. Comments? —out^offocus 03:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are common English expressions, and the features of falconry which these expressions are derived from are major central parts of falconry. For refs, ask any falconer, or look in many falconry books. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's true, many idioms are derived from falconry. But just as many idioms are derived from sailing, gardening, and so on, and it would be silly have a separate article for each. This is better suited to be a category on Wiktionary, not an article on Wikipedia. --hkr Laozi speak 07:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per hkr's rationale above; no indication that falconry-based idioms are an encyclopedic subset of idioms in general, and inclusion of such seemingly arbitrary lists borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The statements themselves appear to be more of use at Wiktionary. If anything can be sourced, such could be merged into the idiom article or falconry article. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. --Diego Grez (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So indeed, Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, but an article on the common origins of words seems plenty fine to me, providing it meets the GNG. As of now, we have no sources in the article, which holds me back from recommending a keep. Can it be sourced? Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course it can be sourced, since the etymology of each phrase can be. I see no reason not to have similar article on idioms from "sailing, gardening, and so on,". It would be absurd to merge these into a list of idioms--such an overgeneral group would not be useful. Any distinct class of words treated asa class is suitable for an article (yes, Wiktionary could do this also, but it doesn't--it seems to be deprecatingthe entire set of idioms lists) DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 29 October 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 keep. The rationale for nomination is insufficient and possibly disruptive. No prejudice to renomination on legitimate policy/guideline-based grounds that do not contravene WP:POINT. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rage (Transformers)

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

cruft. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close -- wholly insufficient deletion rationale. This kind of language immediately poisons the well for any hope of meaningful discussion of topic. --EEMIV (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, insufficient deletion rationale. A more detailed explanation than "cruft" is required. I'm starting to suppose the nominator acts in bad faith. JIP | Talk 06:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - As said above, additionally the nominator seems to have taken the habit of nominating the articles I edit last the last few days and nominating them. Seems to be a vendetta, not an actual attempt to improve wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The same editor made a similar nomination for Lugnut (Transformers), which should also likely be closed. Mathewignash (talk) 08:03, 26 October 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of college athletic programs by U.S. state

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

Totally unnecessary as a list of {{Main}}s with some content about Canada tacked on at the end. These are all in a category anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a list of lists is fine, and this is a list of bluelinks with a clear theme. No policy-based reason for deletion has been articulated: we aren't constrained to a list or a category. Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lists like this are a basic organizational device. I am beginning to think that we need a bot to strike out all arguments asking to delete lists because we have a category. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 29 October 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. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Castaway (TV series)

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

Show that may or may not exist and may or may not air; no hint of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 01:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This show may or may not air. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If and when it does air we can re-add the article. Travelbird (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jenks24 (talk) 13:27, 30 October 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) 04:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of America's Next Top Model Photo Shoots

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

Fancruft at its most mindbogglingly unencyclopedia; an orphaned blank skeleton with no sources and no reason to exist. Orange Mike | Talk 01:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another mind-numbingly dull piece of Top Model cruft from an editor that has seen many pages like this deleted for the same reasons. Not only unsourced, but an extreme misuse of templates at its worst (thank goodness they have them contained on the page alone so we don't have to take this through an annoying secondary TfD nom process). Nate • (chatter) 05:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless list. Malcolma (talk) 09:38, 30 October 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. Mkativerata (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WINk-Magazine

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

Non-notable online magazine; near-advertisement. Orange Mike | Talk 01:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly crafted as an advertisement. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 01:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It does not appear to be a remarkable publication. Morgankevinj(talk) 02:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like an advertisement. JIP | Talk 06:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability per WP:WEB, and thinly-veiled WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 28 October 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) 04:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sociophysics

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

Non-notable neologism; violative of WP:ONEDAY and WP:NEO. Orange Mike | Talk 00:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral Really? A quick look at Google Sholar, Google News and Google Books shows quite a significant amount of coverage on this subject. WP:ONEDAY doesn't seem to apply here at all. Vodello (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - It would seem that several people have made up this term over the decades; but each definition seems more bogus and farcical than the next, and they don't seem to agree with each other. The schoolroom of WP:ONEDAY can be a grad school staff room as well as some sixth-grader's cafeteria. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - k, just checking Vodello (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Regardless of whether the topic is notable or not, this article in its current form is patent nonsense (including quite a few statements that are clearly false), and can be speedily deleted as such. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is sociophysical babbling. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are sources that describe a field of endeavour known as sociophysics. They even note how, until relatively recently, the name has been "more slogan than science". This article bears no relation to what I can find in those sources. A redirect to econophysics might be appropriate, failing a proper article here, although sociophysics is supposedly the broader field of the twain. Uncle G (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - recent edits have made it much worse gibberish than it was before. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:29, 29 October 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) 04:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DOCS Education

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/DOCS Education

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

Company that provided continuing education to dentists fails WP:ORG. The citations point to claims about sedation dentistry, but do not support notability of the subject. The "Further reading" section contains trivial mentions, press releases, and dead links. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Silverman. Location (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, non-notable. Of the eight links provided, three are deadlinks, three others are press releases, one mentions the organization only in passing, and one is self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 1 November 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, author requested deletion (WP:G7). Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flaum

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

Delete - Already submitted as Marshall Flaum. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:29 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the creator, I acknowledge it should be deleted. I didn't delete it earlier to allow time for the creator of the Marshall Flaum article to take any of the content that's useful. Plenty of time has passed now, so go ahead and delete. Cbl62 (talk) 00:49, 26 October 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Murray (politician)

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

Non-notable ex-colonel and political candidate who has never held office; fails WP:POLITICIAN test Orange Mike | Talk 00:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 8 per precedent in similar articles (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Weber, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rami Bader (politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naheed Nenshi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Coyle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Johnston, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Marie Buerkle (Politician)). Location (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - A major candidate in a notable race for a federal office. I don't see how this fails WP:POLITICIAN at all. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 01:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It fails WP:POLITICIAN because there is no significant coverage in independent sources outside the context of the election, so redirect to the election article is warranted per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:Wikipedia is not a source for election candidate biographies. Location (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The election itself is notable, it's for a federal office. A major party candidate in a race for federal office is notable and fulfills WP:POLITICIAN. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 03:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:POLITICIAN does not say what you say it does and precedent (see above) does not agree with you. Location (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least through the election These AFD tags on politicians the week before the election are getting tiresome. What's the rush? By the time this AFD is over, we will know if the candidate is notable or not... any speculation/!voting prior to the election at this point is premature and and a waste of time/energy. If they get elected, then they are notable, if not, then we can clean the 'pedia up... but at this point, any action taken by Wikipedia looks political especially on articles that have existed for 4+ months.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well... The point of these deletion requests is that Wikipedia does not want to become a free advertising space for candidates. People should only have a page here if they have already become notable not if they might become notable in the future using Wikipedia as a tool to do so. Travelbird (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yet again I will indulge those who don't think these politicians already meet the GNG's:
    - Fairfax Times has an article w/ significant coverage on Murray.
    - WTOP TV has an article dedicated to Murray's military career.
    - The Dailykos on Murray
    - WMAL radio on Murray
    - The American spectator
    - American Chronicle's in depth coverage
    - Business Wire coverage
    - Alexandria Times has in depth coverage
    - A number of papers from accross the country found the endorsement of Murray by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste Political Action Committee (CCAGW PAC) notable enough to cover, those include but are not limited to: MSNBC,Rueters,Forbes, Denver Post,SF Chronicle
  - While not significant coverage of Murray himself, it is interesting that the Voice of America talked about him.
  - Meeting the criteria for POLITIICAN does not define if a person is notable enough for Wikipedia, it is a back-up guideline that people use when GNG fails. In the above I only cited each source only once, I could have provided multiple coverages of Murray from the same sources. Nor did I resort to questionable sources, all of those sources easily meet the standards for reliable sources. And, unless noted, they are all significant coverage of Murray...eg not trivial. The fact is that anybody running for US Senator/Representative/Governor will have enough sources to meet the GNG---POLITICIAN does not supersede GNG.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per earlier suggestion. I am heartened to see others filing nominations this morning, too. As for the specifics of Mr. Murray here, this falls short of WP:POLITICIAN (I will note that "Nintendude64" above is completely misrepresenting this guideline in his "speedy keep" entries), as he is only a nominee for office. Murray also fails the GNG, as the coverage is scant (one brief mention in the WaPo). Tarc (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP at this time. One, he was elected in the primary election. Two, the article uses the congressional candidate infobox, which has been around for a long time and was presumably created for these sorts of people. By some of the reasoning here, that infobox could never be used. Any person notable for something else would be using an infobox related to that other notability, which makes it a Catch 22 situation. Flatterworld (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT. This request is taking the wrong path. The proper path is to use the Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates, invite all those involved in both articles, and discuss the issue until consensus is reached. That's why those Templates exist, and that's why they're (normally) used when the issue involves (but not necessarily limited to) a claim that a person is notable only for one event. If consensus is reached, then an actual merge of material rather than a simple delete, or even a delete and redirect, is done. See Scott Harper for an example of this. For an example of the opposite, note that one of the claimed Redirects mentioned above, Ann Marie Buerkle, shows no history at all of what was in the previous article. That article was actually deleted, then a redirect was added after the fact. That's why it's wrong to do deletes in these cases, and that's been the consensus achieved in many, many AfD requests for various political candidates over the years. The other examples show no evidence of any actual merge of material. There seems to be a lot of confusion on the definition of 'merge' here. It is not a synonym for a redirect. There are two steps, and both must be taken. Flatterworld (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some of these cases, there were merge templates that sat around for a week. I redirected two of these only to be reverted by (I believe) InaMaka. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Marie Buerkle (Politician), it is unfortunate that that was closed as a literal delete, when IMO the history should have been preserved under a redirect. You can always request that that be done from that closing admin, I don't see it as a controversial request. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus. There's nothing in the template which says 'will be done within a week' as an AfD does. Flatterworld (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flatter, what is wrong with keeping if the candidate meets GNG as this one does?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now signed my keep request above my comment, which made my position on this particular article unclear. Apologies for that. Flatterworld (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, at first I didn't realize they were one in the same.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least temporarily. per Flatterworld and Bds69. As to this particular article, just wait one week and then after Election Day there will be time to decide which articles are to be deleted and which ones will be merged. There is no harm to Wikipedia in waiting, but there is huge potential harm to Wikipedia in destroying editor's work prematurely. It makes Wikipedia look like a partisan free for all. Also, complete deletion is absolutely wrong. There are less destructive ways to handle these articles.--InaMaka (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Location Racepacket (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Location. As the nom says, no notability exists. For that matter, no notability is likely, given that the seat is rated a safe Democratic. I find no sign of coverage significant enough to pass GNG independent of WP:POLITICIAN. Ray^Talk 05:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GNG supercedes POLITICIAN not the other way around. There is plenty of coverage on him, so we do not have to fall abck to POLITICIAN.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article refers to an article specifically about this election: Virginia's 8th congressional district election, 2010. I had previously tagged that article with a Merge request to be merged into United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 8. imo this is an example of a lot of forking done only to try to get 'eyeballs' when googling, and we don't need this sort of thing for every election and every candidate. There's no reason the material can't be merged and redirected. Flatterworld (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor a low bar for inclusion of active politicians as a public service. Independent coverage of congressional politicians is massive and every R or D candidate and most minor party candidates for these offices should be regarded as notable per se the same way that every pro baseball player is assumed to be covered by third party sourcing. Proximity to the election makes me especially hesitant to advise deletion of such material. Carrite (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article for the 2008 Republican nominee for this seat, Mark Ellmore, was nominated for similar reasons but just got deleted a few months ago. If Murray loses, the article shouldn't stay that long, but we should keep it at least through the election. He has received significant coverage recently, most notably two national TV interviews on FOX News, FOX Business, and a separate segment about him also on FOX News, and articles about him on FOX Business again, The Daily Caller, The Weekly Standard, in addition to substantial coverage in local media (local NBC News, Washington Examiner, and WTOP Radio, among others). So there are references out there, we just need to incorporate them into the article. Perhaps a refimprove tag would be better than deletion. BS24 (talk) 23:48, 31 October 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) 00:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Morris (musician)

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

NN musician, fails WP:BAND no coverage I did my best to filter out the cigarette company CTJF83 chat 04:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the non-infringing stub after a previous version appeared at WP:CP as a candidate for deletion. I can't now remember why I decided this person merited my efforts in creating such a stub, but there must have been a reason at the time - usually an article with multiple editors over a bit of time in addition to the main copyvio contribution. I know nothing about hip-hop, but have started to cast an eye over WP:CP after being shocked when the article on a notable person was deleted, losing all the non-infringing infrastructure of categories, redirects, infobox, which previous editors had worked on, because some earlier editor had done a copy-and-paste, so I try and rescue a few articles on notable subjects. PamD (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you reason for keep is....you can't remember? CTJF83 chat 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice regarding recreation, should an improved version be possible. Reliable sources extremely difficult to find, possibly due to his namesake flooding google hits, possibly due to lack of notability. Self-published sources suggest he is the subject of two documentary films. Neither appear to be notable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:34, 26 October 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 A hoax, AFD became a place to disrupt wikipedia and continue the hoax. Salix (talk): 06:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell (mathematics)

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

Hoax r.e.b. (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know that someone is going to come here and protest, so let me point out that a shell is supposed to simultaneously generalize sheaves, presheaves, and closed differentiable manifolds in three dimensional space. This does not make sense (it is not possible to represent all sheaves as closed differentiable manifolds in three dimensional space, let alone generalize them). The supposed "Lang-Lang program" does not exist and is probably a pun on the pianist Lang Lang. A closed differentiable manifold in three space is either a closed surface or a circle, and so it is impossible for it to contain more than a single sphere, contrary to the suggestion of the definition of a closed shell. The Grothendieck construction is abstract category theory and has nothing to do with manifolds. And the reference to Herstein's Algebra is wrong; Herstein does not discuss these supposed objects. Ozob (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax and misuse of references. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hoax that attempts to confuse the reader with jargon, etc., into believing this is a legitimate article. Multiple inaccuracies and disingenuously sourced, as already pointed out above. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shell theory is an actual mathematical theory. I agree that some of the specifics of the theory have been inaccurately presented in the article. It is obvious that the person who wrote the original article is not an expert in shell theory himself. The thing to do in these cases is to correct these mistakes, not delete the entire article. I promise to do my fair share of the work and present a better case as to the theory's mathematical validity later today. I also urge everyone considering deletion to wait for a few days as most of the experts in the field are attending a conference these days. --129.67.149.66 (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC) — 129.67.149.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as hoax. The name Matsudo seems central in this field; the Matsudo campus of Chiba University does exist, but "J.D.Matsudo himself", so liberally quoted from, is an elusive figure:

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

-- JohnCD (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indeed, this is an actual theory. The generalisation is rather abstract and it is not very well presented. It is related to category theory and topos theory (hence sheaves and presheaves), and the 3D manifolds come as an early example that actually gave rise to the name "shell". I agree that the mathematical content is not very well presented in the article and often confused with the "intuition" (shells, contents, etc). IMHO, we should give a few days for experts to evaluate this and improve on the article. I will personaly contact some coleagues who have worked in the subject and try to find some actual references. The name Matsudo is indeed a funny coincidence that is often pointed out as an inside joke. Regards, Jacob B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.184.43 (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: you say you will try to find some "actual references." Do you maintain that the references in the article are genuine? Does "J.D.Matsudo" exist? Can you provide a checkable source for his existence and his alleged quotes? (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). If this were a case of genuine material unclearly presented by a non-expert, then correcting it might be the way to go; but if, as appears from the comments above, it is false material, sources and quotes presented as a joke, that is an unpromising starting point for a genuine article. Best to dump the whole mess and let someone write an article from scratch who (a) is serious and (b) knows what he is talking about. JohnCD (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:129.67.184.43 already stated in an edit summary:

Definitely not an hoax. Shell theory exists indeed. I have worked in the field myself for years. It is simply a not very clearly written article

I don't think we need to wait for our expert to appear. Probably a prank intended to catch out a fellow student at the university mathematics department the IP address traces to. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has anyone not considered the quote in the box? "She sells sea shells by the sea shore" is a line from an old British music hall song (and a rather good tongue-twister), and I could assume Y. Yum to be either Yum Yum (see The Mikado) or simply the sound of delight made by slightly old-fashioned children. On the other hand, the Shigeo Koshitani and Yutaka Yoshii work exists (but is mis-spelt here as 'Eigenvales' which should of course be 'Eigenvalues'), but only seems to be available online by paying (which I do not intend to do). As regards Matsudo, there are Victor and Sandra M., scientists but not apparently in maths, Mie M. who may be involved with maths (but I'm not downloading a vast pdf to check) - but I can't find a J.D.. Can the full names of J.D. and also of Y. Yum be supplied to us? And what the heck they have to do with things anyway as nothing is actually attributed to them (apart from Matsudo's mixture of surreal and banal quotes). I agree with JohnCD (above) about the article's present and future - as it stands). Peridon (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 'Keeps' from two IP addresses above, 129.67.149.66 and 129.67.184.43 - both of which trace to a certain very well known and very long established English university. Interesting.... Peridon (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least six IPs from Oxford University (let's not beat about the bush) have edited the article or removed tags. Of course, it could be all one person - the history doesn't show a lot of overlap. What is interesting is that the article was first tagged as a hoax by an Oxford University IP. JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting too that the article started out as being about Kan extensions, until Shell0101 got to it. There's an Asia Pacific IP putting on and apparently taking off hoax tags too. Peridon (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although WHOIS gives "Asia Pacific Network Information Centre" for two of them, Traceroute for those two ends up with wolf.ox.ac.uk - Wolfson College. The rest are comlab.ox.ac.uk or maths.ox.ac.uk.

Delete Looks very likely that article in its current state is a hoax. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a professor of mathematics from Cambridge University and I can attest to the fact that shell theory is an existing mathematical theory. To be honest, I am one of the people who are not entirely convinced as to the correctness of this line of research. The question here is not whether this article is a hoax; it is whether shell theory is valid mathematics and not quackery. Alas, the answer to this question is not for wikipedia to decide, but for the greater mathematical community, where it is still an open problem. My biggest problem with shell theory is that it leads to paradoxical informatic ontologies. I would like to add a number of citations that reflect this view to the currently existing article. Unfortunately 1) the article is currently protected and 2) many of these citations are from japanese journals that are not available online... but I could arrange to email scanned copies to anyone interested! --188.221.247.39 (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC) — 188.221.247.39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You are welcome to put useful information here. But I would much prefer if you stopped wasting our time. Ozob (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a notice for modificationsI agree to a certain extent with the last comment, although not with its excessive tone. I would myself think this is a hoax, did I not know Matsudo and its research. Although this guy (Matsudo) is more or less crazy, he has done some valuable yet largely unknown work. Also, in line with last comment, some of the claims of the article (for example the TOE hope) are clearly over the hype, and a section should be added where this claims of (some) shell-theorists should be clearly refuted. The article itself also needs reformulation: filling in more details would help explain the subject more clearly. On a different note, about the Oxford thing, I believe Matsudo has some connections with research groups there. In fact, it was one Oxford student that sent an email today alerting some experts in related fields (including myself) about the (probably) bad article and all the discussion generated that puts the good name of the field and its researchers in questions. I am not the person indicated for this job as I no longer work on related fields (and to be honest never understood the theory very well myself), but I would suggest that we let such experts edit it. Clarence Takahashi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.17.214 (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC) — 111.68.17.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. This is an obvious and somewhat lame hoax. The article has no verifiable content, and all of the "keep" votes above are from sock puppets of the author of the article. Jim (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3 as a hoax. Ray^Talk 04:46, 27 October 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Coal Alliance

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

fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit [50]. a non notable little community action group. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The curse of Google news strikes again. The crappy footnotes to this rather crappy WP article note other sources - were they checked? In any case, there are other news references to the group, such as in the Central Coast Express Advocate (this is just one example - there are other articles in that source). Also have found news items (not available through Google news) in the Daily Telegraph ("Anti-coal logo sparks a blazing row"), Newcastle Herald ("Bid for last of coalfield") and ABC Regional News ("October deadline for Wallarah 2 decision"). And those were just from the first page of hits using another search engine (not a free one). The results cover a three year period and do not all relate to a single event. This is a non-starter as an AfD I think, however pathetic or tagged the actual WP article might be. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage needs to be about them, not them commenting on something else. The central coast express is not about them, it just has them commenting on the subject of the article. "Anti-coal logo sparks a blazing row" just has a statement from their spokesman, it's not about them. "Bid for last of coalfield" only says "Australian Coal Alliance, which opposes the mine, has a commitment from the State Opposition to reject the mine and is pressuring the Labor Government to match the pledge." about them, not significant coverage. "October deadline for Wallarah 2 decision" only says "Wyong Shire Mayor Bob Graham, who is also a patron of the Australian Coal Alliance which is opposing the mine," about them, not significant coverage. From the article: "Coal mining inquiry near Wyong" just says "But campaign coordinator for the Australian Coal Alliance Alan Hayes told the Sydney Morning Herald that there was substantive and compelling evidence that the mine will impact on the integrity of the water catchment.", not significant coverage. "Voters' backlash looms against coal mine" just has their coordinator commenting about the mine proposal, it's not about them. "Residents fear coal dust will make them sick" is the best but looks like a local interest piece about the proposed mine and ACAs campaign to stop it. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't support a distinction that separates something being "about them" from something being "about their actions". An article that reports the views or actions of a group is about that group. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree about the "about them" and "about their actions" being the same. Apart from the last article which I said was the best none go into any detail about their actions (a quote from their spokesman is not, IMO, significant coverage). Until I see any real coverage about them or their actions outside locl press (central coast express) I can not argue for the keeping of this page. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says "sources address the subject directly in detail". LibStar (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I am saying that when the activities of an organisation that go to its very reason for existing (in this case, to lobby etc in relation to an issue) are reported, then that "addresses the subject directly". I understand others have a different view, I'm just saying that that is mine. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 October 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 Emmanuel Marty and Jerome Grandsire already deleted; Funpause already redirected to Big Fish Games -- all by MuZemike (not exactly sure why the AfD was relisted after it was deleted though). Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Marty

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

This bio of a living person fails to provide any sufficient claim to notability or references other than user-generated content and a mention that his company was bought by Big Fish Games - which is more relevant to the BFG article than this one. I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:

- Addionne (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Addionne (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 October 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 close. Already redirected to Big Fish Games (co-nominated articles already deleted). (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funpause

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

Article fails to assert notability of the company. The few references are all related to the purchase by Big Fish Games - and any relevant info about the takeover could potentially be moved there. I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:

-Addionne (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Addionne (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge everything into Big Fish Games, since the company's been purchased by what (might be?) a more notable company.--Hongkongresident (talk) 07:20, 26 October 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) 00:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imad A. Abulaban

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

None of the sources in the article actually has any coverage of the subject, and I have been unable to find any other sources that do. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prod-er, fails WP:N -- John of Reading (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The following is copied from my talk page in case other editors wish to comment or disagree:

Dear John,

as per your conversation of notability, find hereunder the link where his name is mentioned in all the projects and links.

some are press releases, some are official like DIFC, some are joint ventures and some are websites. these links are not helpfull to have notability on Imad Abulaban?

2.^ "CapitalStone Holding at DIFC"http://www.difc.ae/apps/registers/DifcRegistrySearch/result.php?companyId=1009
5.^ "Choueifat". http://shweifat.tripod.com/listingname.htm
8.^ "Imad at Polystar". http://www.polystarcorp.com/AboutUs/AboutUs.htm
9.^ "PolyStar"http://www.polystarcorp.com/ContactUs/ContactUs.htm
10.^ "PolyStar". http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=6&section=0&article=45366&d=21&m=5&y=2004
14.^ "City Fanar". http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-118104450.html
15.^ "PolyStar & Fanar"http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20040522104718/Saudi%20Arabia%3A%20Rikaz%20Appoints%20PolyStar%20to%20Manage%20City%20Fanar%20Project
16.^ "CapitalStone JV Zawya" http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20100930124434
17.^ "CapitalStone at EWI"http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20101017061608
19.^ "McGovern+Moriarty & CapitalStone JV"http://www.ameinfo.com/243550.html

(Samour72 (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've had another look at these links. I don't think any of them help to establish his notability:

2 is merely a directory entry. I assume that this web site lists a very large number of companies, big and small
5 merely confirms that he went to a particular college. (I went to college too, but that doesn't make me notable)
8 is not an independent source
9 is not an independent source
10 looks as it derives from a press release. It merely quotes something said by IA.
14 is mostly about the company, not the person. The part that I can see does not mention IA.
15 looks like the same content as 10 - though the site only showed me the text for a few seconds because I'm not prepared to register
16 is a press release
17 is a press release
19 is a press release

-- John of Reading (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Samour72 (talk) here are a couple of references will these help?

http://www.kabuljebain.com/books/stories/Stories_C5.pdf
http://dwc.hct.ac.ae/dwcweb/images/desert_dawn/DesertDawn18.1-June2008.pdf
www.mygri.com/GRI2010MenaBrochure.pdf (Samour72 (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

These documents mention Imad Abulaban but they are not about him. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The following is copied from my talk page:

Hi John, After reviewing your notes, i would like to expalin one thing that maybe you didn't consider, which is Imad Abulaban is the owner, cofounder, President and CEO of Polystar, Projacs and CapitalStone. so any conversation that talks about the projects or the companies mentioned above would be giving natability for Imad. is it true or not? as for the links mentioned above also, we would like to aknowldge you the following:

2 DIFC (Dubai International Financial Center) is ranked 7th in the World, when you are registered with them you have to be eligible and have credibility to be registered with them, as well as they are on wikipedia too.
5 National Shcool of Choueifat (SABIS) is No 1 school in Lebanon and one of the best in the region, if you look it up they have branches gloabaly now. As well as Imad is cofounder of the Alumini. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_School_of_Choueifat

http://www.sabis.net/

8(9) as website are not notable can it be replaced with press releases, Zawya, Ameifo, Albawaba, highbeam, arabnews are all known in the region, as they are not in the states but you have to look and consider our region which is the Gulf region too.
10 PolyStar is committed to developing strategies for managing risks and selecting the appropriate method of financing to ensure the maximum return on investment for City Fanar,” said Imad Abulaban, CEO and president, PolyStar Incorporated. “We bring with us our experience of managing complex projects, including the ability to control budgets, schedules, design and construction,” he said.

thats more than 40 words said by Imad Abulaban.how come it dosn't quote what IA said.

14 Polystar is owned by Imad Abulaban, so this is notability on the comapnies preformance which is reflecting on his preformance.
16 (17,19) as per point above *8(9) as well as Mcgovern+Moriarty is owned by CapitalStone by 1/3, so it is owned partialy by Imad Abulaban, while McGover+Moriairty are one of the big corportation in development where they built iconic developments to name few CANARY WHARF in London, EURO DISNEY in Paris as well as the PETRONAS TOWERS in Kuala Lumpur, Atlantic Wharf, Museum of Fine Arts ~ Boston, MA, Harvard Riverside Dormitory, Metro Lofts, • ING ~ Windsor, CT, Manchester Place ~ Manchester, NH, • Lorien Hotel & Spa and so many more. here is a link for their website. http://www.jm-a.com/

and last but not lease Bloomberg is well known internationaly, here is a press release about McGovern+Moriarty and CapitalStone (again is owned by Imad Abulaban) http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4393659

if there is a way to contact u over the phone as well that would be helpfull to ask for. (Samour72 (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm getting stressed by this. I'm going to copy your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imad A. Abulaban so that other editors can comment. In particular, they will be read by whichever experienced admin reviews the deletion discussion, sometime on the 26th/27th October. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles lists sources, but not the reliable, non-trivial sources required by the WP:RS and WP:N policies. And using Wikipedia as a source for an article, as this article has done twice, is always a bad sign. I've heard the site isn't very reliable. ;) --hkr Laozi speak 07:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable, independent sources that actually refer to the subject of the article.--Korruski^Talk 13:32, 26 October 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GOMTV Global Starcraft II League

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

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

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

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

Non-notable video game tournament. No sources, cannot verify. Probable spam. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Starcraft II. Shacknews Gamesradar are the best sources I can find, and are of the "X have announced..." variety, i.e. press releases. Since it's an "official" league, and not some fan-created thing, inclusion in the main article seems appropriate. Marasmusine (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a video game contest would have to be pretty darn special to be covered in an encyclopedia, and I'm not seeing that here. As noted above, there isn't much one can verifiably say other than it exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep This tournament is very famous in South Korea. If you can read Korean, you will find thousands of news articles.(link) It is broadcast live to 180 countries via internet, and 770 thousands of people watched recently the live match of round of 64 participated by Lim Yo-Hwan. --JeongAhn (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We should not expect readers of English Wikipedia to have to read Korean to verify the facts about a subject. Show us something in English that proves your assertion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but I don't want to spend my time to search internet sources written in English. But I suggest you to search that with the keyword of 'GSL2'. In Korean Wikipedia, they even have articles about each seasons(1, 2, 3) in addition to the main article. Korean wikipedians always struggle to find reliable sources written in different laguages. Why not in en-wp? --JeongAhn (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, since you're the one making the case that this should not be deleted, I'd think you would want to take the time. Having said that, the fact that articles exist on this on Korean WP does bolster a case toward notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - As a note, non-English sources are just fine, though please do look at NOENG. It would be very helpful if the sources were added to the article and had English translations for the small parts that are being referenced. Hobit (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GOM Player, who hosted the event. I can see it being kept, and I wouldn't oppose a keep, but it needs to be expanded and referenced first, even if most of the references are not in English (although English references would always be preferred, per WP:NONENG.--hkr Laozi speak 08:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AGFing that the Korean sources are as strong as claimed. Hobit (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that the only reason this deletion is up for discussion is due to a biased view against e-sports. Considering this is the largest and highest paid tournament in all of e-sports, even considering it's deletion is tantamount to a biased view. --Opl3sa (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC) — Opl3sa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Imagine the World Poker Tour for a video game that may be the most popular e-sport in the world. This league and these tournaments are new, but already a significant presence in South Korean culture and growing in popularity in the West. This is the stage where the best gamers in the world compete. By comparison MLG, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Gaming devotes a 1st prize purse of 5-6000$ for 2-3 different games. This tournament offers $87,500 to its winner every month. There deserves to be a stand alone entry for a league with tournaments of this scale.

http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/GSL

http://www.1up.com/news/blizzard-signs-exclusive-broadcast-deal

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=141496 --http://www.playxp.com/sc2/news/view.php?article_id=2006063 --http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/65052

http://www.sk-gaming.com/content/30971-BoxeRmania_in_GSL_causes_overload —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.122.66 (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC) — 76.232.122.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge to Starcraft II. Sourcing provided may prove enough to spin out an article in the future, but most of the coverage given by all here are merely slightly better than press releases. No bias against article spinout in the future, as it's likely to get the coverage needed sometime down the road. --Teancum (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you been able to evaluate the Korean sources? If those are just press releases I'll certainly change my !vote, but my understanding is that they are fairly strong. Hobit (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep This is easily the most important tournament in e-sports today. With the launch of StarCraft II and the South Koreans leading the charge in e-sports (Profressional StarCraft is considered a national sport alongside Soccer), this tournament is the continuation of one of the most recognised scenes in pro gaming today. Attracting the most decorated talent from the previous tournaments and eclipsing any other tournament in the world including the largest Western Multi-Game tournament prizes, at an astounding $87,000+ for the winner per season, this tournament deserves it's own page at Wikipedia alongside the afformentioned. The page is ripe for expansion with the information available in the impressive links above. --- I specifically searched WP for this page expecting to find information on how the tournament will be structured once players start to be seeded come the new year (information I cannot translate myself but must be available somewhere). I was shocked to find the page was up for deletion. Apologies if I haven't quite got the etiquette of how to add to discussion here, this is the first time I've felt I had something compelling to add at WP. --PixelCody (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC) — PixelCody (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Room for expansion, but more than sufficiently notable. StuartH (talk) 12:33, 2 November 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 consensus is to delete, but if reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the University College can be found, I will happily restore this to allow these to be added -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mamon University College

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

I can't find any solid evidence that this college is notable (or even if it still exists). The college's website given on this page has nothing. There is an Arabic page, that one doesn't say much, and the external link it points to for the college has this decidedly non-collegiate page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could find a few sources to show that this university does nor at least did exist: [51], [52] [53]. As a university, I would say the topic is worthy of an article, even if the college no longer exists. Travelbird (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found it listed in one directory [54], but that was all. Sorry, Travelbird, but I couldn't see where the links you provided were about this university. If we could get a little more information, even just to verify it is/was a degree-granting institution, I would vote "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 1 November 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FIRST Initiative

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

NGO that should be notable but for some reason isn't. The references provided by the author do not meet the thershold required by WP:GNG, Google only comes up with their website and this article, gnews turns up absolutely nothing. This is very surprising considering who some of their donors are, am I missing something here? 2 says you, says two 21:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything either. Delete, I guess. You are right that it seems like it would be more notable. Gigs (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news search for it along with "World Bank" and then scan through the many summaries that appear, and you can find some results, such as this article: [55] Dream Focus 11:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC
Delete this search in gnews indicates only 5 articles mentioning "FIRST initiative" not lowercase. the coverage is not indepth and doesn't say much about FIRST initiative itself. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 3 November 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ko Reibun

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

I can't find a notability guideline on Go players, but this person doesn't seem to have notability independent of his father. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I am not at all familiar with GO, and after reading Wikipedia's own articles on Go professionals, and rankings, I have a better appreciation of it, but it would take some people with subject matter expertise to weigh in on what level of accomplishment would be the tipping point for notability. I've left a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Go requesting some assistance. He is verifiably a professional Go player holding a rank of 6th dan as confirmed here, by the Japanese Go association site. Go is not a huge Western sport so I suspect that more general coverage will not be in English. -- Whpq (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A 6 dan professional of Go is on the same level of notability as a chess grandmaster: he or she will be thoroughly documented in newspaper and magazine reports, and biographical details will be available in annual handbooks. I have added three web references, all to reliable sources, including an official page mostly in Japanese. BLP concerns should therefore be satisfied, and this is not an article that should be deleted for any other reason. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: I would argue the same way for most professional players ranked 4 dan or higher. For those who are pro 1 dan to 3 dan, more should be required, in that these levels are in some sense "probationary" by general agreement (I won't go into this, but the best answer I know to the question posed on the tipping point is that 4 dan and above is like chess grandmaster). Charles Matthews (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clean up the article and add more references (even if they're not in English). I don't know much about Go, but I trust the assessment above that he's equivalent to a grandmaster in chess.--hkr Laozi speak 08:30, 26 October 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) 00:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haiducesti

AfDs for this article:

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

I could not find any significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources, so I could not confirm the origins of Haiducesti music or expand on it in any significant way. This article has been on Wikipedia for five years. It was nominated for deletion then, but the vote failed in order to "let it grow." It has not grown and there seems to be no reason to believe that it will. —Tim Pierce (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, just to make it explicit. —Tim Pierce (talk) 00:15, 26 October 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ERC Grants Austria

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

Publicity, dubious topic Arronax50 (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ERC Grants are most notable prizes for notable scientists. The article does not constitute publicity but states verifiable facts (i.e. who was awarded the prize at Austrian research institutions). --UV (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The grants themselves get coverage in the news [56]. They are a notable thing. Listing those who have been awarded them, makes sense, and enough of them have been given to Austria to fill an article. Dream Focus 11:10, 1 November 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Arthur Campbell

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

Individual does not pass WP:GNG. Only reference in this ~~BLP~~ biography is from "Who's Who Jamaica". SnottyWong ^talk 22:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a BLP, SnottyWong, as this man was born in 1873 and anyone born more than 115 years ago can be assumed to have died unless listed as among world's oldest people. Cullen328 (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Nomination modified. Thanks. SnottyWong ^confer 23:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to indicate how the subject meets WP:BIO, and no WP:RS (Who's Who doesn't count). Unless he's the one who actually created the system himself, the ambiguous statement "contributed to the establishment and maintenance of an electric tram system in Kingston" appears to indicate an engineer just doing his job. The other attempts at claiming notability as a result of his function with the company he worked for are similarly unimpressive. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does "Who's Who" not count? Guettarda (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Who's Who" listings are usually just that: listings. They are generally short and contain only basic biographical information. Likewise, without actually seeing p. 111 of this book, which is where this entry is stated to appear, and without any actual inline citations, there is no way of knowing how much of this content can be supported by that source. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Who's Who could be a valid source to substantiate a fact (i.e. that a person was a member of a particular organization). However, the Who's Who source is not a source which can be used to establish the notability of a person per WP:GNG, because it does not provide significant coverage of that person. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 23:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No word in bold from me, but I would just like to point out that Campbell's position within Scottish Freemasonry does seem to be a credible claim of notability. According to this page an article about him appeared in the Daily Gleaner of Kingston, Jamaica on 18 November 1940. This doesn't appear to have been digitised so I can't check it. Nevertheless, my position is that the Daily Gleaner is a reliable source and this biography may meet inclusion criteria.—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person shows up in numerous yearbooks and proceedings of professional societies. Notability seems reasonably established and as this is not a BLP there is no pressing reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide some sources then. Even if it's not a BLP, it still has to pass WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added a source and so WP:V is satisfied. Now please see our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That source is no better than Who's Who Jamaica. It is simply a list of names. It proves that Henry Arthur Campbell exists and that he was part of an organization, but that is all it proves. Notability requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. My name appears in a yearbook of a professional society as well, but that doesn't make me notable. SnottyWong ^babble 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point me to a specific page? I'm having difficulty finding a listing for him in the book. I can see a listing for Henry Campbell-Bannerman, but nothing about the subject of this article, nor anything that verifies anything in it. (Also, please assume some good faith and competence on my part; there was really no need to point me to the editing policy.) --Kinu ^t/_c 18:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This link shows the only mentions of this name I could find in Colonel Warden's source. SnottyWong ^verbalize 18:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I searched for the subject's name in every iteration I could conceive. I suppose that this was such a trivial mention that I completely glossed over it the first eight times I looked. :) --Kinu ^t/_c 18:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask Colonel Warden to please see our notability policy. SnottyWong ^gab 19:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a policy and so is trumped by actual policy. In any case, Guettarda's good work below demonstrates ample notability for our purposes and so we are well-covered in all respects. There is not the slightest case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - serving for 24 years as the Chief Engineer of the Jamaica Public Service Company, a national-level electrical utility, should be notable. Bear in mind the problems associated with people from smaller countries with somewhat poorly documented history and with fewer sources available online and in major databases...the Gleaner, for example, might have much more coverage, but their archive is both incomplete and pay-only[57]. As for sources, we have
- A transcription of an article from the Gleaner[58] which mentions him being honoured by the "electrical industry" in 1940 (a source that is transcribed by a relatively random website is less than ideal, but there's also no reason to doubt it, since the content is consistent with other sources); note that this is from 1940, so presumably newsprint is at premium given wartime rationing and U-boat activity in the Caribbean)
- A 1953 obituary from Electrical Review volume 152- I don't have access to any text, but the snippet on Google Books search page says "Mr. Henry Arthur Campbell, MI E E.. who was for twenty- four years chief electrical engineer of the Jamaica Public Service Co., Ltd., died on 6th June at Kingston, Jamaica. British West Indies". (It's possible that this is the entire entry, I can't tell.
- A 1953 obituary in the Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers (1953, volume 9, p. 307) - this 3-paragraph obituary in a major publication strikes me as meeting the burden of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Guettarda (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is local notability at best. I don't think that being the Chief Engineer of the Jamaica Public Service Company defaults to automatic notability on its own, like other positions such as the president of a country. Has he done anything notable in that position, or was he just doing his job for 24 years? In my opinion, even if these sources were accessible and verifiable, they don't pass the WP:GNG bar. SnottyWong ^babble 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing that being the subject to obituaries in the journals of two international professional organisations is only of "local notability at best"? (Emphasis added, but those are your words). And "local" in this case means "national".

I'm rather puzzled by what you mean when you say "even if these sources were accessible and verifiable, they don't pass the WP:GNG bar". To begin with, I provided you a full reference for the Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers obit...a baseless accusing of dishonest like that is a violation of WP:NPA I would strongly suggest you retract that. As for the second part - what part of WP:GNG are you talking about?

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material - the JIEE obituary "address[es] the subject in detail", as does the Gleaner article.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. - A technical journal passes that easily, as does a national newspaper of record.
"Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Not a problem. Multiple sources are generally expected. Your statement was predicated on "even if", so yeah, we have multiple sources.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject - not a problem.

So what part of WP:GNG are you saying this fails "even if these sources were accessible and verifiable"? I'm rather curious. And, by the way, the Chief Engineer of the Jamaica Public Service Company is without a doubt far more notable than the President of Jamaica. The fact that you aren't aware of that...says rather a lot. Guettarda (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conveniently omitted is the fifth part of that list: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. Basing an article on obituaries is not ideal and might be consistent with WP:MEMORIAL, as they generally contain facts that may or may not be encyclopedic. Being memorialized in print does not indicate prima facie notability and needs to be supported by other sources that are more than trivial mentions and show something beyond, as stated above, "someone doing their job." Are the positions he held notable? Are the awards he won notable? Are his titles/honors notable? (And can we source our answers to those questions?) That information would help. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I hate getting involved, but I see no breach of WP:NPA here. SnottyWong never said the source you provided didn't exist, his statement clearly indicates his position that despite existing, it might not be enough. Semantics. Likewise, he never said anything about President of Jamaica, but rather "president of a country" in generic terms, so I'm not sure where that last statement of yours came from. I ask all parties to please be civil. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am similarly confused by the accusations of personal attacks. I have not accused you of being dishonest, so I'd urge you to calm down and relax. I am simply disagreeing with you about the fact that the sources that were uncovered don't adequately establish notability. Obituaries are not evidence of notable deeds. After all, everyone dies. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 21:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Obituaries are not evidence of notable deeds. After all, everyone dies. "
Yes, but most die publically un-noted and un-obituaried. The publication of an obituary, in some journal of note, is a strong indication of a life that was more than this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not buying that. Obituaries, taken on their own, do not imply notability. The fact that someone died and other people were notified about it in a journal of an organization of which they were a member doesn't automatically make them notable. Also, I'm not sure where you live, but where I live most people who die get an obituary published about them somewhere, even if it is just in a local newspaper. SnottyWong ^babble 22:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please pardon my unfamiliarity with the AFD protocol - this is my first time contributing. As the creator of the original article, I had hoped that by initially including the few details I did, it would stir others who had located other information or sources about Mr Campbell to include that information on the page. Full disclosure, creating the article came during family history research (Mr Campbell is an ancestor). I have several primary sources on Mr Campbell's notability, amounting to news clippings from the Gleaner, the extracteded, undated Who's Who biography, and letters written to/from Mr Campbell. The news articles do not appear to have been digitized, and the Electical Engineering journals that are online are sadly out of reach to a non-member such as myself. I am still in the process of gathering the material and hope to contribute further research and details soon. It seems as though Mr Campbell was one of the first electrical engineers in Jamaica, served the industry well over 50 years, remarkable even for the time, and had been consulted on numerous technical issues having to do with the island electrical system including maintaining a 40 Hz system (as opposed to 50 Hz in the UK, and 60 Hz in North America). The masonic involvement is even more difficult to research. I hope to add more sources soon.User:Portcullisguy 19:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable career, adequately covered in sources. One begins to wonder just what Snottywong does consider to be notable. Do you do any edits apart from tagging things for deletion? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda should take note of Andy Dingley's comment above, as an example of an actual personal attack. Andy, have you ever heard of WP:NPP? SnottyWong ^yak 23:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPP? On a two week old page? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The NPP backlog is usually close to a month long. See the end of the backlog. Editors are encouraged to patrol articles at the end of the backlog rather than articles that were created 30 seconds ago. SnottyWong ^confer 23:42, 28 October 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.