Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 26 January 28 January >

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 Ironholds (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Ashburnians A.F.C.

[edit]
Old Ashburnians A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Sunday League football club. The club is apparently eligible for the FA Cup according to the IP who removed the original PROD, but I can find no evidence that they have ever actually entered the FA Cup, which is a criterion for notability amongst English football clubs. – PeeJay 23:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through the sources they all seem to lead to the same page. That website doesn't look real and the 'chairman' doesn't seem to exist Adam4267 (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 23:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like an elaborate college hoax. I think the only true fact on the page is that the club exists and plays in a very low level Sunday league. I see no evidence that they are eligible for the Fa Cup, but may be eligible for the FA Sunday Cup, which would deny any inherent notability. Additionally, the personal section at the bottom of the page contains quite a lot of, potentially, slanderous and/or libellous unsourced info on living people (in contrary to WP:BLP policies. Ravendrop (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely non-notable amateur social/kick-about team. As the requirements for entry into the FA Cup include membership of the top ten levels of the English football league system and a floodlit stadium, this club is fairly obviously a a million miles away from being eligible. I suspect that the fact that the photo gallery on the club's website contains 0 photos of match action and 120 imags of "socials" says all we need to know about the level of seriousness of this team..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Not quite sure where all of this negative criticism is coming from. The chairman certainly exists - he is on google and is even contactable if you need proof. The requirements for the FA cup do not actually include membership of the top ten levels of English football league system - it is perfectly legitimate to enter so long as you have a flood lit stadium with a capacity of 250 people (along with a payment of £250). We are looking at entering the FA cup next season, and have all the requirements if needs be - we can rent the ground at http://www.flixtonfootballclub.co.uk/, who also play in our league, for the matches required. There is no hoax involved in this, and it is a perfectly valuable contribution to the wiki encyclopedia. 15:47, 28 Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.56.28 (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC) — 94.193.56.28 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • First of all, having tentative plans to enter the FA Cup next season is not sufficient - see WP:CRYSTAL. Also, if you genuinely believe your club is eligible to enter the FA Cup (as opposed to being on a wind-up), I suggest you keep your cash in your pocket and check out the competition regulations on the FA website, where it states that "A Club not participating in the Premier League or The Football League must have competed in either The FA Challenge Trophy or the FA Challenge Vase Competitions in the previous season". As your club hasn't competed in either of those competitions this season, you are not eligible to enter the FA Cup next season. ...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete
    • as for obviously made up rubbish, there isn't anything on the page about a cheese tycoon. Our current owner is Aristides Bernard-Grau, a relatively well known millionaire student, whose finances do not come at all from cheese. Not quite sure where you got that from at all, but think that you probably ought to be deleted off wikipedia for factual innacuracies. As for the website being fake, I'm not entirely sure what you are meaning. The website is very real, although a slight work in progress. We don't currently employ a match photographer (funds are tight, as we are saving up for that FA cup run...), although we do take a socials photographer with us when we hit the town hard. That is why we have a number of social photos, but not yet any match photos.
      • You may not be aware that every previous iteration of a Wikipedia article can be viewed at any time. The crap about Swiss cheese was present when I made my comment above, but was then removed from the article by this edit, after I posted my comment -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • While you are correct in terms of FA Cup entry for most teams, we are actually being fast-tracked. We have a number of close friends within the FA who are allowing us to skip past the normal rulings. I have received, on good information, that we are going to be allowed to enter the FA cup next season.
    • Also, as one final point, and I'm not sure if this will allow us to sneak into the realms of wiki-credibility or not, but we are connected with Ashburne Hall of the University of Manchester, something I have added to the wiki page and will find a reference for later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.154.183 (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • One other point of proof is that we are listed on the Errea wiki page as one of the significant teams which they provide kit for. Some of our sister teams include Parma, Brighton and Hove Albion and Northampton Town. I think they are all allowed wiki pages..... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.154.183 (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think most of this confusion comes down to the fact that you don't quite appreciate what amateur football is at a very basic level. It is a huge amount of effort, which is now beginning to come off in terms of our entry into England's greatest cup competition next season. We are hoping for a long and very successful cup run and I'm sure you will wish us much the same. — 94.192.154.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete – Clearly non-notable at best, with blatant hoax material at worst. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly non-notable team. GiantSnowman 01:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete - The article meets all criteria which Wikipedia uses to deem what is a good article. It is well written. It is both factually accurate and verifiable, it references a number of established sources. It is broad in its coverage. It has a neutral viewpoint. From the few days I have been monitoring the article it has had very little to no changes. It is also illustrated with suitable images in the format common to most good Wikipedia articles.
    • Also, not having competed in the FA Cup is not a valid argument for non-notability. If this were the case then articles on Acle United F.C., Watton United F.C., Fleet Spurs F.C. as well as a host of other football clubs should be considered for deletion. Old Ashburnians A.F.C. are a team competing in the league system and appear from this to be participating in the FA Cup in the near future.
      • Feel free to nominate those articles for deletion then, and they will be judged on their merit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, I tend to prefer not spending my spare time trying to make other people's time and effort redundant. That's probably because I don't have much spare time. However, I feel you may have missed my point. I was trying to say that these we're notable teams which we're comparable to the football team in question thus disproving the point on non-notability. Regards 188.221.54.223 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally, a deletion discussion board is probably not the best place for personal assumptions and snide remarks (see remark by ChrisTheDude above). 188.221.54.223 (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC) — 188.221.54.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Clearly not notable. Number 57 22:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No more notable than a pub team Spiderone 11:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How is this page still up, it's incredibly bias, poorly written, sourced and almost certainly factually inaccurate. Adam4267 (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of the dozens of non-notable Sunday league teams that turn out at Hough End (the Manchester equivalent to Hackney Marshes) each week. This team play at a level so low that their division contains the reserves of a pub team. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed with above comments, clearly non-notable this case. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this club clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards and a lot of the information both in this article and the club's website is unverifiable. I can't find any evidence of their supposed entry in the FA Cup, and the only independent Ghits I could find for their multi-millionaire 'chairman' actually refer to a sixth form student from Tooting.  Bettia  Talk  10:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those sources are three years old, which suggests he is now at university and has been included here as a gag either by himself or his mates. It certainly seems very unlikely that he is a milionaire/tycoon of any description...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Ironholds (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamyn Damazer

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

Non-notable bureaucrat whose single claim to fame is that--seven years ago--he worked in a low-level job in Baghdad's Green Zone. [1] Obviously, that's not enough to satisfy WP:N in terms of WP:BIO. The article also has WP:COI problems, and quite possibly WP:AUTO, with extensive editing by a user with the same name as the editor's subject. Very recently, when the article was prodded, this WP:COI user removed the prod himself. Despite years of careful tending by the WP:SPA, the article does not contain a single reference that satisfies WP:RS Qworty (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) per A1. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 02:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star wars is not the basis of modern western culture

[edit]
Star wars is not the basis of modern western culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced original research; PROD removed by author. GILO   ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY 22:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Athaenara (talk · contribs); reason was G11. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 02:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Turner, Jr.

[edit]
James F. Turner, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this subject reaches WP:BIO, couldn't find any reliable sources Delete Ibluffsocall (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular talk 21:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Expression: Secular Theocracy Versus Liberal Democracy

[edit]
Freedom of Expression: Secular Theocracy Versus Liberal Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:RS sources or secondary listed, indeed, zero sources at all given for the article. It includes WP:NOR and use of direct quotes without reliance on any secondary sources whatsoever. Could use additional community discussion to determine consensus if it passes WP:NOTE, and has whether or not it has received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Athaenara (talk · contribs); reason was G11. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 03:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Macan

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

Non-notable person. All very minor appearances, nothing significant. Fails WP:ENT. Also appears that the article was written by its subject. –anemoneprojectors– 22:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete A7, G11 by User:Stephen. (non-admin closure)Whpq (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vivence Lee

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

I see no reason to believe that this person is notable. No Chinese Wikipedia article. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete all, particularly since the only valid arguments are delete ones. Again, users are reminded to cite policy in these discussions. Whether or not they think that something not existing yet means it cannot possibly be notable, or whether or not they think that their standard of non-notability != ours, it is irrelevant. These are sports clubs; keep arguers cite WP:ORG with evidence. Delete arguers, cite WP:ORG and try to counter said evidence. That's how it's meant to work. Ironholds (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Wolverines

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

This is a series of articles on announced, proposed, or simply rumored semi-professional rugby league clubs in North America. Most appear to exist in some form, but that doesn't establish that they're notable. None of them have substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources establishing their notability. Most of them are sourced only to this American Rugby News article or this blog post, which mention that the American National Rugby League wants to set up teams in these cities; but it's not substantial coverage, and I can't find any evidence that the teams have played games or have serious plans of joining the AMNRL or another notable league in the future. This blog article on the Southern Chiefs specifically says that as of this month the club hasn't played any games and has no definite plans for joining a league. Cúchullain t/c 21:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles are:

Detroit rugby league team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dallas Dragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North Carolina Rugby League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North Vancouver Island Rugby League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orange County Outlaws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rose City Rugby League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Utah Rugby League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seattle Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


  • Keep most - Although I don't follow rugby and don't really feel like I am qualified to state wether these are notable or not as they pertain to rugby they certainly seem to fail the notability criteria. --Kumioko (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I originally had to delete for the one team because it hadn't played any games or been accepted yet. Know that other teams have been added, some of which have sufficient references and I believe local notability in their respective areas I am withdrawing my Delete. Being non-notable to me does not make them Non notable. --Kumioko (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I see Youndbuckerz fear that nobody will want to create these pages later as a good argument for deletion. If nobody is interested enough to edit the wikipedia page the notability has to be almost nil.Rugbyhelp (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - look i have went through and obtained all this info on the game in the US. that is fine with me if it is deleted but i hate to see them not re-created when they do exist! then when they do i have to delete all other info on sports in la, denver, seattle, san fran becuase the team doesnt exist yet then i have to re add the info and re do all over again which is very stressfull and takes a lot of time. the point being, is as long as SOMEBODY re-creates them when they do exist and are actually involved in the competition as ive already just about had enough of editing on here!Youndbuckerz 08:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete all - There is no significant coverage about these teams that would justify an article at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok look here is what i think. Obviously i'm not the one who's going to delete the page but to the person who does please consider my thoughts first. If they do get deleted then all images have to be removed, certain info on certain pages such as Sports in Los Angeles, Denver, Seattle, Las Vegas etc.. will all have to be removed. Then eventually when this competition does exist nobody adds info. I am the one who will have to do it all images, website, sources, references, infobox, something which takes a lot of time and patience which i am starting to lose now! If you want you can just wait until the summer of 2011 (the said start date) and if none of this occurs then they can be deleted or kept or whatever. So finally once again my point is consider CAREFULLY whether you choose to delete the pages because if you do it will be hard to find someone as committed as me to re add all the info when this all eventually does exist as it will make peoples jobs on here a lot easier as i will not be around here much anymore. Thanks for your co-operations and it does give the clubs promotion as well which is why i'm editing on hereYoundbuckerz 16:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

From the talk page: "So, I ask you this- what justifies a sport team? Some or Most have applied for, and received LLC's (Limited Liability Company). So, let's say Jo opens a Cafe'. Jo decides he wants to put his store on WikiPedia. Someone comes along and says, "Sorry Jo, you have not sold a single item in your first few days of business, therefore, you are not considered to be an entity". I have not bothered to look at the criteria for adding data to WP, so if I'm wrong, then please feel free to shoot me down, but, does it REALLY say a team that has not competed yet is not officially classed as a team? Best of luck with your deletions... Muppets" from User:SeattleForce on 12:24, 30 January 2011. Mattlore (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Greater Western Sydney Giants have a wikipedia page and they have not even played yet... Youndbuckerz 04:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Greater Western Sydney FC has 19 reliable sources while these articles have 1-3 sources. Mattlore (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But clubs like Denver, Seattle, Dallas (http://dallasrlfc.com/Home.html) have websites and update with regular news on what is happening with the club at their websites so they are likely to be kept?Youndbuckerz 09:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What you need is independent sources - maybe the local community newspaper has done a profile on the new club being set up in their region for example? It would also help if the league structure had been confirmed. Mattlore (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Denver Wolverines have done a newspaper article. The league structure is on the WAMNRL website, based on location, Pacific, Midwest, Southwest and Northwest. The fixtures vary based on the team's location. They also have other tournaments planned such as LA 9s, Dallas 9s, Philadelphia 9s and War at the Shore, Semi-pro tryouts, etc.... There may not be much news articles- or they are very hard to find! But you must remember rugby league is hardly a recognised sport in that country- most wouldnt know the difference between league and union and the sport wouldn't get much exposure thru news websites. Clubs like denver and seattle may have more resources than other clubs. The best thing to do before deleting everything would be to just wait and see.. I would hate to have to re-do all of this hard work and it does give the clubs some advertisement thru wikipedia but all of this stuff might just be pie in the sky as they have tried numerous times to setup things on the West Coast but things have never went as planned. Only time will tell..Youndbuckerz 08:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - Whether any of this comes to fruition in the future is highly speculative. Future events are generally not notable. And "...it does give the clubs some advertisement thru wikipedia..." is a very poor reason for an article as Wikipedia is not for advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq ok you say future events are generally not notable how come there is pages for the 2015 Rugby World Cup, the 2013 Rugby League World Cup, 2012 London Olympics, 2014 FIFA World Cup? These pages may not seem notable to all of you because it is not covered by any third-party reliable sources and as i have mentioned before; How do you expect this to be covered by any reliable sources as it is currently only an amateur sport competing with more popular sports such as American Football, Basketball, Baseball, Soccer, etc.. with a country with over 300 million? As i said JUST WAIT! til the said date they've come further then before by actually establishing clubs where in past years they have failed to do that give it a chance please do not just rush to delete things, what's with wikipedia these days?? Eveybody wants everything to be deleted have you not thought about the hard work i have done to set this up and people suddenly come rushing to delete it all the time this happens to me. Never have you given me a fair go in the past 5 years i have been here.!!!!>:(Youndbuckerz 08:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Reply - Other articles are not germane to this discussion. If you feel that these other articles ought to be deleted, you may nominate them for deletion so long as you aren;'t doing just to make a point. You are asking why there is a rush to delete these articles. I would turn the question around and ask why there is such a rush to create article when there is insufficient sources to support the article. -- Whpq (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Youndbuckers, please don't take this personally. I appreciate the work you've put into rugby league articles, and I hope you continue. But the bottom line is that verifiability is non-negotiable; if there are no reliable sources establishing that a subject is notable, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. It's no big deal to recreate articles if sources are found in the future.--Cúchullain t/c 16:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanela Sijerčić

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

Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources to verify the claims of the article. The external link in the article leads to Walmart spam. J04n(talk page) 01:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't redirect spam in 2007, I bet, it was her official domain URL at the time.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BAND. The only source I can find is this one. It suggests that the subject has left the music industry and is long since forgotten. The source is not reliable, and does not assert notability. Coverage is not 'significant'. --Kudpung (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Eastern european pop singers often have sourcing out there that takes some digging to find. The Svet article[2] (svet is a weekly mag published by Color Press Group) says she was one of the biggest Bosnian singers. Here's another piece[3] from the same publication in 2010 about her recent divorce. And here's a third article from 2009 [4] (google typically has not spidered the full archives of eastern european papers, so you have to search the publications internally to find additional cites.)--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does an article about her divorce contribute to any notability that she might have as a singer that is the reason why we should keep this article? I don't think it does.Kudpung (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not by itself, but when you start seeing articles like that, its almost always the case that the person is covered like a tabloid celebrity in their own country. We had a similar situation with Andrea (Bulgarian singer) when it was prodded last year.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further examples of that type of coverage [5] (in Bosnian publication Weekend, April 28, 2010, an article about what she cooks for her husband, a celebrity cooking fluff piece); and [6] (gossip report from November 2010 in Dnevni Avaz (major bosnian daily) that she had an altercation with a work colleague); [7] (another Weekend piece from November 2009 about the 2nd marriage, undercurrent rumor of article is ooh maybe she converted to islam for her husband); [8] (August 2010 piece in Weekend includes her among three bosnian celebs with their healthy living tips); [9] (December 2009 piece in Ljiljan saying she has "recently retired" from music. She wouldn't get all this coverage unless she was already a well-known celebrity. It appears her biggest hit songs probably date back to about 2000, and I am having trouble finding online sourcing from that time. Not shocking for Bosnia.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The claims to notability in the article are that she received a "Folk Oscar" and has been named the "Female singer of the year", do we have verification in a reliable source about either of these or anything else notable? If so I will happily withdraw my nomination, otherwise we have an unreferenced BLP. J04n(talk page)
It won't be an unreferenced keep outcome, that's for sure, based on the source i've found already. Trying to figure out the Serbo-Croatian / Bosniak search terms for those claims.--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The articles found by Milowent are indicative of notability. As for the specific claims int he article that cannot be sourced, they can be tagged as unreferenced as they are not really derogatory. If there is a feeling that they are untrue or dubious, it can be removed and a note left on the article talk page about the unsourced claims. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Athaenara (talk · contribs); reason was G11. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 03:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward M. Erdelac

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

Non-notable author/filmmaker. Fails WP:AUTHOR. SnottyWong spout 21:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

England v Germany (2000)

[edit]
England v Germany (2000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails notability criteria for sports events. It was just an another qualifying game. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The relevant guideline is WP:EVENT, which basically requires significant lasting impact and coverage. Keegan's resignation is one example of impact. Another is this - silly, perhaps, but still relevant. As for lasting coverage: although you wouldn't know it from the current article, there's no shortage. See this, this, this, this and this, all offering significant coverage and all written several years after the game. With these taken into account, the case for deletion is limited. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And on the topic of WP:Sports event, that guideline refers only to which sports events are inherently notable. Games that pass the remainder of WP:EVENT can still be notable without meeting it. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alzarian, do you think that the game is of particular notability, or its aftermath, or both? I presume we agree that not every England qualifying match is notable. --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The game and the aftermath combine to meet WP:EVENT by some margin. Sample quotes: "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." - Keegan's resignation. "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." - covered in depth on a least six occassions. "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." - received coverage at worst ten years after it took place. "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable." - covered at national level by at least four news services, some on more than one occassion, and internationally by ESPN. So while the vast majority of qualifiers are non-notable, this seems to be an exception. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keegan resigning after this match does not make the match notable - any more than every other match preceding the resignation or dismissal of any national team manager. And yes, this match was covered by international news services...as are all qualifiers. Routine sports coverage of a general nature. --ClubOranjeT 11:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Generally, I'd agree with you, but unlike most resignations, this one was directly prompted by the very nature of this match, something Keegan was (reasonably) clear on. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Al. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alzarian's discussion with me, above. --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rename issues may be pertinent, but are not for AfD - aside from the irrelevance to the process, I once renamed an article while it was at AfD and it causes no end of trouble with the various links and logs --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete On the one hand, I think it could be credibly argued that the match is notable, and there is a case for saying that this match should remain in the interests of countering systemic bias. On the other, the main rivalry article has considerably more qualitative detail about the match than this one does. That suggests that what is worth writing can reasonably be included there. As I say, I'm leaning in the direction of deletion, but I don't think policy or guidelines are that strong in either direction. —WFC— 11:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Match itself is not notable... it is just another football match. The fact that it was the last match at the old Wembley Stadium (1923) stadium is it's only claim to fame, and it is already covered in the stadium article. --ClubOranjeT 11:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alzarian16. From those sources, the match clearly has enduring notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing notable about this, you see stadiums close all the time so the fact this was the last game at Wembley isn't that big a deal. BUC (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Frankly, that deletion rationale of 'just another game' could win an award for Understatement of the Year. While much of the coverage can be considered part of wider topics - Wembley history, Keegan's bio, England Germany rivalry, if coverage like this seven years after the game doesn't count as EVENT suitable in depth coverage of the game, as a notable game in its own right, then I don't know what does frankly. Yes, it's not the 1966 World Cup Final, but it most certainly isn't considered by reliable independent sources to be just another entirely forgettable qualifier either, not in a million years. MickMacNee (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep match was a notable event as confirmed by the number of sources on it after the event, as shown by Alzarian above. Eldumpo (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to 2010 Australian Open. Merge the other one to 2011 Australian Open. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Day-by-day summaries of the 2010 Australian Open

[edit]
Day-by-day summaries of the 2010 Australian Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe that this content merits separate articles. The 2010 article consists chiefly of uncited, informal commentary, and the 2011 article is threatening to go the same way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports guide; hence, this material is unsuitable. I propose that the raw scores and data be merged into 2010 Australian Open and 2011 Australian Open, and that the rest be deleted. Redirects will clearly be unnecessary.

Note that I am also nominating:

  • @AD: I admittedly looked at only the first few days of the 2010 summaries, which were primarily restating the uncited (mostly) scores from the tables. I peeked at a few of the later summaries, and you are correct that there is more commentary-type prose there. Of course, we never want unreferenced content in articles, but it disappoints me that we can't do more with an article like 2010 Australian Open than to have it be a giant list. If done properly, summaries would really enhance it. I also noticed that the summaries of the men's and women's finals are referenced. Do you believe that these, at least, are worth retaining? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-match information such as "In the men's final, Roger Federer defeated Andy Murray to win his 16th Grand Slam title and increase his own record. It was also his fourth Australian Open title, which tied him with Andre Agassi in most titles won in the Open Era." is fine, I think. Details particular to each match, such as "Federer took the first and second sets with one break in each.", strike me as extraneous. So I agree with you in part. What do you think? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something like Day 10, which verges on a game-by-game summary, is clearly too much even if the info was cited. The women's final summary has this issue, though I think it could be trimmed if necessary. I personally don't have as much of a problem with the sentence you mention, and the one that follows, because they are cited and relatively brief. Reasonable minds can have differing views on this, and I wouldn't complain if they were cut, as long as something is left. A couple of the summaries of doubles finals are short and could be saved as well; I'll see what I can do with them. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2011 summaries and Edit 2010 summaries. In reviewing the 2010 and 2011 summaries, I see two different issues. The first issue is the paragraph summary portion that people seem to have issue with. I agree that this is un-cited commentary that should be removed. However, the second issue are the table summaries stating which matches were played at the marquee court, the order of these matches, the scores of these matches, which matches were played at night, etc. I think this information is important and should be kept in some manner. For example, I think a quick way to find out what seeds lost on a particular day and what players have played on the biggest court(s) is important information that is easily accessible with these tables and that should be part of wikipedia. RonSigPi (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2011 Summaries and Edit 2010 Summaries. I agree with Ron that the paragraph summaries in 2010 needs some oversight. I'm not sure if it can even be improved as I'm rather new to Wikipedia. Otherwise, as Ron had suggested, it would ultimately have to be removed. The table summaries in both years should be kept as it provides results of games played on the main courts, which usually hosts notable seeded players, in an organized table. Scott523 (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge-Keep — I think you all need to go back and look at 2009 Australian Open, 2009 French Open, 2009 Wimbledon Championships, 2009 US Open, 2010 French Open, 2010 Wimbledon Championships, 2010 US Open, before the closing admin deletes these in the first place because their is consensus for them. All that needs to be done is to remove the content forks, which these are, and put them back on the main article for the tournaments in the appropriate sections. I think editiors have gotten lazy by thinking all you have to do is to say update the tables without putting in prose, and that would be suffice, which it is not. I think merge and added sourced prose would be the most beneficial thing to do with these articles. I am retired, so I will make no further comment about these, and I that is because I really don't have time for this stuff on wikipedia anymore. Good Day or Good Night all!BLUEDOGTN 19:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Ironholds (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ranvir Kumar Singh

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

Nothing cited in article or available online to support the claims made for notability. He appears to be the CEO of a group of companies, all of which have been the subjects of a lengthy spam 'n' sockpuppetry fest, including by this article's creator. Borkificator (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The article needs work doing to it but the individual is a significant entrepreneur who is worth keeping. Tagging for rescue.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 01:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No evidence of notability, no sources to verify claims of notability made in article. SnottyWong spout 04:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only piece of RS coverage is the brief mention in the indian express article. Considering the extensive promotional effort and a walled garden being erected, delete and salt this topic.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have helped to improve it some. I think that there is enough there now to save it from deletion. But obviously it still needs a lot more work.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 16:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added and tried my best to improve this article. I will add more refrences and links. I will try to add more information and will try to make the artile more useful. I will request to have a look again and consider it removing from Deletion category.

The person is chairman and Managing Director of So many companies like Bharat Petrolium (BPCL), Taj Pharmaceuticals, Taj Group Many Companies, Mulberry Chemicals etc. I know there is lot to work and improve as i am a new editor but this effort shuld be considered.--Ranatalwar (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's some notability if he's Chairman of Bharat Oil, possibly (how notable are chairmen of big state corporations?), but otherwise things look a bit messy. What does "matriculated with invalid number" mean, for one. There are quite a few 'citations needed' (including that statement, whatever it means...). Possibly userfication might be an idea, but it would need someone to work with the creator on it. (No, I'm not volunteering, sorry...) And to Ranatalwar, it's no good appealing to everyone to remove this from deletion. The discussion usually lasts seven days, and the result depends on the closing admin's reading of the article and the discussion. If the article gets sorted out, people here can look again at it and possibly change their minds. We do, quite often, when an article is improved. Peridon (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment lots of work and refrences required for this article. Need some time to Do it. If People can add and improve they are invited and for = Peridon = "Invalid number" means that guy got so much marks that came as invalid result but later awarded with gold medal and cash reward. It was way back. but I am looking for News paper articles in 60s but unable to get it. I read it on his web biography which is no more available and now i am writing this article and facing problems.

I think a person is notable IF He had record to fight Elections. And Also if a Person is Chairman and MD of Indian OIL Gas Company which earns 1,719.98 crore (US$373.24 million) (2010) [1] Any ways I will keep the article updated with links and more information.--Ranatalwar (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There appear to be two different people named R. K. Singh being referenced here. This newly-added reference says he got his Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering from Banaras Hindu University.[10] I recently removed a reference listing an R. K. Singh getting a PhD in Geophysics from the same university, on the grounds that it must be a different person. I also removed the unsourced claim that he studied cardiac surgery at Christ Church, Oxford. So he's a cardiac surgeon, a mechanical engineer AND a geophysicist? The geophysics degree would certainly tally with him running Bharat Petroleum, but R. K. Singh is not exactly an unusual name in India. Here are some photos of the head of Bharat Petroleum: [11] [12], and here's one of the head of the Taj Group: [13]. See the difference? So, which R. K. Singh is this article about? The head of Bharat Petroleum, or the head of the Taj Group? And which of them ran for Parliament, along with the other civic roles listed? Are we only talking about two people, or maybe more? Borkificator (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for now, I'm going to delete all references to the head of Bharat Petroleum, since it's starkly obvious to me that it's a different person. I'll leave the more ambiguous references in place for now: feel free to help me work out which R. K. Singh it was that ran for parliament etc. Borkificator (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Help to make the article better in Future if any user considers it: Dr R.K.Singh - Ranvir Kumar Singh Chairman Taj Group of companies including Housing, Pharma, Agro and Chemicals. Relevent References Available on Google: http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=Taj+Pharma+Dr.+R.K.Singh&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=d774a698b7263073

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Taj_Pharma

THE INFO ABOUT THE CHAIRMAN IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON' 'www.tajpharmaceuticals.com 'www.tajagroprodccts.com' 'www.tajapi.com' 'www.tajlifesciences.com' 'www.tajhousing.com' 'www.tajpharma.com' 'www.tajdrug.com' http://www.tradeindia.com/credit_reports/show_ts.html?profile_id=1094503 http://www.indiacompanynews.com/post/view/3445/Pharmaceuticals-Industry-to-outsource-API-making-from-Asia/ and many more if you can find. Thank you all for looking at my article.

--Ranatalwar (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

more links related to pharma company owned by same person:

Long list of links about Taj Group commented out. Borkificator (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--129.234.235.35 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have read your comments But i thought it it noteable so i made the article. I have seen the links you people have posted.

And there has been some spamming also from some websites related to this company. I read about this company and a recent news: http://www.pharmaage.com/2010/12/28/taj-pharma-bags-fda-nod-for-topiramate/ From my openion the user should take up the deleted articles and make relevent pages according to their knowledge. But I was clrealy unware of the Case of spamming like this. So what ever will be decided by admin will be acceptable. Sorry for posting long list of links on delete discursion and on your talk pages. I was unware of the spam record. But i dont appreciate things like this. If someting like this sort has been done. its very bad for any company. I will take up some important communal and other corporate companies who are does not have this sort of issue. If some user can resque my artilce i will be happy and continue answering the comments. --129.234.235.35 (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC) --129.234.235.35 (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Ranatalwar (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would thank those who have tried to rescue the article - often a thankless task... I still feel that even if all the R.V. Singhs referred to are the same person (a bit like trying to sort J. Smiths) the article should go. Peridon (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just noticed something that looks as though it may favor a keep result (despite all the sockpuppet shenanigans). Taj Pharmaceuticals owns an American company called Mulberry Chemicals. Mulberry Chemicals is registered with the Drugs Enforcement Agency for the legal production of five controlled substances. That's a pretty big deal as far as the pharma industry is concerned. Is it possible that there is more than one Taj Pharmaceuticals? But then why is the Press Release on an Indian newswire.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 18:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MulBerry Chemicals Pvt. Ltd is an Indian company. Googling for '" Mulberry Chemicals" "Drugs Enforcement Agency" ' gives zero results. They claim to have "regular clients" in the USA and "Our products are exported to many overseas regions like the USA". Here's a link to their products http://mulberrychemicals.com/products.htm Peridon (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that this URL http://www.indiaprwire.com/pressrelease/medical/2010122572909.htm is not a worthwhile reference?  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 22:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taj bought Mulberry off REVIB about whom I can find nothing. They had bought Mulberry Chemicals off Mulberry Chem, from what I can see. The Mulberry site says they are two hours drive from Mumbai, and their name is an Indian company name. I can't find another Mulberry in the US. The Indian one doesn't mention being part of Taj on its site, but mentions trademarks being theirs and MBC's - whoever the heck THEY are. This is starting to remind me of an AfD involving a certain Hispanic American businessman, where things got extremely complicated. Note this "Taj Pharmaceuticals Limited today announced that its wholly-owned US subsidiary, Administration (DEA) as a narcotic raw material manufacturer." This is a press release, and inherently not to be wholly trusted. (Unless you really believe that Wash-O with Miracle Ingredient U235 does wash your whites so they glow in the dark.) With the profusion of R.K. Singhs we had until some pruning was done, anything is possible here. Peridon (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Always look at the small print or the bottom of the page: "India PRwire disclaims any content contained in press release". Nuff sed? Peridon (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If none of it is real then it is an extremely elaborate web of lies. They must have gone to a whole lot of trouble to fabricate an international pharmaceuticals company, multiple websites and press releases. Their websites aren't quality websites granted but they are still pretty extensive content-wise and the press releases are very well written with highly specialised content. The idea of fraud on this scale and at this level is frightening.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 23:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying there isn't something real - but that there's something very odd going on. I've seen one case here where someone actually created two online newspapers to back up the load of twaddle he'd posted. (Didn't work - couldn't fake the registration dates...) I sometimes wonder if one or more of the paid encyclopaedias try to discredit WP this way. Hoaxes that last some time get the press attention, but the other millions of articles that are quietly factual get ignored. Perhaps I'm cynical. (Hell, I AM cynical...) This lot seem desperate to get articles up (as was a certain person until the (well sourced) truth got added to the article and we all switched positions - us to keep and him to delete. What the game here is, I'm not sure. I'll keep looking. If you haven't, look at that SPI I linked above. That shows some of the effort being expended. It could be all spam, or all designed to show we can't get the facts right about some quite innocent company. Or it could be a plot by the Milk Marketing Board to take over the world... Peridon (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, welcome our new bovine overlords. Borkificator (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nipsonanomhmata, for all your work on this. Borkificator (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Peridon (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for putting up with me and for being kind to the spammer above.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 13:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. –anemoneprojectors– 00:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Home and Away characters

[edit]
List of Home and Away characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list of characters that is not needed. All characters are either mentioned in the lists List of past Home and Away characters and List of current Home and Away characters. All info is also unsourced. A wide selection of the mentioned also have their own article in any case. It's verging on the lines of 'Fancruft'. .. RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 20:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's one more after this, what programme needs 9 character lists saying the same thing? The remaining four will make the soap opera in line with all of the others. You may have noticed there are three soap opera editors working all of their free time to push Home and Away articles to their potential, because they've been recreated and deleted many times when alls that was needed was someone to add the out of universe info to them... we're doing that. So aside from noticing than the AFD's I've done, you might notice the masses of info and references I've been pumping into these articles. So rest assured I'm not trying to rid of everything to do with this soap opera, just on the clean up of a very neglected area of wikipedia.RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 23:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might be completely wrong on this, but I always assumed that, for instance, List of EastEnders characters and List of past EastEnders characters or List of Coronation Street characters and List of past Coronation Street characters were forked for length reasons. As the H&A lists are comparatively short, mightn't it be better just to have List of Home and Away characters over the other two, especially as there'll always be recentism issues with a title containing the word 'current'? Frickative 00:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So does everyone want this to be the new one? Quick mock up ...RAIN*the*ONE BAM 01:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to watchlist this page so I only just caught your reply! The mock-up looks good to me. I know there's some debate at MOS:TV about even splitting up into current/past within single lists, but there's no hard and fast rule about it as yet, and I tend to agree that for soap operas where the majority of characters are "past" then it makes sense while it's still on air. So yes, my recommendation would be to carry out the merge and redirect the current/past lists :) Frickative 13:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personal comments aside, I don't see why it even needs to be changed. The present characters/past characters/I heard this character is coming back so I thought I'd mention it on here split seems a bit pointless, you can tell from the dates who's still there and who isn't and you don't have to look in three different places. (And if you're going to include "current recurring" characters on here, that opens the door to a whole load of past recurring characters being added.) Skteosk (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if it cannot be decided after this then the idea is to go with the seemingly favoured redirect to the current list.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 23:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself, why not just redirect the current and past lists to here? Having it in two different places doesn't make any sense to me. Plus if you delete/redirect this you lose the information on past actors for current characters, unless you're going to add them to the current list. Skteosk (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Istimrari

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

Questionable notability, no context. Sources are thin, google autocorrects when trying to search suggesting that the term isn't widely used. Deprodded without comment by author. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fundamental concept in the region and time, and therefore Istimrar is more often used as a qualifier of other nouns in the sources, as the authors are addressing an audience familiar with the subject of the Istimrari already. Istimrar is more often than not used in combination with the noun Zemindar, a landlord required to pay tax. Roughly speaking, "Istimrari" is to "Istimrari chieftain" is to "istimrar" as "system of duchies" is to "duke" is to "ducal". Anarchangel (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Giles Milton#Non-fiction. Jujutacular talk 20:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfram: The Boy Who Went To War

[edit]
Wolfram: The Boy Who Went To War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This book is not yet published, and there is no evidence given that it meets our criteria for notability. Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this book is the well-known and best-selling historian Giles Milton. (Best known for Nathaniel's Nutmeg, which was serialised on BBC Radio 4 and achieved UK sales of over 500,000). The book is to be published in UK, USA, France, Greece with many more countries bidding for foreign rights. The book is published in two weeks time: the article is in line with other wikipedia entries on contemporary books. I do not believe there are grounds for deletion - only, perhaps, for editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IllustratorCollage (talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • CommentIt should be mentioned in his article when published, but none of his other books have articles yet, which is one reason why I took this to AfD. If they'd all had articles I doubt I would have done anything else but make sure it didn't say it was already published. As it stands this looks like a promotion only article. Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The publication date is added now. I'm told there is significant media coverage of book over coming weeks - national press articles and reviews. Footnotes will be added once these have appeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IllustratorCollage (talk • contribs) 12:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Aurientis

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

Jewelry designer of questionable notability, article started out as a pile of steaming spam for her company, after the spam was removed, there's not much left except the steam. WuhWuzDat 19:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned as a guest on an interior designer's TV show hardly demonstrates notability. Nor does being linked from another WP article, nor designing for various brands. What matters is independent reliable sources giving substantial coverage. EEng (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She wasn't a guest on the show. Nate Berkus was one of her internship students in Paris. Have added a couple of useful references including the New York Times. There should be enough there to keep the article.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 22:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works against Berkus being a reliable source independent of the subject. It's a student endorsing his teacher, as it were. EEng (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athomejoblistings

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

Contested PROD. Unreferenced article on a corporate which appears to fail WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Flad

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

Fails WP:Notability (people) Holding the position of City Manager is not in itself an indication of notability. While the subject does have independent media coverage, it is for matters that are notable only in the Burbank area and the media appears to be local Burbank media. Declined PROD. Safiel (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • He may still fall under the guidlines for "politicians", however you interpret that word. However the guidelines also require "significant press coverage" for notability, and I don't see that here. Hairhorn (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I interpret politician to mean an elected official for those jurisdictions that have a elections. A city manager is a city employee. Note that WP:DIPLOMATs have their own notability separate from politicians. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have been a little clearer. Diplomats clearly operate in the political sphere, yet are not covered by the guideline on politicians, but have their own guidelines, so why would a city manager fall into the guidelines for politicians? -- Whpq (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Republicans (2004 film)

[edit]
Gay Republicans (2004 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail the general notability guideline. No refs outside of IMDb. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If any of the merge !voters might wish to merge this at a later date, I'd suggest the could request me or any other administrator for the deleted version. Right now, deleting Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Bay Area

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

The content of the article is largely unsourced and duplicative of existing articles. Moreover, the subject itself is not supported by reliable sources. A Google Books search for "san diego bay area" returns 80-85% results with "San Diego Bay area", with a lowercase "a", signifiying that the phrase does not refer to a defined geographical area. Even the results with "San Diego Bay Area" with the capital "A" give no definition of the term. Dohn joe (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete of recreated non-notable subject article. Dreadstar ☥ 21:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Arthur F. Carmazzi

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

Contested PROD, unsourced BLP, and I've been unable to find anything that would source this... however, the number of complaints I've received over the PROD is making me kick this here for more discussion. Courcelles 18:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for not knowing what a BLP is, I follow a number of thinkers including and have met him personally at an event. His ideas and processes a very unique and he has made a difference in at least my life and many of my colleagues. I do not know why one would delete him, he adds value in content and as a person who has made an impact --180.249.132.107 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.249.132.107 (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Dear All, The article by Arthur F. carmazzi is worth a read and i adre say inspirational. The fact of the matter is that such self made individuals are few. Prophetically admitted phrase that "wise are those who learn from others mistakes and foolish are those who learn from their own" holds so good here. Readers must learn from such leaders of sorts. The article must stay on and be read by as many as possible readers. [Aalok Sood] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.146.246 (talk • contribs)

Dear All, I have recently attended a workshop from Arthur F Carmazzi, in Bangalore, though the "Color Brain Theory" what he suggests and authored, could not termed as 100% scientific,yet it is worth pondering over. When we are accepting the similar topics like "Kinesics" or "Body language", N.L.P, Graphology etc, why can't we a serious thought over his view on " Categorizing the people based their psychological patterns" I request the authorities of "Wikipeadia" to retain this article and not to delete in order to follow democracy. Dr.Raghu. B.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.34.92 (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY DELETE and SALT as previously deleted at AfD. I want everybody to look at this: [17] I initially nominated the article for deletion back in April, 2008. At the time, Carmazzi was identified as a notorious wikispammer who had not only written a non-notable article about himself, but then had inserted links to it throughout Wikipedia, and then had tried to hijack the AfD discussion with a bunch of sock IPs, exactly as he is doing now. This time, he has committed the additional deceit of posting the article about himself at Arthur F. Carmazzi, rather than the original Arthur Carmazzi, in order to deceptively try to keep from the WP community the fact that he was already previously deleted at AfD. Since this article has already gone through AfD, this AfD is superfluous, and per policy the article should be speedied forthwith, by the first admin who sees this message. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


While you are entitled to do as you wish, the suggestion that any comments are "bunch of sock IPs" is uncalled for - perhaps you could be a bit more professional in your accusations - perhaps in the spirit of wikipedia, try facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.249.132.107 (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


To whom it may concern, we are the Office of Mr Arthur F carmazzi. We have noticed that the Arthur F Carmazzi page is now linked to other pages which is making Mr Carmazzi look bad. We are sure that Wikipedia has no intention of defaming Mr Carmazzi's reputation but the wikipage is on the 3rd line of google when you enter his name. Firstly, we would like you to reconsider his notability, we can provide you with Asian publications and TV interview clips that prove that. Second, If you do not wish to include Mr Carmazzi in wikipedia, then please remove the defamatory references which are unfounded and unprofessional. We can provide any administrator a list of contacts whose lives and businesses are touched by Mr Carmazzi's work and who are willing to testify for him. Thirdly, we would invite you to search for Mr Carmazzi's work in Asia such as Baidu and Google him for his work in Asia where he has been based for almost 20 years. Wikipedia is not just about US and Asia is growing in many respects. Please inform our office as soon as possible when this is done. If you need to contact me, please email Mr Wayan ([email protected]) Wayang.afc (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constellation Family

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

Deprodded with an WP:ITSNOTABLE rationale. I find no authoritative sources that use "Constellation family", so this is inherently WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Google and Google Books show only false positives (e.g. "What is Constellation: Family Constellations Therapy" or any sentence with "constellation, family, etc." in it). The single source in the article looks to be non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your astronomical input into Wikipedia BlueEarth. Thank you for this article and the other ones that you have worked on. Citing from websites is perfectly fine. What has been caused now by TenPoundHammer is his non-informed attempt to get other sources not connected to SEDS. In other words, what was their source? Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aside from the website linked above, the only usages of "constellation family" I have been able to find are mirrors of this article, and I agree with TenPoundHammer's characterization of this link as non-notable. James McBride (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to get the precise phrase is idiotic in this situation. One can use "family of constellations" and come up with many, including especially "group of constellations". I think it would be awkward to rename the article with variations, including those now near the beginning of the first paragraph. If Menzel, who was a seriously significant authoritative person in the field of astronomy (which the Wikipedia article on him is insufficient), then I would concur with him in the particular usage in this case. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many cultures have had collectively groups of constellations, including the Orient, the Occident (West), and others, both historically and in the present time. If you are trying to make a racist inuendo instead I oppose your vulgarity.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A first deletion notation was made by TenPoundHammer on 2011 January 22. I objected then, I do so again on his second nomination for deletion on 2011 January 27. See reasons below in Part 2 noting my points then from the article discussion page. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Struck second !vote; don't vote more than once.
I noticed that ALL of Thor Dockweiler's Keep !votes had been struck by other people, which is out of order. He's allowed one, so I've put this one back for him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
extensive discussion by Thor Dockweiler
A further point: (10) Not being in Google should not be used as an only excuse to delete articles. Google in any of its forms itself is relatively a recent creation. It seriously does not yet contain great quantities of information. While great in recent time it does not cover the bulk of the history of the human record. Legions of scientific data, archaeological, and other fields that would be helpful for this particular article under discussion are just not there. Especially in astronomy. You have to dig in libraries or be knowledgeable about it.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another point: (11) I can not recommend merging this topic back into the "Constellation" article. This topic area should be noted in "Constellation" but with a link to this existing page of "Constellation Family". Groups of constellations collectively are a notable separate subject of sufficient worth as a separate matter in astronomy. What would you put it under if you did otherwise?Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another point: (12) Groups of constellations were organized earlier both vertically (meridianally) and horizontally. Roman numerals were used. The system would eventually evolve and become Right Ascension and Declination. See Charles Augustus Young, "A Text-Book of General Astronomy for Colleges and Scientific Schools"(1888).Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another point: (13) I believe this is generally used in the public as well and has been for a long time. I have used the term myself in discussions with people since I was a little boy, but most of the time using "group of constellations" depending on the type of context I was speaking about. I took a little survey earlier today and in the evening my time of a few people (non-astronomers and non-sophisticated on purpose) and made sure I made no reference to any favored term or gave any hint. It is interesting to note that 1 out of the 10 said "group", and the rest said "family". They clearly understood that I was talking about multiple constellations in the sky.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another point: (14) Part of Google's problem (and other search engines) is that copyright restrictions eliminate many modern sources. I do not think that is justification to delete.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another point: (15) Now I seem to have found something. Menzel uses the term "families" on p. 98 of "The Friendly Stars" by Martha Evans Martin and Donald Howard Menzel, Dover (1966) [Martin is a descendent of Elizabeth J. Evans who wrote the original edition in 1907; the Martin/Menzel version being a revision of the 1907 work.]. The context though is wrong in that it is noting a situation in which a star in the past was sometimes placed or listed in two constellations. This may not be the correct Menzel reference. I somehow remember seeing "families" in something written by Menzel but still can not precisely recall. The mere fact that Menzel may have used "families" at all may be helpful as this may have planted a subconscious seed in many young readers and spread it further, but I doubt it for I know it has been used publicly in my lifetime experience.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another point: (16) The term "group" and also "constellation-group" is used in "Star Myths" by Theony Condes (1997).Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another point: (17) The term "group of constellations" is used in both Burnham (p.50) and on p. 252 of "The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge" (2nd Edition, 2007). Burnham further mentions "south circumpolar" on p. 50 of his work. It is true that groups of constellations are not just organized in the zodiac, but by each celestial pole. Further, groups of constellations are organized seasonally both in the Northern Hemisphere and in the Southern Hemisphere. This is a valid point that needs to be put in the existing article. For example "The Autumnal Constellations", or variations thereof.Thor Dockweiler (talk)
Another point: (18) The term "group of constellations" is used in "Astronomy with an Opera Glass", a classic popular work, by Garrett Putnam Serviss on p. 75.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another point: (19) The term "collection of constellations" is used by the authoritative astronomer a century ago Simon Newcomb. If he had been in England I guarantee he would have been knighted a "Sir". Interesting.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another point: (20) The term "Wet Region" is used by H. A. Rey to encompass the water related constellations. Interesting.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another point: (21) Yes, now I have found something. A different source that uses the term "Family of Constellations" ["Hydra Family of Constellations"]. From the book "Binocular Astronomy" by Craig Crossen and Wil Tirion (1992). I note they also have in the book "the winter constellations". One will recognize Tirion as being the astrocartographer used in most maps in the current generation. [My own interest in constellations and astrocartography as a boy predates his interest.]. On this particular reference, I think I can say that it is within the common realm of knowledge.
KEEP - On the prior points and all of the above, I state that the article is notable and worthy of retention. Like I stated in Point 9 below, I will put in some time during 2011 on this one. The research alone will be at least 100 difficult hours. One could spend a nice 1,000-2,000 hours and generate a thesis on this. Perhaps several since different authors would have different viewpoint perspectives and research focuses. No one has ever done so that I know of. What are a few more hours? I already have over 85,000 hours in astronomy during my lifetime. Point 21 sustains the article. BlueEarth's initiated article should be saved and improved with time.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I care nowhere near enough about this to respond to all of your comments. I will just say that I do not see any of these variations on constellation family as having extra meaning beyond what the words mean separately. There does not need to be an article on autumnal constellations, because it simply means constellations that are up during autumn. Further, I still see no evidence that the constellation families listed in the article are used elsewhere. James McBride (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Article Discussion page, Part 1, for the record of this AfD

[edit]
copypasta from article talk
The Bayer Family should be renamed the Plancius Family

The current text identifies the eleven southern constellations introduced in the late 16th century as the Bayer Family. This is incorrect and based on outdated information. Johann Bayer was not their inventor, nor did he claim this and nor was he the first to depict them.

They were first introduced on a 35-cm celestial globe published by Petrus Plancius and Jodocus Hondius in Amsterdam in 1597 (or early 1598).

I propose to change Bayer Family into Plancius Family in this page and on all other linked pages. AstroLynx (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Örrk! That illuminates one deep trouble with this article (or possibly but not likely the Wikipedia policies): changing it to "Plancius Family" in order to make it factually correct would violate WP:OR (the original research prohibition), on the other hand keeping it as it is would be factually misleading, bordering to WP:HOAX. Contacting the one sole source to make them rename the group would create an information loop where Wikipedia verifies itself by creating external sources supporting it.
The article should be heavily remade to accomodate various groupings subdivision systems. I'm not sure the topic deserves an article: if there are no independent sources discussing the family subdivisions from an independent secondary perspective, the topic is too incoherent to be encyclopedic. Then the article should be deleted. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link collection to perhaps use to make the article nearly encyclopedic:
Most of them are prob either copying SEDS subdivision, or this Wikipedia article, the original source being a book by a Menzel, "A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets". I estimate the article cannot be made encyclopedic: however we twist and turn the topic, there's only one arbitrary source without any analysis. The article will hopelessly remain WP:IINFO. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If rewriting this article to make it factually more correct is not an option, then a possible solution would be to make explicit mention of the published source (Menzel's book) it is based on and also to point out that not Bayer but Plancius was the originator of the so-called "Bayer family" (the relevant sources are listed in the Talk page of Petrus Plancius). As soon as this talk page is archived, no-one will be be aware of the historical problem created by this article. AstroLynx (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! Being a reserved inclusionist I think the article could survive, and then that that is the proper way to fix it. After Menzel is mentioned, we could give room for other groupings, if such exist. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Unfortunately, I do not have easy access to Menzel's book, so perhaps it is best if you make the necessary corrections to the article if this is not too much trouble. AstroLynx (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Article Discussion page, Part 2, for the record of this AfD

[edit]
MORE extensive discussion by Thor Dockweiler
Proposed Deletion Objection

KEEP. Objection is raised to the proposed deletion. (1) It is interconnected with other articles related to constellations. (2) I do not think the deletion proposer is sufficiently knowledgeable about astronomy and may have made the deletion proposal from that lack of knowledge and bias. If those who are deeply involved and knowledgeable about astronomy as Wikipedia contributors chose to then I would consider it further. (3) "BlueEarth" created the article over 1 year ago, why now? (4) The sky has historically been divided since ancient times into asterisms, constellations, and groups of constellations - - sometimes with a separate identity for that collection. Teaching and mythological stories were taught in the past on constellations in groups or families, either by the lighted stars in the heavens or by the patches of darkness. It is only recently since the IAU in 1922 Eurocentrically redefined the constellations with Delporte specifying the boundaries with them in 1930. This has had benefits but also subdued other cultural depictions. I need not mention the Pluto fiasco. (5) It is true that Menzel mentions it, but so does Sir James Jeans note groupings before him. I will have to find my copy of Menzel. (6) Of particular note the Ancient Egyptians (several thousand years B.C.) had a particular area of sky with multiple constellations collectively known as the Duat (celestially speaking, not just the underworld) despite having those constellations separately named. This needs to be put in this article as well. (7) Other historic cultural groups need to be noted with their collective groupings as well, in addition to the Ancient Egyptians' stellar-based religion. (8) Just because it is less used now does not mean it is of value to researchers, current day users, and Wikipedia. Should we eliminate the knowledge of quadrant astronomy of the sky too? The astrolabe? I think not. Quadrant astronomy may still be important to a naval navigation course. (9) I readily admit this particular article could use more work, and also with references. I will work on it from time to time during the entire year of 2011. This will not be easy as this particular astronomical topic should be substantially more difficult as material on the subject of constellations as a whole is sparse and obscure. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection against keeping the article (I never suggested to delete it) but I would like it to be factually correct. Now it claims that Johann Bayer 'invented' the southernmost constellations which simply is not true — he copied them from a celestial globe made in 1597/98 by Petrus Plancius and Jodocus Hondius the Elder (see the discussion above). I have always believed that the mission of Wikipedia was to provide correct facts, not false and outdated information. AstroLynx (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AstroLynx, you are not the one who proposed the deletion. TenPoundHammmer was the one who did so on 2011 January 22. I objected immediately when I discovered the proposal and made some modification ending the problem before the 7 day deadline was up. In apparent spite from my perspective, and most likely improper procedure, TenPoundHammer came back again and proposed it for deletion a second time 2011 January 27 in a more formal manner noting a synthesis problem. Basically, references. I am going to object again. He is clearly unfamiliar with the subject of astronomy or science and after a slight cursory review, he is in my opinion a vitriolic deletionist at the present time that has gone beyond the bounds of reasonableness. While he correctly nominates some articles for deletion he is clearly causing the destruction of many that are perfectly valid. If I had my choice I would remove him from Wikipedia. He does more damage than help. How many editors have we lost to people like him. I would rather lose 1 than a thousand any day. Respectfully, Thor Dockweiler - astronomer. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AstroLynx, I further wish to note that you are quite correct re Plancius/Hondius. Yes, accurate information is what Wikipedia wants, but verifiability is more important to them in the rules than truth. Again, a question of citing proper sources, and worth noting within a Wikipedia article in situations such as in this case. I have noticed over the years that Bayer is credited in many sources. For example, "Bayer's constellations" is even cited in a respected authoritative tome by Academic Press entitled "Dictionary of Science and Technology" [1992, p. 232]. If memory serves me correct even the Encyclopedia Brittanica had problems with this, at least the New Encyclopedia Brittanica. By the way, let me congratulate you on your input in Wikipedia. I actually appreciate what you have done. People like you are what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Kindest regards. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thor — first of all, don't !vote more than once. Second of all, your "objection" is the biggest tl;dr I've ever seen on AFD. Say more with fewer words. Third of all, there's no need to copy the automated deletion nomination onto this AFD as some sort of "record". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 13:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not vote more than once. You are obviously not reading. Just glancing and taking things out of context is the same thing as making an assumption. You have also changed my wording with strikeout text. That is plainly despicable dishonest behavior. You created two deletion incidents on two different dates. I objected to incident number 1. I also objected to incident number 2 which is the subject currently under review. I entered the text from the Article Discussion Page to make sure that it is noted within the AfD Discussion Page. Responses are being made by individuals on both, and both need to be looked at by any that are following this. Do note that indentations are important.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On your "second" sentence - - frankly, coming from you I just do not believe you. Too long, do not read or did not read seems to be your response. I like generally being succint. You seem to say plenty of words when you need to. I thought each Point made was rather brief. It would be tough on the audience if I used abbreviations. Your actions, and your actions alone, created this. You could have caused a discussion, caused a discussion to merge, suggested some changes, made some constructive changes yourself [that is right -- putting a little time in], or some other option. But no - - you chose to take the ultimate option of kill the article. The easy way out without any effort. I certainly did not expect to see your terminal option exercised when I went to look up this specific article to see how I would consider working on it in 2011. I do not constantly work on Wikipedia - just occassionally when I have the spirit, time, energy, and desire to do so. Well, I am glad you are annoyed by your actions.Thor Dockweiler (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is what you consider "succinct" I'd hate to see your idea of "verbose". Also, striking out multiple !votes from the same user is within the acceptable boundaries of refactoring others' posts. I didn't cause a discussion to merge because I thought the article was unsalvageable, and couldn't find a single authoritative source that used the term "constellation family". If the sources don't exist, then neither should the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thirdly, and with no further comment after this, just so we are relatively even on thirds, I think when undesirable activity (my opinion) occurs it ought to be exposed. Air out the baggage so all can see what is going on. Yes, to me truth prevails, not trickery or otherwise. It would appear to me you did not read any of the 21 Points above. You see, both you and I are very different people. In your case, why bother reading. Glancing is easier. My own style would be to review every point and learn/think about it. In my case I want to become more knowledgeable. I am never knowledgeable enough; I want to learn. I desire to learn. I read adult college level encyclopedias when I was in elementary school. I have been this way my entire life since I was very little. And I want to share some of that knowledge learned with others, many thousands over the years with groups large and small. The great science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke once said you should read a new book every day of your life. Probably a bit difficult to do in practicality but the advise is sound. Cheers! Thor Dockweiler (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lone source in the article is not reliable, as defined by WP:RS, and I cannot find anything to indicate that this particular schema for organizing the constellations is widespread. Sure, there are sources I can find through Google, reliable and otherwise, that group the contesllations, but none seems to represent a widespread consensus among the astronomical community, and this particular grouping of constellations seems to be singularly referenced to the website that serves as the article's sole reference. I don't see this as passing the minimum standards of WP:GNG. --Jayron32 04:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing vote to weak keep. Due to newly provided sources, it appears that the article could clearly cover the concept of "groups" or "families" of constellations. However, the article needs a massive overhaul in that it focuses almost exclusively on a single, probably non-notable schema of organizing the constellations. The actual organization described in the article is still only attested to in a single, non-reliable source, and it looks like the other sources are being used synthetically to support the schema, where the other sources do not directly attest to THIS schema. However, enough other sources have been shown to prove that the general concept of grouping constellations in some way is an actual practice. What needs to be done is to rewrite this article to remove the current non-notable organization and replace it with other, better attested organizations. But the basic concept is still roughly notable. --Jayron32 13:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of throwing mud around, including cries of "racism" (wtf?), Thor could make himself useful and actually provide references for this thus far completely unsourced thing. !vote: Delete until whoever wants to keep this finds some evidence. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Keep — evidence found. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thor is experiencing a standard stressful situation that inexperienced editors sometimes find themselves in, and deserves sympathy. The article is interesting and potentially sourcable, so trying to defend it at AfD and/or find enough sourcing to establish notability before the AfD closes presents a seemingly inescapable crisis requiring frantic efforts. The way out is to realize that wp:there is no deadline. Thor, the best way to deal with this is download a copy of the article to your hard drive, then relax. If the AfD results in deletion, just keep working on your downloaded copy at your leisure. Once you have enough sourcing for GNG, it is perfectly fine to recreate the article. It's no big deal if the article is off the site for a while, especially since the current version is really rather skimpy. Once you've got a better version with more sourcing, you can put it back. Filibustering the AfD as you're doing doesn't come across well, because the urgency that you're perceiving really doesn't exist. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also can't find any sources to suggest that this arrangement of constellations is notable and in any kind of general use - other than that one link, which does not satisfy WP:RS. (I agree with the suggestion that if Thor Dockweiler believes there are reliable sources out there, he should make a copy of the article to keep while searching for those sources. I would, however, caution against doing work that would consist of synthesis from original sources - we'd need secondary sources to show that this arrangement of constellations is already acknowledged) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that Silver seren is adding references to this article. I think that adding reliable references would help save this article. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and *facepalms*. The International Astronomical Union, during their meeting in 1928, established the 8 constellation families from the acknowledged 88 constellations. They certainly exist and are notable. I am quite surprised that Wikipedia doesn't have a better article on them. SilverserenC 21:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such thing as an International Astrological Union. There is, however, an International Astronomical Union. These are two very very different things. The IAU did establish the boundaries of the 88 constellations. I can find no evidence that they further established constellation groups, and the IAU makes no mention of constellation groups on their page devoted to constellations ([18]). James McBride (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, I meant Astronomical. Fixed. And the sources I added to the article say that they did, it doesn't necessarily have to be on their website. Most likely because it is a given that the families exist, since they are so very obvious. Anyone with at least a cursory knowledge of astronomy would know about them. SilverserenC 22:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consider the IAU website a more authoritative source on the IAU conventions on constellations than a book on astrology. And there are many people with much more than a cursory knowledge of astronomy who have never heard a thing about the constellation families described in this article. James McBride (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, your argument is that, because you can't find it on the IAU website, it doesn't exist? That's a pretty weak argument. And you're seriously telling me that people have not heard of the Ursa Major family or the Orion family? SilverserenC 22:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The astrology book you used as a reference is not a reliable source. Skim through the book a bit, and tell me if you disagree. I looked around online for other reference of this IAU decision mentioned in the book, and cannot find it. I have not looked exhaustively through the other sources you have added, but the only other one that mentions these constellation families or groups is the Menzel field guide. That Menzel guide is the only even argument for keeping this article that I find even remotely compelling. If this was at all standardized though, I would expect that any one of the other night sky viewing guides I own would mention it. They all say 88 constellations, but none of them seem to mention 8 constellation families. This AfD was the first time I had ever encountered mention of constellation families. James McBride (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Humans have long associated constellations together in various combinations. An article on such associations is therefore warranted. This article is currently named CONSTELLATION FAMILY. It could be CONSTELLATION GROUP or some other word combination. The users of Wikipedia have already determined their preference. When the word “constellation” is entered into the Wikipedia search box, the result is: Constellation, Constellation program, Constellation Energy, Constellation Records, Constellation Family, ConStellation, Constellation Brands, Constellation (disambiguation), Constellation Wines Australia, and Constellation Andromeda. The only word combination in this list that concerns the association of one constellation with another is CONSTELLATION FAMILY. This list is composed automatically by Wikipedia’s computer based on the number of search requests ranked in order from most requested to least requested. The public clearly prefers CONSTELLATION FAMILY. Both “family” and “group” are synonyms in division 786, titled “association,” of Roget’s International Thesaurus, Third Edition, copyright 1962. English is a living language with the preferences of the public eventually prevailing on choices of expression. Arguing that everyone is wrong but me is not very persuasive. 71.105.104.245 (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What we need is reliable sources showing that the concept as covered by the article is notable, not personal analysis and deduction. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added several pre-Menzel cites which should solve the situation. We could change the article to a version of "group" as suggested, but I do not think that is needed in light of the new cites. Synonym semantics are a point. Yes, one could put up the article later. I am well aware of that. But who wants to deprive other people from adding their input. It would be a lonely situation. The "experience" line gave me a good laugh and put me in a good mood. I am reminded of the Reagan/Dole episode of relative "inexperience". As to McBride not knowing, you are now aware; not everything is covered in astronomy college courses [It must be overwhelming for the professors to cover what they do (especially since the HST and more emphasis on astrophysics) in the insufficient time provided!]. As to astrology, at one time I took the view of Krupp. Though, without its modern context, astrology is the earlier version of astronomy and does utilize aspects of positional astronomy, both stellarly and (multi-)constellationally. This must not be forgotten. Yes, some of its references can have some value. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Many of these groups have important historical connections - for example, the Lacaille constellations were all named after scientific instruments and devices (Telescope, Microscope, Octant, Reticule, etc) and that is a notable example of the culture of the age. I am currently managing the citations (combining all the Menzel citations, stuff like that) and adding more information about the individual groups. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted via A10. This one sentence was added to Internet in Egypt. — Timneu22 · talk 22:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internet censorship in Egypt

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

Ok, so Egypt blocked Twitter. That is not grounds for an article called "internet censorship in Egypt" that lists only this one block. This page is nonsense. — Timneu22 · talk 17:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete, though I think it fits A7 pretty unambiguously, G11 might be a bit of a stretch. l'aquatique[talk] 20:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Dreey-C Caram

[edit]
Andre Dreey-C Caram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in-depth coverage of this person appears to exist. Currently fails WP:V and WP:GNG All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 17:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC) non-admin closure[reply]

Zameer Choudrey

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

I PRODed this earlier, but it has been contested. This article is supposedly on Zamer Choudrey, but the article almost entirely focuses on his company's work, It is written like a resume, and the person appears to fail the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for biographical articles. Finally, this article uses promotional language. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walks of Italy

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

This organisation no doubt has a place in relevant directories, but I am not persuaded that is is of encyclopaedic interest. Ian Spackman (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential mass interpretation

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

Contested prod. Of the two sources for the article, one is a self-published source (Aventine Press). The other, although published in a peer reviewed journal, has received zero citations according to google scholar. The author of the article removed the prod and replied that it is deserving of coverage on Wikipedia as a minority interpretation of quantum mechanics. Obviously, this is a minority of one. There are no google scholar or google books hits for the term "Potential mass interpretation". The only google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. The subject of the article seems to be insufficiently notable, as would be evidenced by coverage in reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject and its sole author. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Diesel

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

Semi-professional team of questionable notability, fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:NSPORTS. No independent reliable sources WP:RS and potential conflict of interest/advertising issues WP:COI/WP:ADV It appears that the organization wants to use Wikipedia as a free web host server instead of their own site WP:NOT. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Live: London Festival '09 (Kid British album)

[edit]
ITunes Live: London Festival '09 (Kid British album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as a non-notable album per WP:NALBUMS. it didn't chart or receive extensive independent coverage. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hyland

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

An unreferenced BLP article about a man who provides voice over for announcements in shopping malls. How notable is that? Biker Biker (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's a DJ who has worked on multiple radio stations and has presented on TV. He isn't a major celebrity but he isn't invisible. Obviously, the article needs more work doing to it but is anybody prepared to put the effort in?  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 01:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Duval

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

Delete. Does not meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Respectfully, Cind.amuse 13:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy close ; wrong forum. I will re-list at RfD momentarily. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H.262/MPEG-2 Part 3

[edit]
H.262/MPEG-2 Part 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"H.262/MPEG-2 Part 3" is a wrong name and there is no such specification. The redirect to "MPEG-2 Part 3" is also wrong. There is only "H.262/MPEG-2 Part 2" standard and its name includes two different names of the same video compression standard - ITU-T name "H.262" and ISO/IEC name "MPEG-2 Part 2". "MPEG-2 Part 3" defines only an audio compression formats. But the H.262 standard (a.k.a. MPEG-2 Part 2) does not define an audio compression. H.262 defines only the video compression.[19] I wrote a message about this misleading article to the creator (User_talk:Mikus), but he did not reply. I edited this article on January 24, 2011 (as an anonymous user) and I removed some inappropriate information. I also edited the MPEG-2 article and removed the only wikilink to this misleading article. I requested the move of "H.262/MPEG-2 Part 3" to "MPEG-2 Part 3". It was accepted today (See History of edits). Kuyrebik (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rococo Salon

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

Hair salon. The article claims lots of notability, however it also includes a lot of smoke-screen type information on an apparently completely unrelated person which owns a salon in NY [20] However the salon the article is about is in Auckland, NZ. So I'm inclined to say that this salon is not notable. Travelbird (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Rogers (softball)

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

Withdrawn Only one (possibly primary) in-depth source appears to exist about this person. Although they make claims to notability they currently fall down on verifiability and WP:GNG All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 11:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Sources exist, obvious keep now. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 14:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - If one is a four time All-American in a sport, one certainly meets the spirit of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Obviously, the "professionalism" bar does not apply, but this does not mean that the true superstars of non-professional collegiate team sports should be deemed "non-notable." Carrite (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of filling stations in Martha's Vineyard

[edit]
List of filling stations in Martha's Vineyard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A year or two ago this would have been speedied within two minutes. In order to be politically correct and so as "not to offend" article creators we now seemingly tolerate it.. A list of gas stations in Martha's Vineyard has and never will be even remotely encyclopedic and it is waste of time even trying to pretend that it is... Not a Directory. I do assume good faith on the article creator but this is quite possibly one of the least notable lists I've ever seen, and I've seen some ones in my time!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 workers fall to death at Manila building site

[edit]

The result was Speedy deleted, copyvio of [27]. Fram (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 workers fall to death at Manila building site (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a news site. — Timneu22 · talk 10:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Author requested deletion. Favonian (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Christian Hasselriis

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

No indication of notability per WP:AUTHOR. I was unable to find any secondary sources about the subject. VQuakr (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Rename to Armoured flight deck and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs

[edit]
Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How should we delete thee, oh silly page? Let me count the ways:

  • First, this is in open violation of the NPOV policy. Comparing carrier class 1 and carrier class 2 does not provide a neutral assessment of the ships in a fleet at the time, nor does it fully take into account the matter of other nation's carriers. Neutrality demands that all nations get an equal share of the comparison. Creating such an article would be a waste of resources on Wikipedia.
  • Second, this is in open violation of our Original Research policy. Short of actually having a documented battle between these two classes everything in the article is based on educated guesswork, and while it may be educated the fact remains that guesswork is guesswork. Since all ships in both classes are now razorblades or retired rust piles we will never know. Not withstanding paper statistics there are other matters that a comparison could never hope to take into account. Factors like the psychological warfare perspective need to be taken into account, and they clearly are not in this article.
  • Third, the ship class articles themselves can serve as a comparison. One of the main goals of article expansion on Wikipedia is to create a "we report, you decide" nature with the articles: we will report the strengths and weakness in the articles with citations to second and third party sources, and leave it to others to decide how they ships would have measured up in combat. Articles like this defeat the whole purpose of that approach.
  • Fourth, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. So we are comparing numbers. So what? Our ships templates can do the same thing in half the space with a greater investment return by adding histories, service records, armor and armament info, etc. If the article adheres to WP:NOT, you must delete it without a second thought!
  • Fifth, this invites a ton of articles here all with a comparison between class-a and class-b, which wastes space. We don't need these kinds of articles clogging up our site with information already presented elsewhere, no do we need the nationalism, drama, or warring over the articles this invites. Keep everything in one nice little place or we are going to end up with (for lack of a better term) "comparison-cruft" pages. Shelling this beachhead now ensures that we crush such an invasion before its members get organized move on to other articles like tanks, bombers, missiles, etc.
  • Sixth, we have had this discussion before. In fact, this afd is essentially a rehashing of all the point listed on the noted page. Whatsoever be done to one side of the equation should also be done to the other.

It is for the reasons that I move that we deleted this page as soon as possible. I said it before, but its worth saying again: Help me send a message to all our contributors that we will not tolerate these articles on our site, nor we will accept their drama and conflict. Delete this article, ladies and gentlemen. To allow it leave another week speaks poorly to our ability to uphold our own policies and guidelines. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of armoured flight decks still needs to be covered and we do not want to lose viable material that can be saved.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current article can be userfied so the sources and data ae still accesible. - BilCat (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The USN adopted armoured flight decks before the end of WW2 and have used them ever since, as Flight deck#Armoured decks states, quite clearly. An article on the development of armoured flight decks has to show why the USN came to agree with the RN, and this doesn't constitute bias any more than any article on the demise or rise of any concept.Damwiki1 (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is titled "Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs", not "The preference of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs". My point is any article with POV, does not belong here.Nilaequitas (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The USN introduced the concept of All or Nothing armour on battleships, and the RN adopted that design concept, starting with the Nelson class because the RN concluded that it was a superior idea, yet stating this is hardly POV pushing. The article simply needs to be renamed and rewritten to show how and why both navies (and the IJN) adopted armoured flight decks.Damwiki1 (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I sugessted earlier, when this article is deleted, it could be serfied to retain the data and sources. This could be used to help expand the Flight deck#Armoured decks section, though slowly and in a neutral manner. if the section grows to the point htat it begins to overwhelm the rest of the article, then at that point splitting it off to create Armoured flight deck could be discussed. - BilCat (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to be a spinoff from flight deck which otherwise has little on the notable topic of the armoured flight deck. This topic is detailed in thousands of books and the content here seems to be a familiar summary of it, rather then being OR and POV, as the nomination fancifully claims. The title should just be the plain one of armoured flight deck but that's a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just rename it to Armoured flight deck as the Colonel suggested. There are references in the article. Discuss anything you believe wrong with the article on its talk page, and work at cleaning it up. If there is a wikiproject for this sort of thing, ask them for assistance and input. Dream Focus 11:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Clean-up Information in the article is useful and cited, but could use editing for length, depth, and formatting, since it seems to ramble at times and provide more information than necessary in some areas. The article should be altered to focus primarily on the concept of an armored flight deck, with a secondary focus on the comparison between armored and unarmored decks. This would fall within Wikipedia's grounds for retainment, as it would cover a valid naval engineering concept as well as provide background to the controversies of the design, just as articles on bridges and engines compare the different strengths and advantages of each. the_one092001 (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The essay Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research covers this. Also see search. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename and cleanup. The sources do indeed discuss the comparison between armoured and unarmoured deck aircraft carriers, therefore this is neither WP:OR nor POV. If there are issues with how it is worded in a POV way, these can be resolved with a rewrite. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Flight deck#Armoured decks. The existing article requires extensive revisions for completeness and other issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Armoured flight deck - a few years I wrote an essay on Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research. It was designed to consider when a comparison article between one notable topic and a second notable topic (e.g. Politics of Canada and Politics of Australia) could itself be considered notable. This isn't directly comparable to this situation and its not comparing two notable subjects but is rather a section of the article Flight_deck#Armoured_decks. However, the principles outlined in that essay may be useful to this discussion. In particular, I said that notability must be demonstrated with sources that do the comparison itself. As Demiurge1000 notes above, the sources do this, so it passes the article-level test for OR/N (which is not to say there may not be any OR in the article itself). NPOV can only be a valid ground for deletion if an article is inherently NPOV, and I can't see why that would be the case. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge to Aircraft carrier. It has POV & OR issues, but it's a valuable look at the different design choices, why they got made, & what the implications were. It is a bit RN-heavy IMO, but... (FYI, I happen to agree with its conclusion the armored decks were superior, so take that with a grain of powder. ;p) Davy Jones Monkee around 18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Armoured flight deck Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When my sister was working on her thesis for her Master's degree, she mentioned her Professor told the class not to mention Wikipedia as a reliable source. I really hope those adding comments on the questioned article, have read it, or ar at least have some knowledge (objective) on the subject. Nilaequitas (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC
  • Keep and rename to Armoured flight deck as it seems to incorporate relevant information with adequate referencing but the name is a non-starter and the very obvious comparisons should be pruned or re-written. As it is written right now, it does as the original nominator details, fall into a very controversial and contentious category of "my .... is better than yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but not really sure where. While there are some issues here, there's a lot of it that's frankly useful detail about WWII-era aircraft carrier design. Some of this material could be put in articles like Essex class aircraft carrier, though Trekphiler's suggestion of moving it to the main article makes plenty of sense, especially since it gives detail on the evolution of the designs. SDY (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nothing inherently wrong with such a list, but for this particular one the sources are insufficient to meet WP:V. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Tamil-language films

[edit]
List of highest-grossing Tamil-language films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails the WP:OR guidelines and will never resolve the issue in the future or through discussion on the article talk page as consistent reliable sources do not exist. Some of the figures given are unsourced, have citations that on examination include no figures or have footnotes to vague promotion statements such as "raked in more than Rs 250 crore worldwide" (in the example of Dasavathaaram - an estimated and rounded up figure that is unsupported by accountable statements of box-office income and yet has been synthesized as the misleadingly precise figure of $57,766,000). As has been previously stated in the lead of the article (recently blanked) there are no reliable sources that could be used to provide a consistent ranking of Tamil films over time or even a ranked snap-shot of the top ten films by box-office income. The table of Highest-grossing films by year (from 1917) is, if anything, more misleading as inclusion of a film name implies it definitely was the highest-grossing for that particular year and there are no independent reliable sources that can unambiguously provide this information or that could provide like-for-like figures of income world-wide or locally. Any figures quoted would be speculative and are unlikely to distinguish between income during the year of release or longer periods. Previous PROD removed so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

popular tamil weekly kumudam has verified the collections a snap from kumudam dated 19.11.2010 http://i56.tinypic.com/dg40o0.jpg

SyberGod (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That information was cribbed directly from this same article on Wikipedia. Refer to WP:CIRCULAR. Fæ (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Such a list for Tamil films can never be compiled even with a semblance of accuracy, because no one puts out reliable box office numbers for the films. Most of the box office collection reports are planted in the media by the production companies themselves. Such an article will always be (take a look at the article history) an ever changing battle ground of conflicting claims and counter claims.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep provided with enough references

SyberGod (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one seems to be a bollywooder and the other ill of reverting and deleting :) SyberGod (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if this article has to go then List of highest grossing Indian films and List of highest-grossing Bollywood films also needs to be deleted.

SyberGod (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop insulting other people and read WP:NPA. This was the attitude that got you blocked the first time. This is the second time you have insulted me. I let it slide the first time when you called me a ["dumb cry baby", but keep this up and you will get blocked again.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stick to the topic , this isn't a forum for your cries !

SyberGod (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Kumudam list was copied from wikipedia itself. A case of circular referencing--Sodabottle (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, I can't really see the point of lists of the gross takes of films because of the varying production costs and the effects of inflation. If there could be a figure based on gross in relation to production, and also inflation standardised, it might be meaningful. Otherwise, it's just figures that tell you nothing. Or blank boxes in some of the highest by year section, which renders the listing somewhat dubious (unless, of course, it was the only Tamil film that year...) Peridon (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if this has to be deleted , it should be deleted along with List of highest grossing Indian films and List of highest-grossing Bollywood films , not alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyberGod (talk • contribs) 17:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please feel free to nominate them for AFD. --CarTick (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Peridon (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I strongly disagree with any general proposition that there's something inherently non-encyclopedic about a "List of highest-grossing Fooian films". The obsessive attention that such lists have gotten for decades in journals like Variety speak to the notability of the subject. I also don't agree that the lists' notability is inherently defeated by problems with inflation or currency fluctuation: that's also something that Variety has been coping with for decades, and while it may go to the ultimate uses of the list it does not make them less notable. However, if it is in fact the case that verifiable sources don't exist for India's film industry, then I would have to agree that the lists don't survive WP:V.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for this critique. With the benefit of hindsight the nomination was overly long and if I raise a similar AfD I shall focus on the key issue of verifiability as you have identified. Fæ (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Chambers (trade unionist)

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

Purported politician. No sources provided. Supposedly the first secretary of the British Labour Party. However General_Secretary_of_the_Labour_Party lists Ramsay MacDonald as first secretary and makes no mention of this person. Google doesn't turn up anything either for "Tom Chambers labour party". At this point I'm suspecting a hoax. Travelbird (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per AJHingston above. The only grounds for deleting this stub would be in the case of a hoax. While I haven't been able to pull up the name in the handful of books I have in the house on related topics, I'm not an English labour history guy either. If he was a pioneer British trade union official, as Hingston intimates, this stub should stand, with appropriate tags for additional work on the piece. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hmm. I've still having problems with the article:
    • The article links to Labour party. If he was involved with the Independent Labour Party then that link could be repaired easily enough, however we still need a source to ref what exactly he was doing within that party.
    • The only pertinent hits I get on Google is a minor mention in Wikipedia's Tom Mann (only in an infobox) and a mention here - again only a passing mention and I'm not sure about the reliability of this site.
    • Independent_Labour_Party makes no mention of him either. Let's assume that he was (as source #2 states) the founder of the Workers’ Union - we'd really need a reliable source for that. The Workers' Union was founded in 1898. That means he definitely can't be the son of Fielding Reginald West as the article states.
    • So what are we left with: almost the entire content of the article is wrong: He is not the founder of the Labour party (nor of the Independent Labour Party). He is not the son of Fielding Reginald West. That leaves nothing in the article other than "he was a trade unionist". And for that we only have marxists.org as source.
    • What we could do is delete almost everything the article has now and change it completely to state that "Tom Chambers was the secretary general of the ITWF from 1901-1904. (as there is a source here). However that list seems a bit iffy as well, as it lists several people being both General Secretary and President at the same time which seems highly unlikely. It is rather more likely that one of the two post either didn't exist at the time or was vacant. Was Tom Chambers the president of the general secretary ? I have no idea and I have no way of verifying it. So there are still massive issues with WP:V. Travelbird (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is reference to his being General Secretary of the ITF and then becoming President in 1901 here That is plausible as Tom Mann emigrated to Australia in 1901 and the article says that Chambers was running it from home, so might well have doubled up as secretary. But I share the doubts. The suspicion is that he was merely an associate of Mann, and his notability depends on whether he contributed to events in his own right. Notability can be cumulative, and if he were constantly present at critical times garnering support for Mann, offering him ideas and encouragement, and so on that might be enough. Another outstanding question is what role he played as a seamen's union leader. The article says, BTW, that Fielding Reginald West was his son and that is plausible. My guess is that this article was contributed by a family member and relies on family anecdote, which would explain confusion and lack of published sources. AJHingston (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's enough evidence now that he is notable as a trade unionist. I've started putting in some referenced information and will keep working on the article. Warofdreams talk 17:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The newly found Russian sources are very helpful in establishing this airline's notability. However, we can't assume the "delete" !votes are no longer relevant. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artsakh Air

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

Airline that has not begun flying. Given the status for Nagorno-Karabakh and the fact that this would be the first airline flying to Stepanakert Airport in years it would be notable even as a project, however the only source for "Artsakh Air" is an online news site and Google has no hits either. Unless someone finds sources under a different name this is likely a case of WP:CRYSTAL Travelbird (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Wikipedia maintains articles for airlines that have ceased operating. This one will be operating shortly. This one has an operational head office at Stepanakert airport. Undoubtedly the article needs sources from local news sites that will have news of this new airline (in Armenian, Russian, and Turkish languages). There are a number of English language sources on Google already. Marking for rescue.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 20:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If reliable sources can be found that the airline is planned and the name is "Artsakh Air" then I have no objection to the article. Travelbird (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are a couple of problems with the sources. Number 1: the 'two' sources on the page are actually the exact same source. It is a piece written by Radio Free Europe, which has then been republished by two different media outlets, using the EXACT SAME wording. Secondly, the source is an in depth piece on the Stepanakert Air Base, and contains a single, less than a sentence, mention of Artsakh Air. Thirdly, there is no concrete verification of the existence of this airline. The 'source' used on the page is speculative, not concrete. There is no webpage, no phone-number, no business license, no aircraft, no civil aviation license, no landing rights, no lease agreements; nothing that verifies that this airline exists (and is more than an intention to create one by the government). Ravendrop (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing those. The Russian ones do mention the name "Artsakh Air" but as far as I can gather with my limited Russian they seem to focus more on the objection of Azerbaijan to flights in principle.
#1 is also available in English, although the Russian one does have the name "Эйр Арцах"
NB that Russian sources #1-4 have an identical text so they can only be considered as one source.
Unfortunately I can't read Armenian. Do the Armenian language sources have more info on the company (e.g. date of establishment, address of head-office, a concrete date for the commencement of flights) ?
The Google translation of Armenian source #3 seems to be fairly good but it only gives May as tentative planned starting date. The last sentence seems to indicate that the company hasn't yet been founded "The company, remind, will be called Air Artsakh, and the airport, airport in Stepanakert." However I realize that I'm basing this on a Google translation so I'll defer to anyone who actually speaks the language.
Armenian source #2 Google translation (quite bad) seems to be largely identical in content to #3
Armenian source #1 is again very similar to #3&#2.
To sum this up:
  • We can source the name Air Artsakh (or Artsakh Air) as the planned name of the company.
  • We have a planned date for flight to start sometime in May.
  • We have a planned number of planes
Thus --> The airline certainly isn't notable as a company as we still don't have proof that it actually exists as of today. The question is: could this be notable enough as a project alone. It would certainly be a major development to have a resumption of flights after twenty years. But at this point I would say that we haven't reached the advanced planning stage yet, where enough is known about the proposed airline to warrant its own article (e.g. a finalized name, planes that are actually ordered, offices that are open, flight schedules etc).
At this point I would propose that the info we do have (and can source) is merged into Stepanakert_Air_Base. If this airline ever does take off then I'd have no problem with the article being re-created. But at present it's simply too early for a separate one. Travelbird (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually there is proof that Artsakh Air exists today. It already has a head office that is operational at Stepanakert airport which is doing the preparation for getting the airline ready in May and this is noted in at least two of the articles that I've read. And, most of these articles have been published in the last four days (the AfD request appears to have been put forward before most of these articles were published).  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 00:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you point out which source has the address of the head-office ? Travelbird (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the sources listed shows a postal address. But most of the sources say something like the first reference:
<quote>Dmitry Atbashian, head of the local civil aviation authority, said a state-run airline has already been set up to carry out those flights on a daily basis.</quote>
The current existence of Artsakh Air is unquestionable.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 13:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read those statements as well. However the ones I've seen always say "will" not "have" set up.
As I said in my nomination, this is a matter of WP:CRYSTAL. For a variety of reasons, it is unclear at the moment when and if this airline will ever fly. That is why I would feel much more comfortable with the project being included in Stepanakert Air Base instead. If the airline doesn't end up flying - e.g. because Armavia flies instead to avoid problems with ICAO (just like KTHY was a Turkish registered airline, not a Northern Cypriot one for very similar reasons) - then nothing further needs to happen, the project is notable enough for a mention in that article. If Artsakh Air flights do start in May, then the info can be moved once again to Artsakh Air or whatever the airline's actual name will be. Travelbird (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Powers Whiteside

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

Bio of a person whose only claim to fame is that he once blogged at http://think.mtv.com/David_Whiteside/. No other apparent pertinent Google hits. Travelbird (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs); rationale was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E. F. Schumacher Society

[edit]
E. F. Schumacher Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Straight up advertising. No outside sources and was created by a seemingly SPA account. Per request at AN/I Dusti*poke* 06:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs); rationale was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Institute

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

This article has no outside sources, is based of it's own advertising, and is allegedly written from a SPA account. Dusti*poke* 06:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Productioneering

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

Not notable per WP:NEO. Only one self published source found. (see p. 9) No indication that this is a Navy-wide program. At least one different use of the same term found. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete per author request.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter Hashtag Chat Group Index

[edit]
Twitter Hashtag Chat Group Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Due to the nature of Twitter, attempting to list every hash tag would be impossible. Best left up to the US Library of Congress who is currently archiving all tweets. Phearson (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the page isn't to "catalog" every single hash tag in use on Twitter, only those related to communities of interest and chat groups who wish crowd source their community to discuss or share ideas on a particular topic. An archive of Tweets does not meet the requirement desired by the community this Wiki page is meant to serve. I am the author of the page and will attempt to gather others who may have further justification to prevent the deletion of this page. Justasked (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly decides "Only those related to communities of interest and chat groups who wish crowd source their community to discuss or share ideas on a particular topic"? If I invent a hashtag #meowwoofmeowwoofcatsdogs right now and say it's related to a community of interest what's to stop me adding it? Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Justasked, the article is pretty interesting and looks very useful, and should certainly be preserved and maintained someplace. Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't the place, due to the various strictures we have about the content of encyclopedia articles and the level of external sourcing they require. If you could establish independent notability for each tag on the list, then it could possibly be turned into a "List of Hashtag Chat Groups" type of article, but you'd probably have to omit a lot of interesting tags. It's better to just move the whole list someplace that doesn't have Wikipedia's constraints. Wikia (http://wikia.com) might be a good place to put it if you want it to be publicly wiki-editable. There is even the beginning of a Twitter-oriented Wikia called Twikipedia which could be a reasonable home for the info. Wikipedia, however, has to treat it the same way we would treat maps, directories, original fiction, etc.: good info, nothing wrong with it at all, but doesn't fit into the somewhat narrower range of stuff encyclopedia can cover under its current structure—so, with regrets, Delete. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki or use a website, blog etc. My opinion for the nomination still stands. Phearson (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs); rationale was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Marketing Research Organization

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

Fails notability at this time. Phearson (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Contested see talk. Phearson (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn. A WP:COI issue was revealed. G11 is appropriate. Phearson (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I deal with so many of these coi spa situations that I neglected to provide more detail, sorry. As I posted on the article talk page, the author Arh22 (talk · contribs) is on the Board of Directors of the company he's trying to promote; his user page is spam as well. – Athaenara ✉ 05:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are the only two contributors to this AfD, can we come to consensus of G7 for this Afd? Phearson (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards of Waverly Place 2: The Revealing of the Competition

[edit]
Wizards of Waverly Place 2: The Revealing of the Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As it seems to be so often, some Disney fan has created an unreferenced article on an upcoming movie. The name seems to be his/her creation, since it was Wizards Vanished one minute, then The Revealing of the Competition the next. 117Avenue (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Context reflux

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

Note to closing admin: A duplicate copy of this article was created at Context-reflux (hyphenated), which has now been turned into a redirect to Context reflux. If the result of this discusssion is "delete" then please also delete the redirect. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced neologism. I cannot find any reliable sources that document its existence. Feezo (Talk) 02:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Tomorrowland. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starcade (Disneyland)

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

While this is one of the many attractions in Disneyland Park, there is still very little notability for this arcade to have its own article. It is pretty doughtful there will ever be a chance of growth (the article only contains a few brief sentences of all there is inside). The article also has no sources and contains no appropriate info (a.k.a history or development) and it is probably unverifiable as well about the claim of it housing a Mario Kart Arcade GP system (even though it is probably true, it is still original research). Google searches are not much use either as far as I could see, and combined with all these other issues, may possibly mean a speedy deletion (or a merge to Tomorrowland). trainfan01 talk 18:28, January 26 (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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overloaded: The Singles Tour

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

delete as a non-notable tour per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Concert tours -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When Autumn Storms Come (album)

[edit]
When Autumn Storms Come (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NALBUMS. no gnews hits. also nominating from same band:

LibStar (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment The talk page hasn't had a post since 2007, and I can't really find any reliable sources that mention the EP. Isn't this better just to include in the band's discography page? Regarding the other albums, they don't seem to have any sources at all, and I can't seem to find any that would add substance to them.LedRush (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to band's page/discography, no evidence that they're standalone notable. (ETA: "When Autumn Storms Come" didn't need an {album} at the end becuase there's nothing else by that name. I swear, some people seem to be under the impression that every album article needs {album} in it.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Delete all then, band currently tagged for prod. Band doesn't seem notable so their albums aren't either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose redirect. The band Naglfar is of very questionable notability and I intend to nominate it for deletion. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Multimodal Information Management (IM2)

[edit]
Interactive Multimodal Information Management (IM2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable research center. The entire lead is pretty much a copyvio of http://www.im2.ch/, and much of the other text seems to be from an earlier revision of that site. The wikilinks were added as the result of a {{deadend}} template I added.

In addition, there is a conflict of interest: User:Ffoglia created the article, and "The IM2 delegate for Advancement of Woman is Dr. François Foglia..." [30] Raymie (t • c) 01:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think we should allow organizations to create their own wikipages, so long as they keep to WP:NPOV, and I felt that this page was neutral in tone. Francis Bond (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep around 300 hits on Google scholar (mainly acknowledgements) seems just about enough to make it notable. It is described as a notable site in
John Garofolo, R. Travis Rose, and Rainer Stiefelhagen (2007) Eval-Ware: Multimodal Interaction IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING MAGAZINE [154] MARCH 2007.

"Best of the Web" series on Multimodal Interaction

IMIM (OR IM2) http://www.im2.ch/ [research program]

The National Center of Competence in Research on Interactive Multimodal Information Management (IM2) is an international multipartner program that researches and develops prototypes in human-machine interaction, focusing on technologies to coordinate natural input modes (such as speech, image, pen, touch, gestures, head and/or body movements, and physiological sensors) with multimedia system outputs (such as speech, sounds, images, three-dimen- sional graphics and animation.) IM2 Web resources include research and education information.

this is not just a passing mention thus significant coverage', and is in a reputable journal, thus reliable. As a large government funded institution, it must also be referred to in multiple Swiss reports, but I can't access them here, perhaps User:Ffoglia can, and that would give us multiple sources. Francis Bond (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trauma Zero

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

I don't see how this product is notable. The references basically consist of a scan of the manual with the manufacturer's blurbs on it. Google searches for "Trauma Zero" or "T-Zero" deliver nothing. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If at least two magazine reviews exist then it would be possible to build a start-class article with those sources, notability is just scraped. Someoneanother 15:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - (wikipedia is not notable for this product) blindness of wikipedia has becomed unacceptable, i have deleted lot of my contributions (made during these years) and i'm leaving wikipedia, with many other people, because of snake vandalism (made often by envious people, often admins believing god itself).. so this is the sentence - wikipedia is not notable for this game (and much other links). have nice day there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossalabastro (talk • contribs) 18:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Nutcracker

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

Non-notable game. One review is cited on what appears to be a non-reliable source, and a Google search does not deliver any reliable hits that add notability. Games are not my strong point; feel free to prove me wrong by pointing to reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The game is better known as The Nutcracker, although the title screen says Operation Nutcracker. Paul 1953 (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daud_Shah_(actor)

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

Actor doesn't pass any part of WP:ENT. The sources are not sufficient. "We Make our Own Destiny" is a coffee-table book. "Bond on Set" merely lists his name. Sources 4-6 are not actually about the actor in question. No reliable disinterested coverage seems to exist. Wickedjacob (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Planet (rapper)

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

Article claimed to be csd-eligible, however the band had one song reported to have been used in a popular video game, which gives the group a claim to notability under band guidelines (albeit a very weak one). In lew of the absence of other supporting material, but in light of the video game use, I am declining the csd request and instead listing the article here for evaluation. I have no strong feelings on the deletion or retention of the article, I'm just going through the csd log to help keep it at a manageable level. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Boettcher

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

fails WP:ENT, only has 1 major role. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2014 FINA Diving World Cup

[edit]
2014 FINA Diving World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTCRYSTAL; there is no useful content on the page except to say that this is a planned future event. Maybe a viable article once a host is chosen but until then we shouldn't have this page, just as how we don't have a page on 2030 FIFA World Cup. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 06:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-Hi, I am the writer of this article and I do not think that this article should be deleted because I believe it makes the information about the election of the host city a little easier to find and It will just be written again in a few years if it is deleted any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt779977 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Clark

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

No non-commerical references found during web search. No mention in reliable second-party sources. One possibly notable achivement seems to be having taken some early photographs of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of BDSM equipment. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage bed

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

Does not appear to be independently notable. No references demonstrate this to me. Merrill Stubing (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Transformers: The Headmasters characters#Autobots. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trainbots

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

A non notbale Transformers characters without reliable third person sources to assert notabilitiy Dwanyewest (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Transformers: Robot Masters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Seeker

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

A non notbale fictional character lacking in third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Mini-Cons. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Space Team

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

A poor article without sources to assert notability or even an attempt to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew G. Bostom

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

Does not seem to be notable. The article says that he is mainly known as the editor (not author) of one book. That book, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, seems to be notable. But that does not automatically make its editor also notable. Jaque Hammer (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:AUTHOR as WikiDan61 says.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Some notability, but per wp:n, notability is not temporary. Regardless, i will err on the side of keep.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just cleaned up the article, which was both very badly sourced and badly balanced (it almost completely ignored his medical expertise despite that being the focus of some of the discussion here). Anyway, I think he passes WP:PROF#C1 but the case is weaker than it would appear from the citation numbers: he has two papers with over 1000 citations and several more with numbers in the high three digits, but he's second or third in a long list of authors, so his own contribution to that research is unclear. More clear, to me, is that he does also pass WP:GNG for his writings on Islam; I found several stories in major newspapers specifically about his work in that area. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Author order varies between subjects. There are no formal policies on author order expressed by journals, academic institutions or leaned societies. Ad hoc conventions, if any, vary from subject to subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I know; in my field it's alphabetical. My point was more that the very large number of authors on these papers means that the credit for them should be shared in smaller pieces. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. There is a discussion going on somewhere (?) about how to deal with academics who have a vast number of citations as a result of publishing with a high energy group with a vast number of authors but no apparent notability elsewhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Wan-seop

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

Very strange English, probably google-translated. Elmor (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Coaching tree. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFL coaching trees

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

Classic case example of Original research. Ibluffsocall (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Not having seen the term (WP:IDONTKNOWIT) is not a valid reason to delete. Disregarding those arguments, the debate is pretty balanced. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delimiterless input

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

Completely unsourced, and not based on any use in the industry. The content describes non-textblock mode i/o. Google hits include ISBN 9786133230750: apparently a collection of Wikipedia articles including this one. —EncMstr (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else that we have is better than this, because this is wrong and should not be kept, merged, or retained in any way. Why do you want to delete stuff that's useful, well-founded, and informative and keep stuff that's folk-written, misinformative, and wrong, Andy Dingley? Why should we keep tripe on the basis of speculative "I have no idea but think it might be true." guesswork? (Especially when it isn't true.) You are challenged to prove that this is DEC terminology (and on top of that that it's DEC terminology that means this). It's not in any DEC literature that I can find, certainly not in any PDP literature relating to Unix; and EncMstr in the nomination also hasn't found this in any industry literature.

The concept isn't an important one because the concept is tripe. The actual situation with terminals (and there are sources above that provide at least an introductory outline) is not as simplistic a dichotomy as this. Nor is the actual situation covered by the distinction between cooked mode, cbreak mode, and raw mode, which are not the distinctions between dumb terminal and smart terminal hardware, they being purely software, terminal driver/line discipline, features (65.112.197.16 had a relevant opinion on those three, as did 68.0.124.33 two years later.), and which don't even apply, as you and this article would have one believe, to the Apple II, TRS 80, and IBM PC at all.

It's no wonder that our coverage of computing subjects is so bad, when the verifiable and informative is argued for deletion on the grounds that it's in existing published reference books (I kid you not, astonished lurkers!) and the outright wrong is defended by speculation and guesswork. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I worked exclusively in the DEC environment c. 1982–1988, during the obsolescencing of block-mode terminals. I read every DEC manual and book I could get my hands on, and the companies I worked for had hundreds of them. Never came across the term delimiterless, let alone ...input. The VMS terminal driver source code had much to deal with terminal block mode operations, but there was nothing about this in its single character i/o stuff. —EncMstr (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously, this article is discussing the three (terminal) device buffer models, line-buffering, full-buffering, and no-buffering, as specified also in the POSIX standard and selectable by setvbuf(). I have never come across the term "delimiterless input" for no-buffering, and even if it was used anywhere it is certainly not notable. Nageh (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brightside Church

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

There are maybe 20 mentions of Brighside Church, Michael Stowell, and/or the Blessing of the Bikes in local newspapers, but they are all routine coverage, and thus fail WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Stowell. Dbratland (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahh... here comes the religious discrimination! This is an awesome page, and to say that the articles are routine is assnine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely non-notable church. And I must say that the comment by the anon IP above is spoken like a true Christian, LOL. Qworty (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete How would you know if it is non-notable? It sounds like you are not a Christian, so how would you know what are notable churches? Does using the word assnine make someone look bad in their christianity? Look up the word and expand your vocabulary. The idea of cutting of the page is assnine. This page has already passed the guidelines to be included in Wikipedia. It is a very notable church and is known not only in the USA but also in other countries where they have helped many other churches and Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In answer to the comment, we know its non-notable because no one's noted it, other than local news outlets which routinely mentiion such organizations. For a while I thought that the allegation that a volunteer at this church was using his position to sexually assault teenagers might make the church notable, but then I realized that that's not really much of an unusual thing nowadays. (If "keep" advocates can add to the article enough reliable-source coverage to bring the church into notability as the scene of criminal activity, they should do so, and that might change people's minds on deletion.) On another note, perhaps the church can start a literacy program so that its parishioners can learn to spell words like asinine correctly. EEng (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Don't Delete; [repeat recommendation from same IP editor] Interesting, it was notable enough for you to find that info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with the notability guidelines, starting with WP:N, before participating further. As already stated, not everything mentioned in the newspaper counts as notable. EEng (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember this is not a vote -- really, it's not; if it were, then all we'd do is vote and there wouldn't be all this back and forth with arguments and counterarguments But I've struck out the 2nd recommentation from the IP. EEng (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. It just sounded more polite than "multiple bloviating." Qworty (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. 98.209.171.178, is it possible you don't you realize we can tell this is you recommending keep over and over? (Note in passing: it appears from comments at another AfD [33] that the "here in USA" bit of the IP's comment stems from his or her belief that my username EEng means that I'm in England. EEng (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stowell

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

There are maybe 20 mentions of Brighside Church, Michael Stowell, and/or the Blessing of the Bikes in local newspapers, but they are all routine coverage, and thus fail WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brightside Church. Dbratland (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please cut out the victim act. We don't think Pastor Stowell is non-notable because we here at Wikipedia are 97% Satanists, although we are, but rather because he is just plain non-notable i.e. no one says or writes anything about him except local newspapers, his own church, and things he writes himself. EEng (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just kidding about the Satanism. Actually only maybe 60% of Wikipedia editors are Satanists. The rest are, of course, athiests. As to "these newspapers only do coverage on people of noteriety": that's absurd. By your reasoning, anyone who's ever been mentioned in a newspaper should have an article here. See WP:ROUTINE and WP:BASIC.

  • Don't delete.Comment: Your reasoning is fallacious. News is news because it typically takes on topics and/or stories of interest to sell papers, not doing the routine. Unless, it's the weather. The newspaper does regular sports articles on pro atheletes but would they be called routine? But a pastor is routine? Most people I have read about on WIkipedia or no more notable than this guy. Why pick on his page? It has already been posted on here for over four or five years from what I can tell. It apparently has passed the guidelines. I think you are grabbing for straws, nitpicking. I don't think your are kidding about your other comments. I think you are displaying classic religious discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the tag on your second comment to remove the implication that a second person shares your views. My reasoning is sound -- it's my premises you dispute, but in fact my premises are correct and yours are incorrect: see WP:ARTICLEAGE, WP:ITSINTHENEWS, WP:OTHERSTUFF. On the lack of evidence of notability for this pastor in particular, see WP:BASIC (wherein please note the requirement for "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," as well as the depth-of-coverage provisions). And as to your certainty that he is being belittled as part of the larger masterplan of antireligious skulduggery here on Wikipedia, see WP:ADHOM. EEng (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. [duplicate recommendation from same IP] -larger masterplan of antireligious skulduggery here on Wikipedia. Isn't that a funny way to say that you are not showing religious discrimination, when you really are. I'm not sure in England how the reporters decide what is routine and what isn't, but here in America it isn't routine reporting. It sounds like you are really grabbing for straws here to disqualify this article, when it has already been approved many times! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough of multiple !voting. Peridon (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stunned query Do you really know so little about Wikipedia that you think that, because my username is EEng, I am in England? 03:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. The discussion about the church needs to be kept separate. It's possible that Brightside Church is notable but Michael Stowell isn't, or vice versa. I note that most of the newspaper articles about about local church events - I'm not sure if they say anything about Stowell himself. It's hard to take seriously an anonymous editor whose makes accusations of a "larger masterplan of antireligious skulduggery" [sic]. But in any case, I don't know what "it has already been approved many times" means. StAnselm (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. StAnselm (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable enough for an WP article. Being a pastor does not make you notable.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete [duplicate recommendation from same IP] Really....reallly... how subjective is that?
It's not subjective in the least, as "Is a pastor" isn't listed as a notability qualification in WP:N or its associated guidelines. EEng (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To judge from article creations (and quite a few deletions) here, I would think that in the USA being a pastor and founding a church is beaten in terms of numbers by being a rapper (and founding your own label). But not by much. As Bobbyd2011 says, being a pastor doesn't make you notable. Nor does founding a church. Blessing the bikes might be new in West Michigan, but it's been done for a long time over here. (I used to know a 'flying bishop' whose 'diocese' was purely bikers.) I can't access the references, but the summaries look run of the mill, although indicating the flair for publicity that a pastor needs nowadays. I am not anti-religious, having written for, and been performed in, churches. I am pro-encyclopaedia, and not everything can be in any encyclopaedia. Peridon (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete [duplicate recommendation from same IP] Eeng - their is no doubt that you are in England - who else would use the term skulldiggery? Except the English? There are many sub par articles in Wikipedia and this is not one of them. The references all refer to Michael and the churches he started, and the Blessing of the Bikes. The English Mike Stowell seems to have your support, but his page is routine in it's references. Why not go after him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, aren't you cheeky! What a lot of rot and bollocks -- are you mad? You seem to have got a bee in your bonnet and a twist in your knickers, but I'd rather we not row about this. Why don't you have a nice cup of tea, or enjoy a pint at the local pub? Or a relaxing drive on the motorway in your roadster to the local high street where you can buy a spanner at the local ironmonger's. Maybe a holiday by the seaside will do you some good. In a fortnight you'll have forgotten all about your vicar's article being deleted. EEng (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. Have you called your mum lately?[reply]
  • Comment Skulduggery is the British spelling, skullduggery the American. 'skulldiggery' is an American typo. It's not an English English word, but from Scots. Aren't the British allowed to be commenting in this discussion? BTW EEng - you slipped up there. We don't usually call them roadsters nowadays (unless we're making them for the American market...). We call them 'convertibles' or 'sports cars' if they're particularly uncomfortable. Mike Stowell is well referenced and in accordance with the policies on sportsmen, and not relevant to this discussion. Articles of five years standing can be and are deleted if not found to be in accordance with current policies. We're not attacking this Stowell. We're discussing an article about him. If the article can be brought in line with the notability policy, fair enough. At the moment, Blessing the Bikes seems to be the main point being hammered. As I said, in West Michigan it may be unusual. It's not unusual enough overall to base an article on. Peridon (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-HA! So you, Peridon, are the mole, you closet Brit! Prepare to be burned at the stake! Or if you prefer, burnt! You'll be a crisp in no time, and Robert's your father's brother! EEng (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. The roadster anachronism was self-conscious -- couldn't resist after exposure to all that whimsy. I hate to break it to you (or perhaps you're just playing along) but roadster is not a term most Americans would recognize -- perhaps this is the marketing blunder which drove Leyland out of business?[reply]
Hardly closet when I've got a userbox that says 'This user speaks British English'... and used the words 'over here' above. Someone must use the term roadster. We haven't since the 20s, except on things for export. Anyway, this is getting OT, if not OTT. Peridon (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Delete: This article has nothing to do with Christianity. Has anyone checked the education references? [comment 22:05, February 2, 2011 by User:Jarnigin]]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_January_27&oldid=1142638238"