< 7 November 9 November >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy close and send to Redirects for Discussion instead. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial combat engagements between cyprus and turkey

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

Pointless redirection of a long, orphaned article name Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Conference on Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing

[edit]
Indian Conference on Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing (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 conference has been organised since 1998, but it seems that it hasn't had much impact so far. I was able to find only two papers published in ICVGIP with more than 10 citations in Google Scholar: [1] and [2]; other conferences like ICCV and CVPR in the same field have published papers with >1000 citations in Google Scholar. I have not found any reliable third-party sources that show that this conference is notable; for comparison, see List of computer science conferences#Computer vision examples of other conferences for which it was reasonably easy to find several third-party sources. I don't have any personal opinion about this conference, and I'll be happy to change my mind if someone finds reliable sources. This is a contested prod; hence taking it to AfD to get more discussion. Miym (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Povernomics

[edit]
Povernomics (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. The term is not used in the social sciences. A simple Google search shows it. None of the references given in the article other than the commercial website povernomics.com include the word "povernomics". CronopioFlotante (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Workshop on Dependable and Sustainable Peer-to-Peer Systems

[edit]
International Workshop on Dependable and Sustainable Peer-to-Peer Systems (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 workshop organised since 2006, and it does not seem to be notable (yet); the workshop seems to be too new to tell whether it has had significant impact in the field. There are the usual hits in search engines that you'll fine for any computer science conference or workshop (conference web pages, CfPs on various mailing lists, CVs of conference organisers, papers presented in the conference, etc.) but there doesn't seem to be any third-party sources. This is one of the few entries in List of computer science conferences for which I haven't been able to find any reliable sources that would show that this workshop is notable; for a typical notable conference it is reasonably easy to find several third-party references. I don't have any personal opinion about this workshop, and I'll be happy to change my mind if someone finds reliable sources. This is a contested prod; hence taking to AfD to get more discussion. Miym (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:41, 11 November 2009 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open File Manager

[edit]
Open File Manager (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 can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lïfe Andruszkow

[edit]
Lïfe Andruszkow (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 autobiography, fails WP:BIO resoundingly judging from Google results.  Sandstein  22:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F.E.A.S.T.

[edit]
F.E.A.S.T. (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 organization. Only independent sources I could find make bare passing mentions of the group, with nothing approaching significant coverage. TNXMan 02:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That was the point I was trying to make in my nomination statement. The mentions of FEAST in those articles are passing mentions at best. For example, the NYT article only mentions the group in the very last paragraph. TNXMan 11:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in passing? Specific mentions in Time Magazine AND the NYT AND the Washington Post AND a National Public Radio broadcast. Do you think these press agencies would mention an organization if it was not relevant to their respective audiences whom they, the print organizations, ferociously compete for?--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Rodriguez

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

Vanity article for non-notable actor/filmmaker. Does not meet WP:BIO requirements. Warrah (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NovaDB

[edit]
NovaDB (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. Cannot find any significant coverage for this software. Haakon (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

INetGUI

[edit]
INetGUI (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. Non-notable, fresh project. Only 279 Google hits, none of them significant. Haakon (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 New York Mets. NW (Talk) 02:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bmets

[edit]
Bmets (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 assertion of notability-might want to merge with New York Mets Airplaneman talk 22:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then all it would need is one of us to write in a one liner about the BMets in the Mets article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator Killiondude (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Balder

[edit]
Rob Balder (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 webcomic artist seemingly fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 02:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Tucker

[edit]
Jim Tucker (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 been tagged as not meeting Wikipedias notability guidelines since July. AT this point it is unlikely that further sourcing will be added that will satisfy the editors that have raised this concern, therefore per the notability template I am bringing the article to AfD (" If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted. "). Please consider myself neutral. Artw (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do raise a good point, notability isn't inherited, and I guess selecting guests is not much different from giving an invited talk at a conference. Presumably it is largely a promotional peace but not sure if appearance on Oprah creates a strong but rebuttable presumption of notability. Does the author care to elaborate on the coverage from Oprah or other sources and distinguish it from promotional or "intellectually dependent" of Tucker ( biased, PR, or purely advertising)? I guess my other presumption is that if Oprah covered it someone else covered her coveage etc etc- almost nothing on that show appears unnotable, again not a comment on scientific merit. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't presume... I would agree that if someone else covered Oprah's coverage of Tucker, there would be a much better case for saying that Tucker is notable... but the question is: Is there such a source? Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article under discussion is Tucker, he can't be fringe about himself. In an article on rigorous science, he may or may not be mentioned. Nerdseeksblonde (talk)
You need to have some notion of independence. If you paid to get on Oprah or it was an infomercial, everyone would glibby assume that didn't make it notable. I don't know quite what relationship exists for that show but just assumed there would be more converage due to that. It could of course be an infomercial type relationship. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discsussion of the tag would seem out of place until there is a verdict. However, yes, I would expect the tag to be removed if the article was kept on the grounds of meeting notability requirements. Why wouldn't it be? Artw (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think some of the editors responding to this AfD have confused the issue of whether Tucker is notable with the issue of whether the topic he writes about is notable. A non-notable author can write about a notable topic (and vise versa). Since the subject of the article in question is a person... let's keep focused on whether that person is notable or not. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
InContext: he seems to be a notable speaker on this topic, 500 hits that probably relate to him+oprah ( not sure if there are spurious hits here),

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Jim+Tucker%22+reincarnation+oprah&aq=f&oq=&aqi= Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, some of those seem to mention Tucker the reporter with an unrelated comment about Oprah. I thought reincarnation would remove most of those. I'm not claiming these are reliable sources or that any of them should be cited, simply that he is in fact well known ( ok, notability has not been proven from this search) for the work in the field. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the rescue tag in case anyone is interested in rooting through thoughs and adding supporting cites to the article. However the article as it stands already has multiple links to media appearances (admittedly not all involving Oprah), newspaper articles and a full length documentary on Tuckers work, so I am not sure they will do anything to perusade those that say Tucker is not notable. Artw (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Q: If you are calling him fringe, what is he a fringe of? The article under discussion is about a person, not a subject. You could have multiple theories about some phenomenon or even some person( " he is an agent of Satan") but an article can't be fringe about itself. So, ok, let's say he is notable for being an expert in a fringe area of some scientific discipline. He may get zero coverage in some article related to that larger topic but it doesn't matter here- essentially, the quality of his science doesn't matter if he was made notable by appearances on Oprah or MTV and follow up coverage for his fringe science.
Part of encyclopedic coverage of any author or ideamonger involves detailing how their ideas fit in to the scholarship of the field and more generally the state of human knowledge as a whole. Obviously, this article should not be a coatrack for explaining why his ideas are right or wrong, but we do need to provide enough information to connect with the average reader. The independent coverage is what tells us how to weight the article, with points that are the subject of coverage elsewhere being given more space and detail than material that has not received such comment. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed, context is important but in the context of a wikipedia article on topic A, A can not be a fringe view point related to A. So, the fact that some number of people write about him makes him notable and this coverage, not it scientific or really even scholastic merit, are the most relevant. When creating context by referencing the larger fields in which he works, it would seem that mainstream views on reincarnation may get only passing mention as being of "fringe" relevance to his raison d'etre. I guess at some point you have to determine how a source can be reliable and still indulge nonsense or, more often, just things you don't happen to like. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I am agreeing with you. A more general discussion of the best way to write articles covered by Wikipedia:Fringe theories might be Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was early delete per BLP1E, defamatory article of living person. None of the keep votes are based in policy. Tan | 39 15:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Lambert (soccer)

[edit]
Elizabeth Lambert (soccer) (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 college soccer player known for only one thing: blatant fouls during a recent game on November 5, 2009, which were shown on TV on ESPN. She was suspended from the team on November 6 by her school. The biographical article was thereafter created November 8. Fails WP:BIO1E and fails WP:ATHLETE. Edison (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WITH COMMENT: This person is only noteworthy for a series of rash actions in a college soccer game. Unless enormous good fortune should come her way as a result of this, she is only going to be forgotten after her 15 minutes of fame are over. Also, this would set a precedent for inclusion of everyone who is mentioned in a news source IE: every college kid, high school sportsperson and even grandma for her cookie recipe. Chris Hawk (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe its just me, but I don't seem to have a crystal ball in my wiki-toolbox. This woman is in the news for the events that happened in a single game and for nothing else; this is textbook WP:BLP1E. There is simply nothing to add that would not be just another reference to the incident or the subsequent fallout from the incident. In a few years if she makes the women's national soccer team then that will be sufficient for WP:ATHLETE, and the article can be recreated. All it can possibly be right now is about ponytail-pulling, kicking, and forearm shivers. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Rosen

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

What a disaster -- full of youtube references and blogs masquerading as sources. If there were better sources available, fine -- but in reality this person fails WP:BIO and the article is a discredit to wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted. TNXMan 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Lombardo

[edit]
Nicholas Lombardo (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, whose business is also non notable. Also written much like a personal statement with future plans, thus failing WP:CRYSTALBALL AtheWeatherman 21:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falling In Reverse

[edit]

They are on the billboard 200 now that shows nobility http://www.billboard.com/#/album/falling-in-reverse/the-drug-in-me-is-you/1505677 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesk715 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falling In Reverse (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 "Myspace" band. Article asserts notability based upon band being signed with Epitaph Records, yet bands official Myspace page [4] clearly states "unsigned". Previously CSD'd and then recreated. Chasingsol(talk) 20:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falling in Reverse is a well known band. Anyone who favors the old ETF with Ronnie in it knows Falling in Reverse. There is even an magazine issue that is based on Ronnie and Falling in Reverse. Ronnie gets out December 15, not too far away. There is no point in deleting the Falling in Reverse page.Tech395 (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need sources/evidence: How can we KNOW that they are a well known band? We can't take your claim of notability on faith. Do you have links to reviews in major media? important non-blog websites that review/cover the genre of music they create? etc. - BalthCat (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://thronemagazine.com/ This is the linkTech395 (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted, user blanked the page [5]. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TapToTalk

[edit]
TapToTalk (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 new software, up and coming next big thing. PROD was contested by creator (his rationale is at the talk page. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just consider if you were the parent of a child who could not talk to you would you not want to know about this very cost effective soloution so that they could communicate with you!!! Deben Dave (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is blatant advertising at its best. --Teancum (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well wikipedia loss and I just hope you never have any children who cant talk Deben Dave (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  07:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antulio Segarra

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

It's well-written and well-referenced, but verifiability is not the same thing as notability. The claim for notability here is that he was the first Puerto Rican to achieve a certain military rank. No matter how well-referenced the assertion, I just don't think that's enough to meet WP notability standards. Compare this to a little-known military figure who actually is notable, such as Frederick Funston, who captured Aguinaldo and tried to keep San Francisco from burning down after the 1906 quake--that is notability. I just don't think Antulio Segarra has it. Qworty (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your argument is self-contradictory. WP:NOTABILITY has five points in its guidelines, of which this article meets at least three ("Reliable", "Sources" and "Independent of the subject"). - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The nominator failed to notify the creator of the article of his/her intentions.

2. The nomination creates a misconception that the article and the AfD is about a person who reached the rank of Colonel, which per se would not be notable and thereby influence "delete" votes on said misconception. The article clearly states in it's introduction the following: "Colonel Antulio Segarra (January 20, 1906 - September 14, 1999), was a United States Army officer who in 1943 became the first Puerto Rican in history to command a Regular Army Regiment. Segarra served as Military Aide to the Military Governor of Puerto Rico Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. and during World War II commanded the 65th Infantry Regiment." Antonio Martin (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are putting words in my mouth to falsely accuse me of bad faith. Please read the nomination again. The word "colonel" never appears in it. The term used is a "certain military rank." I had no intention of obfuscating the fact that he "commanded the 65th Infantry Regiment," because that fact is itself not notable. Are we now to have 64 articles on the commanders of the 1st through 64th Infantry Regiments? Articles on every aide-de-camp to territorial governors? That is why Segarra is not notable. I'm all for including more articles about notable people from underrepresented ethnic groups, but first the individual has to do something that is notable. Where is the threshold here? The first person of such-and-such a group to command a squad? Nobody who has voted yes has demonstrated where that line is drawn. Nor has it been demonstrated what level of bureaucrat, military or otherwise, who has worked under a territorial governor is notable. I would hazard that exactly zero of them is notable. Instead what we have is the name "Theodore Roosevelt" thrown around, as though an extremely tenuous--so tenuous as to not exist--relationship to a U.S. President will confer notability. Notability is not conferred simply because someone works in a non-notable capacity for the son of a former President. What's next, the first member of such-and-such a group to become a high-school principal? Being a high-school principal is itself not notable, so it doesn't matter who becomes one; in the same way, since being the commander of a regiment is in itself not notable, it doesn't matter who becomes one. Qworty (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • False analogy. Being the first to climb Mount Everest is notable, as there can be only one such person and Mount Everest is itself notable; however, being a regimental commander and an aide-de-camp are not in themselves notable. Clearly, being a regimental commander and a minor military bureaucrat are not the equivalent of being the first person to climb Mount Everest. Would an article on the first Puerto Rican to climb Mount Everest survive AfD? I doubt it. Qworty (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No more false than your "high school principal" analogy. Given the long and well-documented history of legal discrimination against ethnic minorities in the United States, it should be clear to reasonable people that often overcoming such entrenched barriers is no less notable than climbing Mount Everest, perhaps doing it under sniper fire. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not assert that Segarra suffered discriminatory abuse in the U.S. military, much less that he suffered such abuse and then challenged it, or that he became an internationally recognized test case, such as James Meredith at the University of Mississippi. If you have evidence of what you're saying, by all means present it and cite it according to WP:RS and WP:V. If you find such evidence, and perhaps attendant press coverage, he would then be notable, of course. For all we know, Segarra achieved his promotions by catering to the white-male power structure that dominated the U.S. Army at that time, rather than by challenging it and becoming the target of racist threats and ridicule, as Meredith was. In fact, given the pervasiveness of institutionalized racism at the time, the former is much more likely than the latter. Either way, notability on the basis of discrimination must be documented, not merely asserted. Qworty (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Verifiability is not the same thing as notability. See WP:REDFLAG. I haven't seen a single source that says that Segarra received press attention or scholarly attention for being the first Puerto Rican to command a regiment. It is an extraordinary claim to suggest that he received this journalistic or scholarly attention, and it would require specific sourcing to verify it. The reason the sources don't exist is because it never happened--he never became a test case. The sources show that he received only incidental attention for being a regimental commander, and no attention whatsoever for breaking an ethnic barrier. To combine two unrelated facts--being Puerto Rican and being a regimental commander--to create something that is unsourced for notability ("first Puerto Rican regimental commander") is nothing more than WP:OR. Qworty (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single acceptable source here. Have a look at the significant coverage criterion for notability at WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. The argument for the notability of Antulio Segarra is that he was the first Puerto Rican to become a regimental commander. However, not a single one of the six sources proffered satisfies the "significant coverage" required for this assertion. In fact, five of the sources given do not even mention his being the first Puerto Rican regimental commander. To wit:

The first source given [6] is nothing more than a message-board exchange between the article's author and another individual. As such, it does not constitute WP:RS; instead, it is WP:OR. In any case, it does not state that Segarra was the first Puerto Rican regimental commander or that he received significant (or any) journalistic or scholarly attention for being such.
The second source given [7] is the only source that even mentions that Segarra was the first Puerto Rican regimental commander, but even this is only a website and therefore does not satisfy WP:RS. In any case, this one mention is not "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG. And, of course, it does not state that Segarra received significant (or any) journalistic or scholarly attention during his lifetime or afterward.
The third source given [8] is the same website and mentions only that Segarra was a commander, nothing more.
The fourth source given [9] is a webpage that does not even mention Segarra!
The fifth source given [10] mentions only that Segarra was a troop commander. In any case, the source is a vanity-press book produced by the notorious iUniverse, which means that there were no editorial standards employed, and no fact-checking whatsoever. Vanity-press and self-published books fail WP:BK, WP:SELFPUB, and WP:RS.
The sixth source given [11] merely states that Serrago was buried.

Thus, there is nothing whatsoever in any of the sources that constitutes the "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG, nothing that states that Segarra received significant (or any) journalistic or scholarly attention during his lifetime or afterward for being "the first Puerto Rican regimental commander." Instead, what we have here is WP:OR, with the "notability" arising from nothing more than the article editor's conflation of the fact that Segarra was Puerto Rican AND a regimental commander, very weakly supported by a single webpage reference that he was the first Puerto Rican in that position. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, what notability verification or "significant coverage" are all about. What we need is something like a newspaper article from 1943 that says "first Puerto Rican becomes regimental commander," or a legitimately published series of books that tell us the same thing. Qworty (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Thanks for the links, which I've now had the chance to review. I scoured the first one Army remembers All-Hispanic regiment several times, but am unable to find Segarra mentioned anywhere on that page. Are you sure that is the correct URL? I was surprised when I opened the second link Commands by Col, Villahermosa, because it is one that has already been identified as problematic. See WP:SPS. If Segarra were in fact the first Puerto Rican regimental commander, and if that in itself were a notable fact, than that information should be readily available somewhere other than a personal website. And perhaps it is available elsewhere--but we haven't seen it yet. Either way, the point is a moot one, as is the distinction between a colonel and a regimental commander, since neither one confers notability. How can Segarra be notable for doing something that is not itself notable? That doesn't make sense. As it stands, the entire article is very flimsily supported on a single instance of WP:SPS. I believe that particular guideline is extremely important and should be adhered to as much as possible, since blogs and personal websites can too often be used for purposes of character assassination, and in fact they have been used for those purposes on Wikipedia in the past. It makes me sick whenever I see anything like that and can't get it reverted because there are admins who don't accept the value of the WP:SPS guideline. So it's best just to follow the guideline, recognizing that personal websites are not RS. As for withdrawing the AfD nomination, since nothing new has been presented that supports Segarra's notability as per WP guidelines, we have to wait and see if supporting evidence from RS shows up before the AfD expiration. I've been looking hard, and haven't found anything yet. I assume others are looking too. If the evidence doesn't appear, then the article should be deleted. Qworty (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Shopaholic Book

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

Non notable future book. Does not meet WP:BOOK and Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. When the book is released and turns out to be notable, the article can be recreated. TParis00ap (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  07:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy

[edit]
Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (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 2 day old son of President JFK. Just because JFK is notable, that doesn't make Patrick notable. He can easily be merged to Kennedy family. CTJF83 chat 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woah Woah Woah reading your AFD again, are you calling JFK a non-notable president? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 04:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misread my reason, but to avoid others misreading, I reworded it CTJF83 chat 07:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is VERY flawed. Just because one doesn't live long, doesn't mean they aren't notable. For example Prince Umberto of Savoy had a wikipedia article created for him a day after his birth. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, just because an article is created, doesn't mean the subject matter is notable or appropriate for Wikipedia (not saying either about the Prince) CTJF83 chat 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Playing: Reloaded (Mixtape)

[edit]
Stop Playing: Reloaded (Mixtape) (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, unsourced Internet-only mixtape. Tagged for PROD but page creator removed. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Merge: NAC after merging List of FlashForward episodes and FlashForward (season 1) with FlashForward (TV series). I agree with the rationale offered here, and a couple of others obviously do as well, but taking that rational and coming up with deletion as a solution isn't appropriate. We'll need both the list and the individual season articles in a year or so, there's just not enough content right now to justify spinning material out into separate articles, is all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FlashForward (season 1)

[edit]
FlashForward (season 1) (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 reason to have a season episode for a series that is only one season. We have List of FlashForward episodes and everything can go there. We usually create season articles if the season has something more to give than the normal list of episodes. Magioladitis (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what? The important stuff is already in the list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the episode list on List of FlashForward episodes only contains: ((:FlashForward (season 1))) the episode list would be gone if you just delete FlashForward (season 1). So, yes for merge, no to delete. Xeworlebi (t•c) 23:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we delete the list and move this to the position of the list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biorhythms Calculator

[edit]
Biorhythms Calculator (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 is given as to how this software would meet the general notability guideline. I can't find any independent and reliable sources discussing the product. Contested PROD. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Biorhythm Calculator Software is a valuable addition to all the different biorhythm software programs available. It is the most powerful because it allows you to calculate and visually see the biorhythm, I-Ching and Mastery cycles.

The most valuable part of this software is that it allows you to identify the compatibility levels for numerous individuals. This is important for families, businesses and sports teams. Ultimately, it is the team that works best together that wins in life, business and sports.

The technological advances in this software in unmatched in the industry. I own many of the software programs available. I was very impressed with the Biorhythm Calculator software when it first appeared. It was a software breakthrough...the best in the industry.

With each new version, the programmers add more powerful features that are trend-setting. No one does it better than the programmers. They deserve a place in the Biorhythm Hall Of Fame.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyclare Secondary School

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

This school does not meet notability criteria, except by the meager distinction of being a secondary school. The article is just a vandalism-ridden stub that asserts no claim to notability. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 18:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Enigmamsg 06:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mollywop

[edit]
Mollywop (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. Non-notable slang term where WP:MADEUP applies. ArcAngel (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator blocked as a sock. Nothing to do here. I checked and it does not appear to be a blatant copyvio. Check the dates. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneurial mindset

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

Procedural nomination, to assist user who was unable to complete nomination, for which they gave the following reason in the discussion: "possibly a copyvio issue as doing a Google search on the first paragraph comes up with a bunch of hits on the exact text." Xqe (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leanni Lei

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

Procedural nomination; the article is a contested prod. The original prod rationale was "Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject meets the GNG or any other specialized guideline, no GNews hits, no indication article can be expanded beyond current stub" NW (Talk) 16:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rock: Kill the Messenger

[edit]
Chris Rock: Kill the Messenger (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 meets no standards whatsoever and has been tagged as such for eight months. No obvious or sincere attempts to improve the article have been made. DKqwerty (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in anyway saying this should be deleted because it's not notable or important enough to merit an article. I'm saying the content of the article is abysmal, no information that couldn't be found on Amazon.com is presented, the rest reads like a fan page, and no attempts have been made to improve the article in any real way since its creation. Maybe AfD was the wrong way to go, and I should have put it up for speedy deletion, but I didn't want to have just two people (myself and whomever removes it) involved in the decision. However, if I were to remove the content that isn't up to standards, I'd simply be blanking the page.
If you'd like, you're more than welcome to rewrite it, but basically all new content is necessary. DKqwerty (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being written badly is not a reason for deletion, but non-notability is. Films don't fit the speedy deletion criteria. This article will be kept for sure because of the sources. Joe Chill (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've identified the subject as notable, but that doesn't address that fact that none of the content is notable, useful, sourced, or coherent. Again, if I removed all of the content in violation of (multiple) quality standards, I'd be blanking the page. To that end, it should be deleted until someone who's serious about the subject undertakes the task of writing a quality article.
There's no reason to keep an article with content like this simply for posterity's sake. DKqwerty (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking all of the content without trying to source it or rewrite it is against the rules. Your opinions go against years of community consensus. Joe Chill (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you get it: I submitted for AfD because I don't want to blank the page because it's against the rules. Rather, I thought that upon inspection, others would agree that the article is of no value in its current state, nor can it be salvaged without a complete re-write. This article has been tagged for months and no one has attempted to improve it in a meaningful way. So rather than leave an article that could just as well be called "I like Chris Rock and here are some funny quotes" kicking around and looking unprofessional, I think it's preferable to remove it from the encyclopedia until someone is willing to make a serious go at the article. To quote the WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." I don't think this can be fixed through "normal" editing and would require a complete re-write.
However, I'd like to get some more input (hopefully from at least one admin.) before I conclude that I made a mistake in submitting this. DKqwerty (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that I have neither the time nor inclination to re-write this article, but in the mean time is serving no legitimate purpose whatsoever other than to keep all links to the article blue rather than red. DKqwerty (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I do understand that. The material as currently written is unprofessional and, frankly, crap. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia.

    But we don't pretend Wikipedia is perfect, and indeed we don't even pretend it's any good. There are relevant disclaimers at the bottom of each page. If we started to delete everything crap, we could sweep away most of what's currently in the encyclopaedia.

    There might be advantages to doing that, but the prevailing view at the moment is that when we find a crap article, we should treat it as an opportunity to show off our article-fixing skills.

    Further, AfD is not cleanup. Nobody gets to nominate an article for deletion in the hope that someone else should do a load of work fixing it. Wikipedia's very, very full of people who love to offer their opinion about what someone else should do. But what we're actually short of is doers, not arguers and opinion holders. The rules as presently designed are supposed to turn every Wikipedian into a doer rather than an opinion-holder, if that makes sense.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Now it's a stub. Deletion is not the solution to articles in need of improvement. - BalthCat (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Couture

[edit]
Bob Couture (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 think this person has sufficient notability independent of his brother (who doesn't have an article, anyway) and grandson (Logan Couture). Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator with no "delete" arguments presented. Redirecting as agreed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Severe personality disorder

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

Severe personality disorder seems to be primarily a political construct intended to try and identify dangerous people before they commit a crime. The expression is not defined either medically or legally although the expression has been used in some academic psychology articles. The text used in the article are just empty words that could probably be applied to personality disorders in general. --Penbat (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine by me.--Penbat (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bozo (etymology)

[edit]
Bozo (etymology) (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:NOT is quite clear: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Etymologies — especially whole articles devoted to etymologies — are the domain of dictionaries and do not belong on Wikipedia. (A brief etymology as part of a longer article on a topic with an interesting history of naming may be appropriate, but this is not such a case.) Powers T 13:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't so much a linguistic study as it is "Bozo the Clown in popular culture". What etymology there is, admittedly is original research ("Tracking the origin of the word and name bozo leads to these early uses and possible origins"). It's an interesting idea that "Bozo" is a corruption of the "vosotros" (Spanish for the 2nd person plural)-- but if there's a source that says "bozos" is the equivalent of "y'all" then it needs to be cited. I think this is guesswork dressed in sophisticated clothing. Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prentiss Thompson

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

Minor actor of no particular notability. Only credited roles are two minor roles in films that do not themselves rate a Wikipedia page. The original author appears to be the actor's agent, making this article little more than spam. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Vader

[edit]
Guitar Vader (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. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources RadioFan (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still not what I'd call significant coverage.--RadioFan (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Comment. If a 570-word biography in allmusic isn't significant then here is another, and another, and another. J04n(talk page) 16:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the reliability of these sources is not clear. They appear to be blogs and one is in Japanese so its difficult to tell what it is. I'm not finding any hitsin Google News. Finding links is nice but in order to establish notability here, significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources must be present. --RadioFan (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Flag for improvement and leave in the hopes of properly sourcing. (Pretty sure these folk are notable enough for inclusion. JSR and JSRF were both known for their music if I recall.) - BalthCat (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Scott Harris

[edit]
Andy Scott Harris (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:BLP of an 11 year old child actor. Much of the article is trivia about non-professional work, anecdotal statements/reflections (it appears to have been written by his mother), and speculation about "plans in the works" for his future career. Stripping that out it becomes clear that this young chap does not (yet) meet the notability criteria for actors. He's appeared in a few shorts, the odd episode of TV series but certainly nothing which qualifies as "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances or other productions". He may well qualify for a page in a few more years, but not now. Nancy talk 13:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since I made this nomination the article's creator has stripped it right back so that now it only contains Harris's professional appearances however the notability concerns remain.Nancy talk 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would just like to point out that (probably) the only reason that DHarris has commented at this AFD is because I suggested that she should so whilst the SPA tag is technically correct it should perhaps not be endowed with all the usual negative connotations. I'd also add that considering the utterly inhumane treatment the poor woman has been subjected to here (and on the talk page of the article) I'm really regretting directing her to this page. She's a newbie, she made the article in good faith, OK so it likely doesn't meet WP:ENT but that is no reason not to treat her with some respect and understanding. Nancy talk 09:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of statues of British royalty in Greater London

[edit]
List of statues of British royalty in Greater London (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 list of the London area statues of royals, plus those who don't have a statute. I don't believe this has encyclopedic value; it might be better for a London tourist brochure. Warrah (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the references - Flickr photographs and personal web sites are being used in lieu of appropriate references described in WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only personal websites are Flickr and My Web. Joe Chill (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SouthBankLondon.com and 4London.info are tourist information sites. The St. George Bloomsbury page is a church's web site. These do not meet WP:RS standards. Warrah (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do. They are reliable sources. They just aren't third party, which they don't need to be for a list. Joe Chill (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Seriously, the dude is improving the article the same day it got nominated, one miracle at a time, please. Mandsford (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . NW (Talk) 17:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airport madness

[edit]
Airport madness (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 a notable game CynofGavuf 12:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Michael Jackson. If there is nothing valid to merge, the article ought to be redirected. NW (Talk) 02:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's religion

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Michael Jackson's religion (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 page was previously nominated for deletion and was closed as "merge to Michael Jackson". The information in the article, however, is sourced speculation and I feel it should not be merged to Michael Jackson, a featured article. What is known of Jackson's beliefs (that he is a former Jehovah's Witness) is already in the article. It would be ridiculous to fill the Michael Jackson with the remainder of sourced speculation in this religion article: his 2005 bodyguards were from the Nation of Islam, he might have been to. His brother was a Muslim, perhaps Michael was to. Lionel Ritchie sang a song with Jesus in it, maybe this indicates that Michael was a Christian. That is the basic flow of this article currently up for deletion. Jackson's true beliefs at the time of his death may never be known, as he didn't speak about them. Pyrrhus16 12:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've changed my view to *Partial Merger. I agree with User: Metropolitan90, User: RadioFan and User: Mercurywoodrose. The main article has said that he was a Jehovah's Witness but left after '87. Perhaps we could add something like: nothing definitive can be said about his post '87 beliefs as he rarely spoke about them and never publicized his beliefs. There is only tabloid based rumour. Robnow —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
comment Metropolitan90 puts it far better than I.--RadioFan (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there is not a numerical consensus for deletion, per WP:DGFA I must weigh comments in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. The reason cited for deletion is failure to comply with WP:N, a widely applied guideline supported by very substantial consensus, that requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for inclusion. The "keep" opinions do not address these requirements or whether or not the article meets them. This means I may not take them into account when closing this discussion.  Sandstein  06:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Founding races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Founding races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Been challenged for 6 months for being unsourced. Does not indicate encyclopedic notability. I'm nominating again after deleting the challenged unsourced material. Before it's deleted, fans are free to copy it from history log to a non encyclopedic fan wiki. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-08t12:33z 12:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Misadventures of P.B. Winterbottom

[edit]
The Misadventures of P.B. Winterbottom (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 indicate encyclopedic notability tho it may after release. No reliable sources, only blogs. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-08t12:08z 12:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Lauwrence Simms

[edit]
Henry Lauwrence Simms (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 enough scholarly work to be included CynofGavuf 12:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sambunot

[edit]
Sambunot (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 notice of notability CynofGavuf 11:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GT Air

[edit]
GT 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)

Lacks references for more than a single year. One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 13:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 09:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Young and the Restless. Seems the general consensus is that the topic is not notable enough for its own article. Although there's no distinct consensus to merge it, this seems like a reasonable outcome given the circumstances –Juliancolton | Talk 02:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jabot Cosmetics (The Young and the Restless)

[edit]
Jabot Cosmetics (The Young and the Restless) (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. Non-notable. Hmm, WP:CORP does not specifically mention fictional companies. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 09:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meisam Tabatabaei

[edit]
Meisam Tabatabaei (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 academic does not meet the notability criteria Stone (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Genius6936 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The edit above was actually made at 05:46, 15 November 2009. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Times11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The edit above was actually made at 08:26, 15 November 2009. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • International Exposition of Research and Invention of Institutions of Higher Learning is a award for students, people doing a good PhD should not be part of an encyclopedy. If the award would be a science award also for senior scientists hand he won it it might qualify him to be notable but up to now he is not notable.--Stone (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

— Rockrock123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The edit above was actually made at 08:43, 15 November 2009. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— talk212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The edit above was actually made at 05:39, 15 November 2009. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Macapagal

[edit]
Juan Macapagal (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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lazaro Macapagal

[edit]
Lazaro Macapagal (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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 17:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to avoid common mistakes in accounting exam?

[edit]
How to avoid common mistakes in accounting exam? (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 collection of how-to guides. No sources, original research. So, delete per WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:OR. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of life (in five pages)

[edit]
Meaning of life (in five pages) (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 was tempted to zap this invoking WP:SNOW but I will do the proper thing. Unencyclopedic. Original research. Etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 17:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Nazism

[edit]
New Nazism (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 of WP:NFT. No sources or anything else that would assert notability. Delete per WP:N, WP:V and most likely WP:OR. I couldn't find a speedy category that would fit. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald "Ramsey" Ramsey

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ronald "Ramsey" Ramsey (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 one real source and a lot of advertising. One source does not satisfy multiple non-trivial reliable sources for WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100% Fantasy RPG

[edit]
100% Fantasy RPG (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. I was not able to come up with any reliable sources for this allegedly free RPG, so I fail to see the notablity of it. ArcAngel (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator blocked as a sock. Nothing to do here. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twice exceptional

[edit]
Twice exceptional (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:No Original research, seems like this article is just simply promoting it without any reliable sources. I know many people whose social skills are weak and are very bright. They still are functioning in society. No special programs needed. We have enough labeling of people as it is. Begin to tolerate of people's individual differences. That's the solution, not labeling their quirks. Xqe (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please note that the only thing that matters when keeping an article or not is whether the article meets the notability criteria (for most cases). Notability is not temporary, nor is it dependent on the number of hits per day the article gets or the how many internal links the article has. NW (Talk) 17:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magibon

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

Procedural nomination, to assist user who was unable to complete nomination,for which they gave the following reasons in the edit summary: "Not a notable subject. Not even her name can be confirmed." UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That user (the nominator of this AFD) is User:Pisomojado. —Lowellian (reply) 00:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't care about protecting a 23 year old attention seeker from her own self perpetuated meme-dom, I do respect the need for significant sources. I scoured the internet for more reliable sources with biographical information about the girl, and failed. I came to agree with DAJF-- that those sources don't exist. I landed on the conclusion which he is ironically resisting: that she is NOT NOTABLE. Not even her name can be reliably verified.
Jimbo himself, in introducing notability criterion, said the goal of the policy is an “attempt to make some sort of judgment about the long term historical notability of something.” Though the Magibon article is admittedly sourced, very little is “'Significant coverage”' --none of which is in English.
English sources only briefly comment on her existence AS TRIVIAL, as a flash-in-the-pan Youtube meme, a flavor of the day. The article, for example cites Encyclopedia Dramatica (a site on Wikipedia's Arbcom blacklist) as a source! There is no indication that she has any historical significance whatsoever, and, in fact, is already slipping back into obscurity.Pisomojado (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She is a notable celebrity in Japan. Your argument for deletion includes uncomfortably/distastefully Anglocentric bias — that most sources are not in English is not a valid argument as to whether she is innately notable. This is precisely the type of systemic bias we want to avoid. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that aims to provide coverage of human knowledge, not merely Anglophone knowledge. Wikipedia has many articles on historical figures from other cultures not well known in Anglosphere, for whom the majority of sources are in the language of that culture. —Lowellian (reply) 07:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lowellian, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that sources in Japanese are worthless because Japanese people are worthless, or some such garbage thinking. I'm saying that Japanese sources are hard for most of us to verify or determine the notability of, and therefore not preferable. Although, I will say that I find it peculiar that Magibon's Japanese wikipedia page is both shorter, and (as seen through google translator) more content rich with biography (including her real name) than the English version, while citing much fewer sources! Nevertheless, I stand by the assertion that her youtube success is a blip of pop culture not worthy of a Wikipedia article in any language.Pisomojado (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pisomojado: The article, for example cites Encyclopedia Dramatica (a site on Wikipedia's Arbcom blacklist) as a source! Hardly. Instead, it says There's more information in this juvenile wiki article. (Incidentally, the article, at something called "Encyclopedia Dramatica", is interminable and what little I read of it seems to have been composed by an logorrhaeic dimwit while drunk.) The Wikipedia article repeats this sentence, for no apparent reason. (I'm about to cut this bit.) The Gawker article is cited as an example of a kind of criticism. Notably so or otherwise, it is an example of this. The fact that it links to inanity is irrelevant. -- Hoary (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, DustFormsWords, for your retraction. Anyone can check my contribution history and make sure that I've invited everyone to the party. I believe I have.Pisomojado (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magibon (3rd nomination) was closed in good faith as keep less than two weeks ago by an admin in good standing. I looked at his talkpage and no one has asked him to take a second look and no one has brought this up at WP:DELREV. I haven't yet looked at the article or the arguments for and against so I have no !vote at this time but I do move to close this argument on procedural grounds, you can't keep nominating an article until you get the decision that you are looking for. J04n(talk page) 13:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not blind, I see that I have the minority opinion on this page. But none of Magibon's Keepers have addressed my basic premise. The sources listed do NOT establish her as a notable historical person, or even a minor pop icon. They don't even address her by name! They only mention her as a mild and very temporary curiosity who managed to get a lot of youtube hits because she stares at a webcam in a peculiar fashion and needs a good dental plan. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Pisomojado (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've confused actual notability and Wikipedia notability. Wikipedia is, to a large extent, a microcosm of wider obsessions, in particular the obsessions of the anglophone, the young, the male, and the north American -- most (with exceptions such as the overtly pornographic) profusely exhibited at Youtube, of course. These have combined to produce what (just about) count as "reliable sources" for the entirely trivial achievements of this apparently uninteresting person. Though at least she did something, rather than (as others avidly written up in Wikipedia) wore clothes in front of a camera or didn't wear clothes in front of a camera. (And if we were in a moralizing mood, we could say that -- unlike creeps who hawk bogus therapies, pseudoscience or historical lies -- she hasn't done any harm.) Now, if you think that far too small a percentage of Wikipedia is devoted to people of real achievement, I'd agree with you. Feel free to write some good articles. (Just last night I realized that, in dramatic contrast to many more or less promotional articles/autobiographies of the living, Takehisa Yumeji doesn't mention his work for currently redlinked Hechima Cologne.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC) ... PS Plus of course internet fads, such as other fads, may have a minor sociological interest. The article on pet rock doesn't merely appeal to lovers of pet rocks; no, pet rocks are a small part of the history of our dumb world. -- Hoary (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 History of China. Black Kite 00:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Court

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

Previously deleted via AFD in 2006 and prodded in June 2007 with the concern: "Article does not explain how this game might be notable (WP:N), or provide any independent references (WP:V), and is almost entirely game guide material (WP:NOT)". Concerns raised in prod and previous AFD discussion are still valid: the article still consists of game guide and promotional material with no independent sources to establish notability. The only coverage I can find in reliable sources is a mention in a Press of Atlantic City article (link), but it's debatable whether this is sufficient to satisfy WP:N. Muchness (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

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

Is not notable as per WP:CORP. The first source in the article is a dead link to the (no longer existent) website of the organization. The second (adherents.com) cites a paper written by the group's founder. This certainly doesn't constitute "significant coverage in secondary sources" as required by WP:CORP. Ferris37 (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morphyre

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

NN internet related tool, fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources, prod removed Delete Secret account 02:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret, since I have not received a reply to my comments on the talk page, I am posting here. A note about the proposed deletion:

Note that other music visualizations such as Neon (light synthesizer), Milkdrop and NoiseCradle have their own wiki pages which contain a lot less information and do not have valid references, but these have not been suggested for deletion. I would be interested to know why the Morphyre page was singled out in particular rather than these.

Of course it may not contain a huge mass of information at the moment that you would expect from a page that has been around for 5 years, but isn't that the idea of a wiki? That others add information to help make an article more complete? (Not that the article gets deleted within a week before anyone is given a chance to add to it). I have contributed anonymously to several mathematics and engineering related articles and think that it is the opportunity for others to help build an article that makes wikipedia so valuable.

Morphyre represents an important development in the evolution of music visualizations because of its 3D stereoscopic output and because of the multiplicity of different 3D scenes. It is also being developed separately with the hope of being involved in a project which tries to bring an experience of music to deaf children in schools. It is also one of the few visualizers capable of being run on Macs, Windows, and all the main media players.

I have added some references, which as I'm sure you know, is difficult for a purely web-based product. The statistics about the downloads are verified on the Winamp website and the use of TinyJS is also referenced.

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator blocked as a sock per CU. No outstanding delete !votes. Nothing to do here. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Variety Child Learning Center

[edit]
Variety Child Learning Center (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 long standing consensus has been that pre-secondary schools (i.e., primary schools and middle schools) are not notable enough to have their own article. There is no Blue Ribbon for this school. Xqe (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Murdoch

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

Unfortunately, the notability of the subject has not been demonstrated. There are many historians and scholars out there and this article says nothing of how its subject stands apart from the countless mass of past or present "scholars." I would suggest that the author of this article do a bit more research on his topics before starting articles of dubious value. Torkmann (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Richard, I note you are the creator of the article and as such could possibly have valuable insight. How do you say this article meets "all requirements for notability and verifiability"? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for clarification - sorry, DGG, just to clarify the above, are you saying he's written one book "Scotland and the Thirty Years' War", with reviews in Journal of Military history, etc; or that he's written a selection of books and articles including "Journal of Military History", "Scottish Economic & Social History", etc? (The latter would pass the broad definition for WP:ACADEMIC and possibly also criterion 1, the former may or may not.) Also, when you say "expert status", are you referring to any particular policy? I'm not aware of it being a criterion under WP:ACADEMIC or elsewhere but I stand to be corrected. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was written 3 books and co-edited another. Of these books, I have found multiple reviews for one of them--I have not looked comprehensively for find reviews for the other ones, partly because what I found already is I think sufficient in that direction. The four journals mentioned are journals that reviewed his book, not articles he has published. "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." is what I summarize as being an expert in his subject. The independent reliable sources are: 1/ the peer reviewers and editors who accepted and published the 4 books--academic books these days normally need 3 or 4 positive reviews to be accepted for publication. 2/The book reviewers writing in significant academic journals 3/the people who have cited the books--very difficult to find in this subject comprehensively, but the GScholar results are indicative. 4/the hundreds of librarians and faculty advisors in academic libraries who have selected the books for purchase--how libraries do this varies, but at least one person in each must have positively selected the book for each of them. (as a guide, at the most academically stringent universities , the basic criterion for permanent tenure is 2 books; at most universities it can be fewer. From the way the article was written, I carelessly assumed at first there was 1 book with 1 significant review only, in which case i would have said delete. Fortunately I actually looked at the sources before giving my first assumptions. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the clarification. I've changed my opinion above accordingly to "weak keep" on the basis of your arguments. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Remember it is the topic that is, or, is not notable, not the state of the article at any given time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response. But also remember that the article must at least demonstrate some prima facie evidence of notability. Many of your articles do not. No offense. Torkmann (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W. L. Shurtleff

[edit]
W. L. Shurtleff (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 one sentence article with a photograph of dubious provenance is all this article is. I understand the defendant this man represented was notorious back in 1906, but that does not make his lawyer notable enough for this encyclopaedia. Unless this attorney was known for anything other than this one trial he did, I would regrettfully have to recommend deletion of this fine article. Torkmann (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youville Drive

[edit]
Youville Drive (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 neighbourhood street in Edmonton. It is not all that notable. Rufus843 (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I like your name too, saying who you are and where you are. I was planning on deleting this article when I got back to working on Edmonton streets. 117Avenue (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What articles to you have a problem with? When I joined Wikipedia the list was incomplete, I figured that the criteria for making a city street notable was that it was an artery. 117Avenue (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People have tried to hash out what constitutes a notable street, most recently here Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways). The general, although unapproved, consensus is that a street has to have a "hook", or to just pass the WP:GNG. Abductive (reasoning) 03:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both sides made valid points, and it would be hard to call this anything else. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings under Communist regimes

[edit]
AfDs for this article (as Communist genocide):
Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is entirely original research that synthesizes unconnected theories about Communist government in different countries not substantiated in any academic literature. It was originally created by banned editor Joklolk. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The Four Deuces (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to vote on this AfD this time around (though I feel I have every right to do so) but I do regard Four Deuces characterization of my self as "far right anti-Russian" as complete bullshit meant to influence the outcome of this AfD, and a direct personal attack (particularly since I consider "far right" to be a despicable political position).radek (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will also stay out of this one - no point in voting, since the result is given from the start (no consensus). I just want to note that if the nominator truly wants to build consensus around some kind of constructive improvement, s/he is going about it in a really bad way - nominating the article for deletion every other month is not likely to get people out of their entrenched positions. --Anderssl (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "every other month". Last nomination was a month and a half ago [36] (Sept 24). This is just tendentious and disruptive forum shopping, and should be rejected on those grounds alone.radek (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been following this in the background since it was called Communist Genocide (see box above). Every AfD ended in no consensus with an attached promise to improve the article. As the comments by this AfD's nominator show, that hasn't happened apparently. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From above "The Black Book on Communism only conducts a multi-societal analysis of genocide in its deeply flawed foreword and introduction, where it claims Communism is Criminal and Not Christian (hard to believe, but true). This does not meet the academic standards of comparative sociology." Does this really have anything to do with WP:RS? Or are you just saying you don't like what the sources say, and even if they are published by the Harvard University Press and deal explicitly with Mass killings under Communist regimes that they are irrelevant - just because you don't like them? Smallbones (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the Black Book presents a number of chapters on single country studies, it presents no cross-cultural comparison, there is no discussion of "Mass killing[/Any other bad thing] in Communism." The foreword contains one statement on generalised causes, Criminality, xvii-xviii, which is "they were criminal enterprises in their very essence." While I only quote a clause, this argument of cross cultural genocide studies is one sentence long. The introduction contains three paragraphs advocating a general cause, which comes down the violating a rights principle concept of social good as advocated by the Catholic Church. No mention of societies are made in this paragraph. The Afterword is worse, its a reprisal of the history of the soviet union with three paragraphs on China, with no analysis. Hard as it is to swallow, The Black Book on Communism is a miscellany, not an analysis. "The Soviet and Chinese killings were similar because...a Pope listed a series of human rights." is not an answer. "The Soviet and Chinese killings were similar because...here are unrelated and uncontextualised single country studies let down by a really poor introduction." is not an answer. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another good point? Contrary to Fifelfoo's opinions the source actually says exact opposite (p.91) "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing, Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million. In this chapter I focus primarily on mass killings in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia- history's most murderous communist states. Communist violence in these three states alone may account for between 21 million and 70 million deaths. etc.". So from where exactly those Fifelfoo's interpretations come from, I have no idea. And do I need to mention that the facts from the source keep disappearing from the article.--Termer (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Care to quote his theoretical category describing the commonality? You haven't quoted a causal claim or category, you've quoted a list. His category isn't "communist mass killing," those three cases are communist examples of his real category. You won't find it in that subheading of the chapter, you'll find it in the broader chapter. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
category describing the commonality? No problem: (p.97) : "The strategic approach suggests that communist mass killings result from the effort to implement policies of radical social or economic transformation and to protect that transformation from real and perceived enemies."--Termer (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So is your suggestion to rename the article Mass killings and social transformation? csloat (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually csloat, I've let this sit for a couple of days while involved elsewhere, and will reply to Termer shortly, but your response is question begging and not really appropriate behaviour towards another editor. You should do what I shall do: quote from the Valentino sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap, I just read the lead of that article Anti-communist mass killings and spit coke all over my keyboard. Hi-llarious.radek (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about poisoning wells. I think the communists killing the Polish soldiers in the Katyn forest or the Khmer Rouge slaughtering Cambodians in The Killing Fields is probably more relevent here. This is absolutely a notable and verifiable article, with reels of references. I am shocked and sickened to my stomach that some are trying to hide it away, using as rationale pantomine newspeak like claiming it is "anti-Russian" (the vast majority of Russians are not even communists). It would absolutely be like nominating The Holocaust saying the article is "anti-German". Or the article religious wars saying it is a "far-left mailing-list anti-theist" plot. Wikipedia is not censored. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "anti-Russian" remark by the nominator is actually a reference to the WP:EEML, in which a number of biased right-wing editors attacking left-wing and Russian editors ganged up to keep this article after it was created by a banned troll and also perform similar coordinated POV operations on various articles across the Eastern European topic space. You still have not said anything about my point, and Fifelfoo's: the fact that different communists engaged in killing people on various different occasions doesn't meant that there needs to be one article containing everything, since this amounts to a POV fork (in other words, scholarship generally sees various acts of murder by communist and non-communist governments as acts particular to different circumstances—prompted by distinct events). To accrue every isntance of killing by communists (and some instances of simply people under communist-run governments being allowed to die as a result of atrocious economic policies during some stages of collectivization), as this article does, represents something frowned upon by Wikipedia per WP:POVFORK, as we already have articles dealing with each of those separate topics. Another Wikipedia principle, of course, is WP:SYNTH, and it would be utterly POV as well to have an article called Mass killings under capitalist regimes or Mass killings under reactionary regimes.
Don't be surprised if one day you stumble upon Space exploration under communist regimes or Increases in life expectancy under communist regimes if you enjoy seeing articles like this. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this nonsense about a number of biased right-wing editors attacking left-wing and Russian editors by user PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist is complete bullshit which he is using to smear people he disagrees with (and yes, he does have a history of using this despicable tactic). I'm not "right wing" (unless you happen to think Obama is "right-wing", which, I mean, some people due - but per WP:Fringe...). I didn't attack anybody. And quite a number of Russian editors were just as appalled as I was by PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist's Neo-Stalinist and ... nationalist ... POV pushing on scores of articles by him and his tag team buddies.radek (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion Anti-Nationalist is making a whole lot of sense. But on the other hand, hasn't the article been improved significantly in the few weeks since the last AfD? Particularly considering that working on this article is extremely slow and tedious given that every little point needs to be discussed over and over. I agree that there is lots of work to be done, but as far as I can see the article seems to be moving in the right direction. --Anderssl (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting and good point. The problem is that with the exception of Termer's quote above (which I'm yet to verify, I've got the other Valentino paper at home, but haven't managed to get the introduction of the book yet... won't until Monday) the sources quoted are either FRINGE or don't actually theorise any cause, or explicitly claim the cause is greater than, or less than, communism. I feel the article was slowly moving towards a point where it would stall and be ready for deletion of the COATRACK with a move of a rather good theoretical piece to merge into genocide. The nomination was early, and not informed by the state of debate on the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to lean towards your point of view - move the best material to genocide and delete this one. But yes I do think this AfD (as the previous one) was premature and kind of obnoxious, to be honest. --Anderssl (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can follow the link to WP:EEML and see if Radeksz was a member of this very peculiar group. Enough said. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try at weaseling there PasswordUsername. You know very well that what is at issue is not the membership of the list but your false characterization of it and your vicious smears of some people on it. But you do have a history with making offensive and false accusations, right?radek (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
McCarthyist attacks on me warrant no response on my behalf. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quit smearing people and lying shamelessly. I am not making "McCarthyist attacks". I am pointing out that in the past you have made completely unfounded accusations against some editors, found out that these accusations were completely false, and yet continued to refuse to back down and apologize. This kind of behavior here is just par for the course for you. I'm not going to sit around and let you spread lies and falsehoods about me.radek (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Link to ArbCom case of interest: WP:EEML. I do encourage independent reading of it. Have a nice day and prosperous life, Radeksz. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions if this is closed as Keep, can it be afd'd again for any reason, or for the same reasons? Is there a limit on the number of times, or the frequency of afding? If there is no limit, is there a historical record, and are we approaching it? Note that this article has been subject not just to afd's, but also to name changes, and extensive removal of reliable sources. In summary, is there a way to stop the nonsense regarding this article, here and elsewhere? Smallbones (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 04:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor I. Petrik

[edit]
Victor I. Petrik (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 article about a self-proclaimed genius with significant WP:BLP and WP:V problems. There does not seem to be any record of his scientific publications or of citations of him that I could find by doing GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks searches, so the subject does not seem to be a traditional WP:ACADEMIC case. Russian Wikipedia does not have an article about him. There do seem to be some Russian newsmedia sources but they are very confused and contradictory and mostly local rather than national. A GoogleNews search in Russian returns two hits[37]. The first of these hits is an article[38] by a Russian academician Kruglyakov about the dangers of pseudo-science. The article lists Petrik as an example. Here is another article, in an almanach "Lebed'" (Swan):[39]. This article says that Petrik's claim to be a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences did not check out upon verification; it also says that the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (for which Wikipedia does not have an entry) is a kind of a vanity club and not a legitimate academy like the Russian Academy of Sciences. The article provides a lot of other critical info about Petrik such as a claim that he spent several years in prison for some sort of swingling; compares him to Trofim Lysenko, etc. On the other hand, this article [40] in a local St. Petersburg newspaper presents him as the next Einstein. I don't quite know what to make of all this, but, in view of the dearth of solid and reliable information and in view of very significant WP:BLP problems here, I think this entry should be deleted. Kinoq (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article was created by User:T.petrik, suggesting possible WP:AUTO/WP:COI problems. Kinoq (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are reliable sources referring to him as a fraudster, then perhaps he is notable as a fraudster (and those claims would then be included in the article). Obviously going down this path requires caution. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, that is a part of my point. A number of sources characterize him as a fraudster and a con artist while other say he is a genius. We here are not in a very good position to judge either way. In my view there is not enough reliable source coverage to justify notability as either a genuine academic or as a faudster. In such cases WP:BLP considerations should prevail and they imply that it is better to be on the safe side and to wait until, so to speak, the smoke clears and better and more reliable coverage is available, before having an article about him here. This is particularly true since there is so much highly negative and information about a living person that would have to be included if the article is kept. Also, WP:ACADEMIC does say that the standards of inclusion for things related to pseudo-science are supposed to be pretty strict. Kinoq (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure these sources are reliable. One mentions him in passing, and the other looks to probably be a blog. In addition, in what seems to be a BLP, we have to take a lot of care that negative information is well-sourced. -- Atama頭 23:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since I'm not an administrator, I can't check an editor's deleted contributions, but it appears that the author has only edited for one day (to create this article) and hasn't been back to Wikipedia since (over a year and a half). I don't think userfying the article for the author will be useful. If T.petrik does return to Wikipedia and wants a copy of the article added their user space, they can request it at any time. If this article does get deleted, you might want to leave a message on their talk page suggesting that they make such a request, just in case. -- Atama頭 22:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such use isn't permitted by CC-BY-SA, because of the BY. If the article isn't salvageable, then it should be deleted. Took a closer look; changing my vote.--98.248.113.11 (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco Network Analysis Module

[edit]
Cisco Network Analysis Module (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 about a networking product which has no notability, only sources are from Cisco's own website, also the majority of content reads like an advert. QueenCake (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really frustrating to see the discussion on this issue. If you plan to delete a product that has 6000 customers and nearly $60m of annual revenue, then a lot of products listings on Wikipedia should be removed. There are a number of non Cisco originated articles on this product - here are a few:

Now - as I had mentioned before, if you think there is advertising related content, I am more than happy to try to fix it. Ash1932 (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, this auto-reply of "Delete" without even understanding the article reflects very poorly on the admins. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia of "Educating someone" ? Ash1932 (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sure this deserves a sentence somewhere but we don't need an article on it. get rid of it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 00:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Analyzer

[edit]
Project Analyzer (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 can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any reviews on the software's own webpage. Did my share of searching google and found nothing.--TParis00ap (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The general consensus here is that the subject is not adequately notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Youra

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

This article is about a nonnotable businessman that fails WP:BIO as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. The original AfD closed as a keep over a year ago, although I can not see anything more than trivial coverage of this individual. Some passing mention has been made about the lawsuit related to his company, but nothing especially distinguishing regarding his biography. There also seems to be a serious conflict of interest with the creator. ThemFromSpace 23:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the references shows that the first covers his company, the second is a only a passing mention, the third is not independant of the subject, and the last is from a small local news organization. This is far short of the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that WP:N requires for articles. ThemFromSpace 01:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't lack of references; it's that the article says nothing that is really notable. Mangoe (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bidu Sayão International Vocal Competition

[edit]
Bidu Sayão International Vocal 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)

I can't find significant coverage for this singing competition. Joe Chill (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
from that site mentioned above:
article 1, "L’IX Concorso Internazionale di Canto Bidu Sayão, mira a rivelare nuovi talenti e a diffondere il canto erudito." (to reveal new talent and spread the knowledge of singing)
article 3 "nati a partire dal 1º gennaio del 1974 fino a 1º gennaio del 1991." (born after Jan 21 1974 & before Jan 1 1991)
to me, those two conditions mean: not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure! Important competitions are all for young artists!!! What is the difference between an importat one and a less important is if the competition is international or not, and if the competition has a relevance in the continent.
The most important world level opera competition is Operalia, wich is also for young talents! This is the most important international competition of South America and should be kept in my opinion! --Arancam (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here there are a lot of reliable sources, such as Correio Braziliense newspaper and Estadão newspaper, which are ones of the most important newspapers of Brasil, and also some internet sites. Something more can be found here. It's not me that is having a subjective point of view regarding the importance. It is obvious that as it is one of the most important opera event in South America, (and this is an objective point of view!!) this article should be kept. If someone else could help in reviewing the article it would be great. We can try to make it more complete... but anyway it is not just something to forget about only because it's not known by everyone here! --Arancam (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More reliable sources also on the important Brazilian Newspaper Folha de S. Paulo --Arancam (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!! --Arancam (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna (feed reader)

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

All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 04:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lilian Edwards

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

PROD contested. Fails WP:PROF. Self-proclaimed "keynote speaker" whose only proof is own employer webpage and amateur youtube "interview". Drdisque (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had you bothered to check, you will see it is a university website, not a personally-produced website. Your suggestion is premature at best, ill-considered at worst. GeorgeLloyd (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected, you still fail to establish any notability for subject -Drdisque (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a google search is done for the "award" she was given, it results in only results referring to her, indicating the either the award was only given once or it is so irrelevant no other recipient claims to have received it. -Drdisque (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not quite as cut and dried as "strong keep, speedy close", HW. But I think the point to make here is that it isn't the award that makes her notable. In fact, the award is a bit of a red herring, because in itself it would be a weak (though arguable) indicator of notability. Here, the combination of the papers she's authored, the books she's written and edited, and the position she holds, together with the award, are all contributory factors to a keep position.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My "speedy close" proposal was based on her being recognized as, and quoted as, as subject matter expert by significant reliable sources like New Scientist and the BBC, not so much the award. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Profane Genocidal Creations

[edit]
Profane Genocidal Creations (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 album, from a band that is most likely also non-notable. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MUSIC, an album from a notable band may be considered notable, just by nature of it being released by that band. But this band is not highly notable, nor has this album received significant coverage in reliable sources. And the article consists almost entirely of a track listing. According to what I have seen at WP:MUSIC, articles that don't have significant mainstream coverage, and consist mostly of a track listing should just be integrated into the article for the group. Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esmaiel Jabbari

[edit]
Esmaiel Jabbari (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 associate professor at the University of South Carolina has an h-index around 11. Article says he won an award, but I cannot find any evidence that this award even exists. Article mentions that he is in Who's Who. Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we collaborate on writing some needed stubs, will you let some of these COI BLP guys go? Abductive (reasoning) 21:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klíče na neděli

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

Has been listed at WP:PNT for more than 2 weeks with no progress Jarkeld (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to daTheisen: It's in this section: If an article has been listed here for two weeks and is still untranslated, it should be moved to AfD. When moving items to AfD, the boilerplate text on the article should be changed from ((notenglish)) to ((subst:afd)) and the other deletion steps should be carried out.
Although most of the time it'll be PROD'ed first. Jarkeld (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Howard, Jr.

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
James F. Howard, 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)

Seems to me to fail WP:PROF. h-index is in the low teens, and he is not the first author on the papers with then most citations. The only possible claim under WP:PROF is #5, holding a "distinguished" chair. However, as pointed out in the previous no consensus AfD back in 2006, Dr. Howard has had cared for a Broyhill family member. The family then endowed a professorship named after Dr. Howard at UNC. "At the least, it sounds like more of a "pat on the back" from someone who can afford it (possibly a higher-up of the Broyhill furniture company, which is based in North Carolina?) than a academically-deserved-only title". I tend to agree. Abductive (reasoning) 09:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, that is generally true. But to me, the distinguished chair criterion is a shorthand for academic achievement, and I can't find anything Dr Howard has done to advance the field. So the real question is, what can be said about him encyclopedically? His article exists in a vacuum, with the only incoming links being Bellows Falls, Vermont and List of people from Vermont. This debate happened in the previous AfD, and the result was no consensus. So in this case, some people were unconvinced by this apparent passing of point 5. Abductive (reasoning) 10:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They say it by citing him. The authorities in a field are the people who get cited. That;s the nature of academic science, and the way notability is shown in that part of the world. We just record it. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, they could be citing him to say that he was wrong. Abductive (reasoning) 23:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and send to Redirects for discussion instead. Non-admin closure. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vichy liberalism

[edit]
Vichy liberalism (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 term was used by a writer in an article. It does not refer to liberals in the Vichy Republic but is a sarcastic reference to American liberals. Not notable. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator, WP:SNOW Keep Tim Vickers (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACS Chemical Neuroscience

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

Journal has barely started, no issue published yet. Prod removed with explanation on talk page concerning stature of authors and the fact that one published manuscript has been cited (cf. WP:NOTINHERITED). Journal misses all criteria of WP:Notability (academic journals) and a article creation is very premature (cf. WP:NOTCRYSTAL). Crusio (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chem Abstracts is certainly not an irrelevant database for scientific journals, but this is not the place to discuss that. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow as this journal is indexed by Chem Abstracts. Anyways, no further comments from me. Thanks. Antorjal (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does being a significant editor preclude you from speaking here? Doesn't it do the opposite? - BalthCat (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions Which university?? And why is being peer-reviewed making it notable? And what's ground-breaking about yet another online journal of which there are already hundreds or even thousands? --Crusio (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The editor-in-chief is at Vanderbilt, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More