< 31 January	2 February >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1970s in science[edit]

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

Delete. This is the the only article in a "decades in scince" series. Articles for 1970 in science, 1971 in science etc already exist. This articles and the years in science series are poorly maintained. To make maint easier and since there seems to be little interest in developing these articles the decade in science should be deleted. It will put the related category up for deletion as well. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is not great at the moment, I see. But in attempting a high-level prose overview of a whole decade it does something different than the year articles. I don't think many casual readers would be that interested in the year articles, because they are too in-depth, granular, and listy. I think this format (even though it has not caught on yet to other decades) is better designed for readers. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly per Calliopejen1. also, there are 2 other decades in science articles: 1990s in science and technology and 2000s in science and technology. im going to add these to the category, and move this page over to a title reflective of the other two.Ryan shell (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I would like to see those articles merged elsewhere. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly a notable decade for science (actually, which decade isn't notable for its scientific achievements?). Currently this article seems to be attaining a higher level of quality than the articles on the individual years. Them From Space 03:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with the claim that the 70s was of particular note especially if we look at the Enlightenment or we believe in accelerating change. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and make the others. We can't do everything at once. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or concentrate on the series that is already set up? Decades in science would be a summary of years in science. If we build the years in science series into a more comprehensive set of articles we can then see it there is a need for a decades in science series of articles. We should try an improve why we already have. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure synthesis and original research. by trying to summarize the field without citations for who said this, its research. by grouping events together in a decade long pattern, its synthesis. unless all these statements can be backed by citations of notable science writers and historians (oh my god events from my memory are now solidly historic...), this article is not tenable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all the other keeps. The nominator seems to be on a mission to delete this for whatever reason. Thiste (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"whatever reason" is those as stated above and below. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comments. Firstly, I fully endorse the above comments by Mercurywoodrose. To do an article on the science of a particuar decade does not make sense unless it is a timeline or list of events rather than an analysis. A timeline of science would be too long. Breaking it into years is much better as has been done in the List of years in science. Potentially there could be a List of decades in science but that would be redundant since there is a already a list of years in science. Creating articles to do an analysis of science within a decade is setting arbitrary constraints. Science should be analysed within a field (eg History of genetics), a defined period of history (eg Science in the Age of Enlightenment) or any other method that has defined constraints. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a typical example of a helpful navigation article. It should renamed 1970s in science and technology and rewritten to follow the format of 1990s in science and technology and 2000s in science and technology. Here I'd to remind editors that poor quality is not a reason for deletion, but for improvement. Edit, don't delete. ^walk victor falk^talk 12:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the list of 1970s years in science links before I decided that deletion was a better option. The page could work as a list of events in the 1970s relating to science and tecnology (as it is now named) but the sythesi as metioned by UserThiste should go. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same as Victor Falk --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because this is the the only article in a "decades in science" series doesn't mean it should be deleted. Warrah (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can provide an effective overivew of progression in that decade. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 14:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Victor Falk. -- Jll (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are articles covering notable achievements and are exactly the type of article we should have on Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Abraham[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this professor in Google, Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar. Joe Chill (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a fairly recent vintage Doctorate; I can't see what makes him notable. Bearian (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep per DGG. I did not read through his c.v. fully; an honorary degree and a collection of honorary essays surely make him pass WP:PROF. Thank you for the link to WorldCat. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC) See also Festschrift. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF as an authority in his field as shown by publications, the article lists 3 books by Oxford UP, 2 by the important specialist publisher Eerdmans, and an undergraduate textbook by a leading textbook publisher; there are actually about 20, according to WordCat. full professor at a major university, so this publication record is not surprising. The GScholar results above confirm that is work is substantially referred to. And as full prof, there is a volume devoted to his work, a festschrift: Immersed in the life of God : the healing resources of the Christian faith : essays in honor of William J. Abraham Grand Rapids, Mich. : William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., ©2008. ISBN 9780802863966 worldCat. This is one of the defining characteristics of exceptional notability. The 2008 degree referred to above is an honorary degree; his actual D Phil is from Oxford, in 1977. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete of the snowball variety. Marasmusine (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Super Hockey[edit]

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

Prod removed without rationale. Article tagged as hoax; I can't find RS mentions of this game, sources given in the article don't even mention it. Even if it is not a hoax it is a WP:CRYSTAL violation at best. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, almost certainly a hoax. If it were announced or even rumoured there would be some non-Wiki google hits for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supreme delete per nom. A supreme delete is just like an ordinary delete, only with diced tomatoes and sour cream. JBsupreme (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - article has zero mentions in any reliable source an exact Google search turns up only two forum results. There is no way this article can survive. Let it snow so we can focus on other AfD discussions. --Teancum (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly speedily) - I smell a Wp:HOAX here. It's possibly the bit that says that amongst the enemies are Wario (who's been an enemy once). Or the fact that sports game like this would have him (as well as the other two listed "enemies") as playable characters. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sunshine delete cause that's the best disinfectant. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Super delete Looks like a hoax to me. Reach Out to the Truth 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an apparent hoax. RFerreira (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – complete lack of verifiability. –MuZemike 04:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Yeah...I've googled this article before and gotten squat. Apparently it is entirely based off of a screenshot of a Mario Party hockey mini-game... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Yoshi (talk • contribs) 05:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (refs provided) Kotniski (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ewa Gorzelak-Dziduch[edit]

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

Delete. Contested speedy. Notability is not asserted within the article, nor are there any sources to go by! WP:BLP fail. JBsupreme (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE, quite possibly WP:V a well. No Gnews hits whatever, IMDB entry is unremarkable and falls below the threshold of significant roles. Ray^Talk 00:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Weak Keep per MichaelQSchmidt below. Apologies to other editors, I must've googled on the hyphenated name and gotten no hits. Weak because I can't read Polish, and Google translate's not proving all that helpful, but provided some Polish-speaking enwiki-editor can fix this, I think we may have a good bio on our hands. Ray^Talk 04:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 00:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Many sources available for expansion and sourcing. Notable Polish film and television actress whose work meets WP:ENT and coverage meets WP:GNG. Yes, it will be difficult to find English language coverage of an actress who has her notability in Poland's film and television, and the article will require assistance from Polish-reading Wikipedieans... but notability is Poland is notability enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you... does anyone know of a Polish WikiProject that might be able to assist in expanding this article from the Polish language sources? JBsupreme (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm all for keeping. I have an abiding interest in Polish theater and would very much like to help with this article. I don't actually write or read the Polish language but know enough of the general landscape that I think I may have some insight. Evalpor (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ewa played in the very popular in Poland serial "M jak Miłość" for over 50 episodes [1]. That alone makes her notable. Dr. Loosmark 05:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's a notable actress, and as demonstrated above, the abundant sources demonstrate this. The existence of systemic bias is not an argument for deletion. Rebecca (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Side By Side The Revolutionary Mother-Daughter Program for Conflict-Free Communication[edit]

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

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK ttonyb (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just published,Worldcat no evidence of notability at all. It is possible that it will get some reviews, however, and become notable. The author Charles Sophy may however be notable, but he article on him needs considerable attention to remove promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. ukexpat (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Vermont Teddy Bear Company. Cirt (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PajamaGram[edit]

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

The company does not require an article of its own and the article itself offers zero benefit or encyclopedic relevance. At the most it should be noted within the article of the parent company Vermont Teddy Bear Company but I see no reason or benefit to it having its own article within Wikipedia. NathyWashington (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vermont Teddy Bear Company, per WP:PRODUCT: "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." This is basically a service of the company, so, like the nom, I see no reason not to merge it there. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent company. This is just advertising. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliaaer[edit]

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

Company fails WP:CORP. Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically a business listing for a non-notable company. This article in the online-only Nordic Africa News (tagline: "News that will not waste your time") isn't enough to pass WP:CORP.
Keep. Seems to be a reasonably important maker of sports equipment. Malcolma (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? ^Bongo_matic 12:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable.' Not a single independent reference; reference links are to press releases and to advertisements for their own products on their own webpages. Zero hits on Google news. --MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Claim in article of award being won not substantiated in reliable sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would have to be extensively re-worked to be encyclopedic. Lacks authoritative third party cites. FYI, Company was founded in 2007 (according to their site). --Quartermaster (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JJ Ambrose[edit]

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

Totally unsourced, questionable notability. No news articles ABOUT the subject were found, only a couple fight results and trivial passing mentions. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources (meaning non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties) = no article. JBsupreme (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don McAllister[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines wp:note Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nominator.--Prodigy96 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]

*Delete there are external links but they do not appear to convince me of the subject's notability so I therefore !vote delete.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 23:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuhiro Abe (video game composer)[edit]

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

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

Unsourced BLP, previously prod'd. Extant externs and ref are not about the person, they are about the music (and one extern is 404). Delete as inappropriate for inclusion. Jack Merridew 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

adding Yasuhiro Abe (producer). Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources address him, appears to fail music, bio, creative, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No way does this article pass. WP:MUSIC? no! WP:BIO? no! Coverage from third-party sources? fail...although the Billboard inline citation does suggest verifability...but notabilty? not suggested, so delete--^Trust_Me^THROW! 23:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (banned user)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:MUSIC #5 by having released two or more (in this case, at least five) albums from a major label, EMI = ~~keep~~. If someone could mine the Oricon site (I always get tangled up in the search results, or I'd do it myself) for citations, this can be trivially verified. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yasuhiro Abe (video game composer) (阿部靖広) article discography is in the fact part of the one of Yasuhiro Abe (安部恭弘). Completely confusing & misleading really. --KrebMarkt 20:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gah, you're right about utter mess. For the moment, retaining that keep for Yasuhiro Abe (video game composer) based on WP:MUSIC. Will try to untangle my thoughts on the other two later. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The evidence of diff an editor screwed up the article in response to a PROD. --KrebMarkt 09:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, on further investigation, while Yasuhiro Abe initially appears to be prolific under both of his hats, he was not the main composer for most of those albums (or any at all?). The bar for producer has not been codified for producers, but I should be significantly higher than that for performer -- surely, at least, producing some actual hits -- and his activities do not seem to have reached that level. So, I'm reversing that keep and saying delete Yasuhiro Abe (video game composer) and adding to that delete for Yasuhiro Abe (producer). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as policy apparently sees this as a keep (see above), I'll go per WP:IAR. The albums this guy released aren't what I think the music policy cited above is about, they're not significant at all (cf. the lack of sources) even if released with a big label. User:Krator (t c) 14:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utter mess There are two BLP articles for the very same person Yasuhiro Abe (video game composer) and Yasuhiro Abe (producer).
Findings:
- CDs where this BLP composed at least one track and which ranked in charts:APDA-270 RZCD-45055 RZCD-45050 SRCL-5376 SRCL-5439 AVCD-30616 MECR-1054 AVCD-30616 MECR-1054 SRCL-6300 AVCD-23026 AVCD-31146 TKCA-73171 TKCA-73321. Click on " >>> ランキングデータへ" to view ranking + week(s) in charts.
- Full list of CDs:here
--KrebMarkt 15:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch; I've added the alternate version of the article to this discussion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This a big mess not only we have 2 x Yasuhiro Abe (阿部靖広) article here in AfD but we have also a notable Yasuhiro Abe (安部恭弘) that i just have added 19 refs. That's clearly a trap to exhaust editors looking for sources and coverages. --KrebMarkt 20:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Double down delete. Both Yasuhiro Abe (video game composer) and Yasuhiro Abe (producer) need to go. JBsupreme (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wondered about my position on this one, i'm for Delete both Yasuhiro Abe (video game composer) and Yasuhiro Abe (producer). Yasuhiro Abe (阿部靖広) has composed in a dozen of CDs but he was rarely the main composer thus he can't be credited the merit of those CDs eventually making it into the charts. Had Yasuhiro Abe (阿部靖広) been the main composer of a slew of CDs that made it into the charts i could have voted keep but this is clearly not the case. --KrebMarkt 09:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, this is certainly unusual. Two people, same name, same country, both musicians, one notable, one not. Confusing for sure, but there you go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
cmt whatever the outcome, very diligent work kreb. If i understand, one of this is a fork? That one should just be speedy deleted.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Whatever it's keep or delete, i try to get of full picture of situation before voting.

On this case i'm still in disbelief because the Yasuhiro Abe (video game composer) and Yasuhiro Abe (producer) were created on the very same day the April 11, 2008 [2] [3] with one hour of interval between the two creations.

The most confusing part is due to a botched PROD rescue by a indef blocked user who replaced the non notable Yasuhiro Abe (阿部靖広) discography with one chunk from the notable Yasuhiro Abe (安部恭弘). That's kind of move is near-criminal. --KrebMarkt 15:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Slightly confused here, if both articles are essentially about the same damn thing, wouldn't a merger be in order? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Someone add the damn references to the article. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Saso[edit]

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

Delete. This article was identified as a WP:BLP lacking sources back in June 2008, but in point of fact it has been lacking in that department for SIX YEARS (2004). I did a cursory check on Google News Archives and apparently there are a couple Michael Sasos in the world. When I narrow down the search I get 1 hit. [4] I'm not too sure this is notable enough but perhaps there is more from an academic standpoint? JBsupreme (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:PROF. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - No sources to demonstrate notability. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Though I must admit that I was the original creator of this article-- it was one of the first things I ever added to Wikipedia back in the day, and at this point I can no longer remember what my sources were. (Things were different in 2004 in terms of citing things, for those of you who remember.) While it is perhaps arguable that Prof. Saso is not notable as a professor, he's also written several popular books on Taoism. I did throw in a general reference to Gale's Contemporary Authors database, it is all I have time for at the moment. Crypticfirefly (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Im not sure what significance all these have but they should at least be mentioned; [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] (Primary Source). Again I don't know if tahts any help but I thought id put it out there. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a full professor at a research university, probably notable, and confirmed by his publications. There are 17 or so substantial academic articles of his in major journals included in JSTOR [13] -- worldcat now indexes JStor articles, which is very convenient-- the additional ones there are book reviews -- To the extent they are non-academic, he would still be notable as a writer Velvet bonds : the Chinese family is in over 200 libraries. Three of the G Newa archive articles above are about him. As a general rule, anyone included in Gale's Contemporary Authors is probably notable, as the standard specialised encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors. Inclusion in a specialized encyclopedia suffices for WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 07:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple editors above, and a strong collection of publications listed in article. LotLE×talk 23:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Change to keep, Per the new research discovered. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, notable as an author. RFerreira (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, secondary sources call him a modern specialist on Taoism. Has an interesting personal interaction with the faith, too. Abductive (reasoning) 11:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kulachi (Karachi)[edit]

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

This article is about four different things, all of which are already covered by their own articles, and none of which is connected (despite the claim in the title that Kulachi and Karachi are related) to any of the others. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this looks like a complete mess. If Karachi used to be called Kulachi, that would warrant a mention in Karachi, not a separate article. The rest of this is just unsourced tribal lore followed by a list of nearby places. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both per nom and Glenfarclas, this warrants a redirect at best. JBsupreme (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. This term itself isn't a good redirect, and Kulachi appears to be a distinct city in another part of Pakistan - so I don't know what to do about the redirects, if any. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock band 3[edit]

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

Future video game, fails WP:CRYSTAL. According to the IGN source given, it is "a title in early development." In this interview with the Senior Vice President of MTV Games published the other day, we read, "Nrama: With such an efficient platform for new content delivery, is there a POINT from a business standpoint for you guys to develop a full 'Rock Band 3' sequel? DeGooyer: You mean do we need to? Well the short answer is, as efficient as digital distribution is, there are still things that are much more efficiently delivered as a disc. In terms of major upgrades, I mean. That said, we haven't announce any formal plans for a sequel game... yet." This sounds far too indeterminate and hypothetical for an article. PROD contested without comment. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete right now it's just speculation, but a redirect to Rock_Band#Future_games would be reasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sadly, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.--Prodigy96 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but per Starblind a redirect to Rock Band#Future Games would be okay.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 23:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]
Comment: Currently, Rock Band#Future Games doesn't say anything about Rock Band 3, presumably because there is nothing to say at this point. So although redirecting there wouldn't be the worst outcome, it might cause confusion about the status of the project, which seems more hypothetical than the projects discussed there. (Also, if I said to go ahead and redirect, then someone would come around to yell, "Ooh look! Bad faith nom! Speedy close! He doesn't really want it deleted!"). Glenfarclas (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.--_LittleGordon 01:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one source that is speculative at best is not a reliable source. Oppose Redirect as well as we don't want the impression to be that it's in development. This is just something from the rumor mill. When it is factual then the article can be recreated. --Teancum (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Wp:CRYSTAL. (Whilst this game will be notable when it comes out, a rumour on a non notable website isn't enough.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JBsupreme (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. Check it out/ It's snowing!--Prodigy96 (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. LotLE×talk 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As also at wrong name. (Band is capitalized) A redirect is fine. --MASEM (t) 02:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory L. Dietrich[edit]

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

The subject is a local politician, having a non-mayoral role in a very small town, etc. In the absence of good notable sources à la wp:n, this is not enough to establish notability; see WP:POLITICIAN. The author and only significant contributor works for subject's campaign for state legislature. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note - The author de"prod"ded the article, with this edit summary: "Removed all information regarding candidacy for state house. Article is for informational purposes only. Person is relevant figure at local, county, and state government." [14] ErikHaugen (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN, non-notable county trustee. The handful of mentions I can find in his local paper do not amount to significant coverage sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, they're just routine news coverage of a local official. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails inclusion guidelines. ^Bongo_matic 23:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per author. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close. This should be listed at Templates for deletion. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/FireIRC[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Template:Latest preview software release/FireIRC

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

Not used anymore due to the article and its associated entries in the IRC Comparison were removed. Mmanley (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but this probably should be moved over to TFD not here. JBsupreme (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to redirect as an editorial decision. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Harris (actor)[edit]

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

Was prodded as "unreferenced BLP article, violating WP:BLP policy; do not remove this tag without sourcing the article" I do not consider this an acceptable reason for deletion, unless WP:BEFORE is followed . But since its a field where I have no skill in finding sources for notability, I bring it here rather than just remove the tag. Myself, I have no opinion, but hope someone can source it. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as IMDb is not substantial (or reliable) enough to determine notability. JBsupreme (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now referenced early and later career. AllyD (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Famous Five. This is about the only substantial reference I could find to Harris. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as above. Even though my initial reaction was keep, I checked WP:ENTERTAINER (which includes actors). the guidelines for notability here are:

a. "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Just the one TV Show doesn't qualify here then.

b. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. There is no evidence of a significant fan base.

c. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. There is no evidence of this either.

Harris's later local government political career is not notable under [[WP:POLITICIAN. He would have needed to be mayor or received significant press coverage to be considered a notable politician at local level. Even the combination of the two careers don't provide enough for notability, I am afraid. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I based the above on "multiple TV shows". Doing a bit more research, I find that the one show involved two series and more than 20 episodes. Is that enough? Still leaning to a redirect though.Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Comment: Sorry I have no understanding how to correctly edit a Wikipedia page. I just wanted to add that The Famous Five is a classic and therefore important to keep information relating to actors and appearances. I have been a fan since 1978. Social Networking site Facebook contains many grups which appear to have a fan base of over 2500. Having just commenced reading the books to next generation children it would be inadvisable to delete reference.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article i.e. all previous revisions of the page. Whether or not there ought to be a redirect newly created is left as a matter of editorial discretion. Skomorokh 23:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auditors Class XII[edit]

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

"Auditors Class XII" as the original article that was created, contained only wholly-unsourced material that seemed to serve only as promotional spam. "Auditors Class XII" is not a plausible search term, and therefore it should not be redirected but instead deleted. The whole page is just one big Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Cirt (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. It's at least conceivable that someone (a scientologist, or a person who knows enough about scientology's work with celebrities to look for this term) would search for this term. Redirects are cheap. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only purpose of it is promotional spam. Not appropriate use of a page. Cirt (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely redirect. XXX antiuser ^eh? 04:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Implausible search term. Shouldn't this have been listed at WP:RfD? Swarm^(Talk) 06:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I also wanted to address the issues of the content from the page. Cirt (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. Swarm^(Talk) 20:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Cirt (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Renaming or redirecting are editorial decisions that can be discussed further at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sørbindalen, Nordbindalen[edit]

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

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

Seems to fail the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. I can't find any reliable sources-i.e. statistics from Statistics Norway or another credible institution-which shows that Bindal was once two separate municipalities "Sørbindalen" and "Nordbindalen".

For instance, this page from the University of Tromsø (the university of Northern Norway, of which Bindal is a part) with census data does not speak about two different municipalities. Bindal is listed as one municipality in Nordland, and there is no mention in Nord-Trøndelag (where "Sørbindalen" supposedly was located). In 1858 there was supposedly a merger between the two, transferring "Sørbindalen" from one county to another, but the Nordland page does not show the population spike you would expect in Bindal between 1855 and 1865.

Lastly, the supposed split/merger is not mentioned in this paper, which indeed contains every single split and merger in Norway between 1838 and 1999. At best, the two entities were two separate parishes within the Church of Norway. That's not notable, however, and either way we'd need an WP:RS to confirm that. Geschichte (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Earth has both names as redirects to "Bindal kommune," located at 65°5′17″N 12°22′34″E / 65.08806°N 12.37611°E / 65.08806; 12.37611, in the heart of the town of Terråk. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to find a better of something that should be a redirect.^walk victor falk^talk 12:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —^walk victor falk^talk 14:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep former municipalities are notable see WP:PILLARS & WP:DEFACTO. The split/merger is mentioned on the commune's website here. The split/merger is included in the article on Bindal (and articles on the two former municipalities) on numerous other Wikipedias, including the Norwegian one. Just because sources aren't in English, doesn't mean they are unreliable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The source does not present the two entities as municipalities. It presents them as two districts. One of the districts was in Nord-Trøndelag, but it doesn't say if it was a municipality. It could have been a part of another municipality. Show a reliable source that actually tell us that these two entities were municipalities. Also other Wikipedias can not be used for face value. Also nobody said that non-English references are unreliable (I cited multiple Norwegian-language references; they just aren't there!); wyh such strawman argumentation? Geschichte (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you read about Norwegian municipal history, you wouldn't have asked such a non-sequitur. You also no doubt realize that the religious parishes were mirrored with secular entities corresponding to the boundaries of the parishes. However termed, these were recognized as official (Norway being ruled by Sweden complicating matters). As laid out in the current town's own website, which seems to be a reliable source, because the parish crossed the county lines, the civil entity had to be divided and was so divided until the county border was changed and the two entities were merged. My argument is not a straw man, yours is. Without going into all the details, let's start with your point that absence of evidence is evidence of absence - a logical fallacy as everyone knows: you state: "the supposed split/merger is not mentioned in this paper, which indeed contains every single split and merger in Norway between 1838 and 1999." First, what reliable source tells us that the cited paper is actually complete? In any event, in your version of Bindal's history, the people in one part of the place had no local government until the county border re-enveloped them. That is a rather extraordinary claim, that requires extraordinary verification and you have provided none other than something you say is complete but may not be. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "My version"? An impudent claim, which I beg you to retract. What I am saying is that Sørbindalen might have been a part of another municipality, because none of the reliable sources cited by me mention it. Why would a paper by Statistics Norway on this specific subject be incomplete - farfetched notion. No, I'd rather question the reliability of a municipal website which lacks a list of references - and which doesn't even use the term formannskapsdistrikt or kommune about the entities. Geschichte (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your claim is without references. Your claim of that "Sørbindalen might have been a part of another municipality" is WP:OR or conjecture. You said these places could not be WP:Verified. They have been, now you're just haggling over their status. Real verified inhabited places are kept. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The places have been verified, but not their status as municipalities. This page says that the two were merged to form a municipality, but that does not mean that they were municipalities before that. Note that they give a different year for when this happened. Unfortunately, their supposed life span falls between two censuses. No source that I have found mentions that Sørbindalen was transferred from one county to another, just between two districts, who's borders might be different. I am not sure what is best, to delete the articles, mark them as unsourced and possibly untrue, or reduce them to articles about something less than a municipality. Ters (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this 1908 account any help? I see it talking there about the parish vs secular boundaries but am not sure whether it says they were municipalities.Yngvadottir (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you able to view it? I can't view it, but there is a chapter (pp.45-87) devoted to what we now know as Bindal. Geschichte (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I can see it and a ton of other stuff on GoogleBooks. The key is to put in a hyphen: Sør-bindalen. Most of the pages are saying Sør-bindalen was part of Namdalen until 1852. But my Norwegian isn't good enough to find out whether they were municipalities. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK look: "Mellem Nordre Trondhjems amt og Nordland var tidligere Bindalsfjorden grænsen. Det som laa paa søndre side af fjorden, kaldtes Sør-Bindalen og hørte til Namdalen, medens nordsiden kaldtes Nord-Bindalen og udgjorde en del af Nordland. Da Bindalen i 1815 i geistlig henseende blev skilt fra Brønnø som eget sognekald, blev det nye præstegjeld regnet til Tromsø stift; i civil henseende vedblev distriktet at være delt, indtil det i 1852 lagdes helt til Nordland." p.45. There's also this 1895 thing by Gustav Storm, p. 179, where the second to last footnote repeats about the ecclesiastical reorganization and the last footnote ends with: "I civile Sager hørte Sør-Bindalen til Namdalen indtil 1852." - no mention of Nord-Bindalen. Seems to me these support the 2 articles adequately, unless the reference to "distriktet" in the singular rules out their having been separate municipalities? That's what I don't know enough to interpret. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK. What this actually does is to contradict the article as it currently stands. Quote: "The parish of Bindal had to be divided in two municipalities January 1, 1838 (see formannskapsdistrikt), because the parish was split between the counties of Nordland and Nord-Trøndelag". And the source you quoted says that the parish was divided in 1815. When it comes to a reference to municipality status I can't see it. "civile Sager" (civic issues) is a too vague wording to deduce anything. Geschichte (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree, I am unable to determine whether they were legally distinct municipalities. But the first source does state very clearly that they were within different counties; perhaps that made it go without saying that they were administered separately? The first source (and the bit I didn't quote from the second) say that in 1815 they were made into a separate parish from Brønnø (not from each other), so that fits what the article says about the parish being divided between 2 jurisdictions - what it doesn't support is the statement in the article about 1838. (And it only implies that they were administered separately.) Perhaps the key point is where Namdalen was classed as being? If I understand correctly, currently Bindal is the only part of it that is in a different county. Perhaps there was more than one change in boundary involving Namdalen, one in 1838? The first source is certainly saying very clearly that they moved the boundary between counties. But I really don't know what word(s) would have been used in these older texts for "settlement" or "commune" to satisfy our need to know whether they were legally distinct places, and using the county boundary could presumably be OR. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, maybe I misunderstood the part about 1815. One term which could be used at this time is "herred", cf your link to the 1908 account. Geschichte (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Inconclusive. The 1908 source - which is where I transcribed that first chunk from - is speaking in present tense of Bindalen herred, but never actually says whether during the period when its antecedents were in different counties, they were each a herred. As you can see from the transcription. It's clear that it was an agricultural area - several of the sources are actually about the names of the large farms. I think I am going to go ahead and rewrite both articles with references, especially if I can either back up 1838 or find something plausible that it may have been based on a misreading of. The worst that can happen is the articles get deleted and I lose the 2 edits, but I have already lost 15 edits trying to improve doomed articles, so what the heck. At this point I am for keeping both but moving to Sør-Bindalen and Nord-Bindalen, the names they evidently went by when they were separate.Yngvadottir (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm^(Talk) 06:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Sør-Bindalen and Nord-Bindalen, reflecting sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Crawford[edit]

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

minor criminal, even if convicted. Was deprodded with the comment "Notable for being the first publicized arrest using a controversial new law in New York State. A "test case" for the new law's enforcement and application.)" Might conceivably become notable eventually, if it reaches the appellate courts, but its still at the first level of jurisdiction. Additional justification "e first person in Western New York charged with Drunk Driving with an enhanced felony DWI" -- not even first person in NY. To my view, a textbook case of DO NO HARM. I will support any other admin who agrees with me that this is a case for speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. There is no notability to speak of here. BLPzeroE. JBsupreme (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per the above. Not remotely encyclopedically notable. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for reasons stated above. (GregJackP (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. The passage of a criminal statute does not make the first person charged with a violation notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per all above ^walk victor falk^talk 12:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems exactly the kind of article WP:BLP1E is intended to prevent. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mitsuba Takanashi. Arguments that the guidelines are wrong and we should ignore them here were mostly ignored. If you do think that they are wrong, seek out consensus to change them on the appropriate page first. NW (Talk) 23:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tenshi no Poketto[edit]

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

Not evidence of notability. A search for reliable sources comes up empty.[15] Disputed prod. —Farix (t | c) 20:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 20:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding nothing on this one, aside from verifying its existence. As such, it is a valid search term, so selectively merge relevant information to the author -- which in this case amounts to make sure that the listing for it indicates it's a collection of short stories and then redirect (without deleting). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge Note that it's no more available in Shueisha catalog. --KrebMarkt 14:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, after 13 years the sales usually die down. You can find it sold elsewhere. Dream Focus 21:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A collection of short stories by a notable writer. Wikipedia isn't going to run out of space, and nothing gained by deleting something you have confirmed exist. Dream Focus 21:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author is barely notable and is definitely not historically significant. Books don't inherit notability from the author unless the author is historically significant. And I can turn your WP:NOTPAPER argument around and say that there is nothing to be gained by keeping an article on a subject that isn't notable. Nor is WP:NOTPAPER a free pass for inclusion. —Farix (t | c) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a turn around. The suggested guidelines are not binding at all, they just the opinions of a very small number of people around at the time to argue until they get their way. Does it help Wikipedia to remove something some might find interesting or useful to read? Whether or not a reviewer or two somewhere bothered to mention something, isn't relevant at all. Dream Focus 08:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely incorrect. Guidelines are based on the consensus of a wide number of editors and should generally be followed unless the consensus supposes ignoring the guideline because the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia is harmed. If it was only a "very small number" of editors, then they would not have reached guideline status. However, the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia is not be affected by the presence of this article. Just because you may find a topic interesting doesn't mean that it should be included. —Farix (t | c) 11:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at the history of the guideline pages. Most changes are done with less than a dozen people participating. Millions of users, and only a handful or so change things. Wikipedia is not a set of rules. If a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. We've been through this far too many times already. You should not delete, just because whoever last was around to argue the longest got something put into a guideline, to give them an excuse to destroy something they don't like. And the encyclopedia of Wikipedia is affected by the presence of this article, and others like it, since it isn't complete without it. Unlike paper encyclopedias Wikipedia does not have any limits on space, and therefore no reason not to fill it up with things like this. A writer whose other works have been established as notable, produced a collection of short stories. This isn't just some random work by an unknown person. Dream Focus 11:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, an inclusion guideline would not reach it's guideline status if it didn't have the support of a wide range of editors and describe common outcomes at AfD. And just because the are guidelines doesn't mean that they should always be ignored. Your attempts to belittle the guidelines does more harm to Wikipedia than the inclusion of articles that fail to pass the guidelines. Wikipedia is not about everything as that would lead it to be an indiscriminate collection of information. The notability guidelines helps us discriminate between topics that are worth including in an encyclopedia and those that do not. —Farix (t | c) 12:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - The work can be listed at the author's article, and if we have somehow missed sources then the article can be reestablished on stronger ground. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)
Redirect to Mitsuba Takanashi. Unnotable series that fails WP:BK and WP:N. No coverage in reliable sources. As some people think "merge" means copy/pasting the plot and infobox, there is nothing to merge. Work is already correctly listed on Takanashi's page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the mention that it's a collection of short stories + name of those short stories can be salvaged. Unless we think that it's trivial information. --KrebMarkt 22:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it is, beyond maybe a note that it is unrelated short stories versus a one volume series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambarish Srivastava[edit]

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

I haven't been able to find any reliable source references to show notability for this individual. Doesn't meet WP:Creative, WP:Author or WP:GNG. There are some awards mentioned, but I can't find any real coverage of the awards either (let alone the subject receiving the award). The only award that has some coverage is the Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini award (not to be confused with Indira Gandhi Prize) but even that receives trivial coverage in the context of the recipients. I've searched both English and Hindi sources. Lots of blog presence (albeit low-traffic blogs). Also, this is a BLP for which I can't find any references. Delete. –SpacemanSpiff 20:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 20:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:Author. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Further merge discussion may take place as an editorial discussion on the talk page. Cirt (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cathcart[edit]

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

In this nomination, we find out whether anything connected to the National Register of Historic Places can ever be non-notable. This is a smallish apartment building in Indianapolis. It is not listed individually on the Register; rather, it is one of of a group of thirty-seven buildings listed together in an entry called "Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis." The "Significance" section of the nominating document ([16]) does not appear to mention the Cathcart at all (see the reference numbers in the margin), and I can find no indication anywhere of the significance of this building.

My PROD was declined by the author, who left a thoughtful comment on the article's talkpage. I think I disagree that being "historic" is the same as being notable, see e.g. WP:OLDAGE. But that's somewhat beside the point; in the end this particular building is only 1/37th of an NRHP entry, and seems to be one of the least remarkable buildings of that group. I'll gladly withdraw the nomination if it can be shown why that alone -- or other information that may be out there -- would satisfy WP:GNG. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional noms by Orlady on 3 February 2010. I am nominating these to receive the same disposition as The Cathcart. These are some other apartment houses that were nominated at the same time as The Cathcart. As with The Cathcart, the National Register nom form does not provide information about these individual buildings, so there is no basis for writing separate articles about them. They are currently included in Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources. --Orlady (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the one who removed the PROD and responded at Talk:The Cathcart, though I was not the author and did not add the pics. Thanks for your nice introduction to this AFD.

However, you misunderstand the situation. The document you refer to is a general study of what Indianapolis buildings would be NRHP eligible. It lists 37 or however many, and gives brief information. It is not the nomination document for this particular building, which AFAIK has not been obtained from the National Register. That individual nomination document should be obtained and used to develop this article, per my comment at Talk. It is premature to have an AFD, when really the situation is there is a valid stub article and a reliable source available, just not yet obtained, that will fully explain its architectural or other significance. And to be clear, this building is individually listed on the NRHP. It is not merely a contributing property within a historic district. I'll post notice of this AFD at wt:NRHP. --doncram (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you weren't the author, my mistake. As to the rest of what you say, after much fiddling around I did find what appears to be an entry at nrhp.focus.nps.gov; I had tried before, but the site's opaqueness baffled me. I can't link it, but you can go to this search box, enter "Indiana" and "Indianapolis" as state & city, hit Search, and it's the second entry on page 3. However, I'm unclear why I should think the document listed above is just a study and not the nominating document. It's called "National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nominating Form," and it was submitted to the National Park Service on August 1, 1983. Anyway, I'll leave this nomination open for a while in the hopes that the conversation continues to develop. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You followed a reasonable approach to try to find the NRHP document specific to Cathcart / The Cathcart. However, unfortunately the NPS Focus websearch system is incomplete and documents for this one are not available on-line. Worse, the system misleadingly seems to imply that it is available. Frequent NRHP editors will recognize that when the docs are online an image of a document will show (as, when, for example, you search on "Butler Fieldhouse", also in Indianapolis), while the other image just indicates no doc has yet been scanned.

And, your interpretation of the MPS document is also not unreasonable, as it is odd that the bureaucratic label is the same as for an individual NRHP nomination. Technically, the separate NRHP nomination docs for The Cathcart and others, when we receive them, may turn out to be parts of this MPS document, i.e. they may show as later parts of a big document, at really high page numbers. For some MPS/TR studies the result is a multi-hundred page document, out of which the NPS scans just the cover section to make available as in the 32 page section here, and additional sections for each individual item are provided only separately. For other MPS/TR studies the material is a truly separate document from the separate item documents, but either way the NPS cuts them up and serves them separately. Again, sorry that you are encountering these idiosyncracies. --doncram (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this building is notable for being on thr NRHP. The document referenced is just a 'thematic resource' cover document. Someone just needs to request the actual nomination. This situation is no different from the many other stub articles. Einbierbitte (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was hoping to avoid unelaborated "It's on the NRHP, it's notable" responses. (Same with "Other NRHP entries have articles.") Glenfarclas (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could just as properly say "Other legislators have articles". Many AFDs have held that all NRHP listings are notable. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As an individual building within the Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources (now known as a Multiple Property Submission), this building merits an individual article. If it were part of a historic district, or if it were one of a group of very similar buildings, then maybe we would need just one article about all of the buildings. Sometimes it's more useful to have just one article about all of the properties in a Multiple Property Submission, such as Cuyuna Iron Range Municipally-Owned Elevated Metal Water Tanks, where the water towers are really more notable as a group and where there isn't much that could be said about the water tower in Crosby, Minnesota as opposed to the water tower in Deerwood, Minnesota. In the case of the Indiana apartment buildings, though, each of the buildings was built by a distinct builder in a distinct style. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I've changed my mind; see below.[reply]
Keep - The National Register of Historic Places has much higher inclusion standards than WP. Everything they consider is heavily researched, scrutinized and fact-checked to ensure that these are stand-out important and unique places. If it's notable there, it most certainly is notable here. --Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great—if the building is "stand-out important and unique," then surely it's received lots of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Right? Glenfarclas (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original nomination form for the MPS lists three pages of sources in the bibliography on pages 26-28. I don't know how substantive the coverage is within all of those sources, but I would presume that the Indiana SHPO and the National Register would have checked out those sources and found them valid documentation to support the properties nominated. Three of the properties listed in the MPS, the Dartmouth, the Massachusetts, and the Sid-Mar are marked as "Substantive Review", indicating that the National Park Service needed to do additional review to ensure that those properties were compliant with National Register guidelines. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Doncram and Elkman. This article should be developed with its own (interesting and clearly sourceable as already demonstrated above) history; this would be lost (and nothing gained for it) if it were redirected to an article on the group as a whole. Rebecca (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Downtown Indianapolis. Do the same with The Wilson (another one of the ~33 downtown Indianapolis apartment buildings added to the National Register as part of the same Multiple Property Submission). National Register listings are presumed notable because it is presumed that there was ample documentation for their nominations, and that documentation would establish notability. That's generally true, but the nomination that includes The Cathcart contains no specific information about it, other than its address. The images that illustrate the article are nice, but the absence of other content makes it hard to justify a separate article. On the other hand, those images and a nice write-up about this and other historic apartment buildings of downtown Indianapolis would make a wonderful addition to downtown Indianapolis. --Orlady (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one article for the group, the Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources. The register accepts the concept that something might be historic but only of only limited importance - in which case they include it in an historic district, as my own house is included, and indeed specifically mentioned by number as all the houses on the block are, but not as a separate monument, and Wikipedia includes the district, but not the individual houses in it, unless they are separately listed for their individual merits. I have not encountered this type of inclusion before, but I assign this more to the nature of an historic district, defined but by geographic but by theme. I think the evidence for that is "the following (properties were excluded from the Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resource because they were already listed in the National Register as properties within the Chatham -Arch Historic District. " (item 6 of ref 2) I seriously urge the people writing keep above to read the reference 2, and consider again. Had I not read the actual source, I would probably have !voted keep also. But I did, and this is the first time I have ever not said keep in connection with one of the National Register articles-- this is qualitatively different. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commented just below in response to Elkman's starting that list article, and I am pluralizing ur title so it points to it. Just one point: the apartment buildings which are contributing properties in, and are protected to some small degree by, the Chatham-Arch Historic District designation should certainly be covered in any list-article about Indianapolis apartment buildings. The topic for a list-article should not be limited to just the content of one dated study. --doncram (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elkman. I believe that locations on the National Register of Historic Places should meet our notability guidelines in any event. JBsupreme (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my mind. I started Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources, because I figured that an article on the whole Multiple Property Submission could contain more relevant material and more of the history behind the grouping of apartments than one individual article (or 36 individual articles) could contain. While I still think individual articles on properties are notable enough, the likely scenario right now is that there just isn't enough reference material to make a separate article for each of these buildings. Even if there is, a general article on the MPS will provide historic context that otherwise would have to be repeated in 36 separate articles. So, my new vote is for a merge/redirect. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not altogether opposed to having some good list-article to which the many items could redirect, and i did like your treatment of the 5 Minnesota items which were similar, in one combo article. But, I am not sure about what article name and topic for such a combo article would make sense. The title/topic you've created: "Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources" seems not notable to me, on the grounds that a single dated study should not get a wikipedia article, just like there should not be an article on each local or state history compendium or each book or study of any other type. Perhaps it should be a broader topic: Apartment Buildings of Indianapolis? To allow for notable other buildings, including modern buildings, too? I don't think the title should be the MPS document/study. If it were about the study, then it should describe the history of the study, who wrote it, why the document/study is notable relative to other documents and studies and books. --doncram (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apartment Buildings of Indianapolis doesn't indicate a historical district or any common theme. An article with that name could include apartment buildings built in the mid-1960s, for example, in Brutalist architecture. Maybe a name like Historic apartment buildings of Downtown Indianapolis could cover it, but any title would have to reflect the grouping that's made by this MPS and the inclusion of just those buildings. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per Elkman, for the nice job on Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources. The same should be done for the other buildings listed. If kept, then that article should be deleted. Since all the vaguely notable buildings are under a single nomination, I think it is convenient to list them together, with no need for reundant subarticles. I am open to other possibilities if more sources arise. Reywas92^Talk 02:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current list-article is mostly a table in the mostly the same format as National Register of Historic Places listings in Center Township, Marion County, Indiana which I worked at developing (starting from Elkman's table generator output). Perhaps Elkman created it by stripping down a newly generated table? I don't see why it does not reflect the consideration about naming of most of the entries, reflected in the discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Marion County, Indiana#Odd one word names before Center Township was split out. Elkman, perhaps you were not aware of that discussion and subsequent development of the names of the apartment buildings?

Actually another model would be Detroit Financial District, with a separate mini-section for each item, so as to be different from the table format that will be retained in the Center Township list-article. --doncram (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Apparently, I'm just too stupid and clueless to read the discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Marion County, Indiana#Odd one word names when figuring out how to disambiguate names for articles that haven't been written yet. Apparently, I'm just not very observant. Apparently, I just like using table output from the MPS generator. You may now nominate Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources for deletion, since I apparently can't be bothered to keep up with project standards. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete your article, Elkman. --Orlady (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't delete it. I'm no longer an admin. I'm asking Doncram to submit the AFD, since he can come up with the rationale that I created the article without adherence to project standards. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 06:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm sorry that I seem to have offended you Elkman. I did not oppose having an apartment building list article. I just offered my suggestions about it, if it is going to exist (avoid focus in title/topic on the MPS study; consider the two word names for the buildings as sorted out at the "Odd one word names" discussion; consider the format of Detroit Financial District article in order to be different than Center Township list-table). It is relevant to make such suggestions, I think, in providing some support to your idea to have a list-article rather than, or in addition to, a separate article. In general, project-standards-wise, I don't think it is established whether/how to make list-articles corresponding to Multiple Property Submissions / Thematic Resources studies, meaning there is not a standard i know of. I have created one or a few myself but became unhappy with having their title/topic be the study, rather than the object of a study, and I have commented along these same lines for another case or two, like i think the historic bridges of Pennsylvania MPS. Honestly i am sorry to have rubbed u the wrong way with how i said anything here. --doncram (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator's opposition to the idea that historic=notable is irrelevant, as not all historic buildings are on the Register. This building is individually listed on the Register, as you can see at this page, which does not include profiles for historic district contributing properties. It's a Moreover, a reference to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't help your point here — it's one thing to argue that one thing should have an article because several similar things have articles, but quite another thing to argue that one thing should be kept at AFD because several similar things have been kept at AFD. Moreover, yes, this will have had plenty of coverage in reliable sources — but we don't require online sources. The nomination form (itself a reliable source) will provide a list of other sources that we'd consider reliable, but the form doesn't appear to be online. By the way, Indiana's historic preservation office claims to have forms online, but these online documents only give basic information; the actual forms aren't generally online. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, don't merge — the new page that Elkman created is essentially nothing more than a list. Using information from nomination forms and their sources, far more information can be added than is appropriate for a single page. See what I'm currently doing with Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches (which essentially represents another multiple property submission) — an article about one of these churches was featured at DYK in November, and I have two more in process of getting on DYK. You can't get an article at DYK without plenty of information, and we could easily get some of these articles to DYK if we had the currently-only-available-in-print information at our fingertips. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nyttend's comments appear to assume that nomination forms exist for these individual apartment buildings, and that these nomination forms contain extensive detail about the individual buildings that could be used as a basis for individual articles. That happens not to be true. The nomination form is available online (I've read it), and it contains very little information about any specific buildings (in most cases, it only lists addresses). Although these buildings are individually listed on the National Register, they were listed on the basis of an MPS, and there never were any individual nom forms. You can't squeeze water from a stone, and you can't write a decent article about a street address. --Orlady (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a request to the National Register for the individual nom forms of Cathcart/The Cathcart and of Wilson/The Wilson. --doncram (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the nomination form that you've read for the Wilson? Do you mean the ones available from SHAARD? All of their forms — not just ones from this multiple property submission — are just basic data, containing nothing of the narrative statements of significance that are required for the actual nominations. The forms available from SHAARD don't have anything about coordinates — where would the NRHP get the coordinates (which are present) if not from the official nomination form? — and the statement of significance is required to be given on a continuation sheet, which isn't part of the online form. The official nomination form will contain much more than you can find at SHAARD. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of those not familiar with the way that NRHP listing is done — the multiple property submission form, which Orlady incorrectly believes to be the nomination form I'm talking about, is a document explaining the interrelated natures of a group of properties that are being nominated for being added to the Register. Properties included in such a document can be (1) ones being added to the Register at the same time as the form is composed and (2) properties already on the Register before the form was composed. All properties require their own nomination forms in addition to a multiple property submission form: this, not the multiple property submission form, is what I'm talking about. For this reason, it's possible for a multiple property submission form to be approved and for the majority of its properties to be added to the Register but for one or more properties to be rejected. Orlady is confusing this form with one that is created for a historic district, in which there is only one form for the entire nomination: the entire district is listed (or not listed) on the Register together. You can't squeeze water from a stone, but if you turn a blind eye to a sponge, someone else can squeeze water from it. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never looked at SHAARD. The nom form I am looking it is the one that is on the NPS website (and cited in the article): http://www.nr.nps.gov/multiples/64000185.pdf . That form has the same title ("Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis TR") and date as the nomination listed in The Cathcart's entry on NPS Focus.
I don't believe that I am confusing MPS's with historic districts, as I've looked at plenty of nominations of both types. Typically an MPS contains a fair amount of detail about each individual property (sometimes even a mini-nom for each property), but they do vary in the amount of detail they provide. In this case, there is very little information about individual properties. A few of the listed apartment buildings have enough description to support individual articles, but most do not. --Orlady (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I couldn't find anything searching by the name or the address. Abductive (reasoning) 06:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I voted Keep above. I am in support of having a list-article about the historic apartment buildings in Indianapolis, but I am still, fundamentally for keep on this item. Still waiting on the National Register providing the individual NRHP nomination document, which they said they would look for and try to send out this week. The impression I received is that they will send a photocopy of the individual nomination for Cathcart by postal mail, i.e. that it is not available in electronic form. A possibly significant consideration for this AFD, especially in its expanded form, is that if accepted it would eradicate the entire set of 2 new articles so far created by a new wikipedian, User:Nedtorson. Others may not put any weight on this, but I think it would be a lousy outcome for a new editor who created articles to replace red-link entries in the NRHP list-article covering this area (which served to indicate the topic was wikipedia-notable), and who contributed photographs for both. I think it would be received as rather unfair and fully discouraging. --doncram (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the new user's text will all fit in the Summary field in the Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources article. So their work is retained, just in a different spot. When I was new, my biggest worry was that nobody would ever read my words. In a combined article and with a redirect, more people will read it. Abductive (reasoning) 06:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G12 (Copyright infringement) by User:Tbsdy lives. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RoYa[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable software. I wasn't able to find significant independent coverage for this in reliable sources. Its name frustrates a search quite a bit. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can find some during this discussion. Pcap ping 20:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LotLE×talk 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The entire article is a copy-paste job from http://www.mashatan.com/, so it was presumably written by the software author. Pcap ping 22:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Flynn (politician)[edit]

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

Disputed prod candidate. Nominated for deletion on grounds of lack of notability. The claimed notability is as an educational campaigner but her highest position is as a member of the national executive of one campaign group, being a national representative of another, and writing articles for the Times Educational Supplement. However she was not the subject of the articles. Every single link to the TES is to an opinion piece apart from one which is a one-line quote.The subject is a Parliamentary candidate, which is by long tradition not enough in itself to confer notability. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skipton and Ripon (UK Parliament constituency). Fails notability, on being a PPC does not make someone notable. Martin451 (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She's not just a PPC - I think there is just enough else to establish notability. ukexpat (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PPCs are not notable by themselves. The links in the article are not enough to prove nobility bcause, as per nom, they include only brief quotes by her, not much about her. Upon being elected, she will satisfy policy by being an MP. Until then, nothing doing. doktorb _words^deeds 12:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable about this person per WP:BLP Were there a chance she might be elected that would alter my opinion but this is a safe Conservative seat. - Galloglass 14:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, save for being elected this person does not reach the bar of notability. RFerreira (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(relectantly) Weak keep and renominate if not elected. We are going to get an enormaous number of campaign biographies between now and General Election. The time to cull them is after the election. I have linked the article to the constituency one. In this safe Tory seat she is unlikely to be elected, but one never knows. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snikers[edit]

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

I'm not convinced this chatterbot is notable. Only an primary source in Polish is given in the article. Pcap ping 20:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this on Google, Google News, and Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tried to find coverage from reliable sources. Couldn't do it.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 23:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 Days: How I Survived Hurricane Katrina[edit]

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

After having run some Google queries, I do not believe that the book itself meets the notability criteria at this time. In particular, I was unable to locate significant coverage of the book from a sufficient number of reliable independent sources. The article's references section currently contains only links to the book's listing at 3 different online bookstores, as well as a link to a list of Hurricane Katrina survivors. Furthermore, a Wikipedia article about the book's author does not currently exist. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy G11. All references were sites where the book can be purchased (which I am about to delete per WP:EL), no assertion of notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like I can't keep these links out of there without engaging in an edit war. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as of G11. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy does not apply to books. The article can be (and has been) rewritten to be non-promotional, but there is nothing notable about this self-published book. No reviews can be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The choice of publisher does nothing much for notability, and there are virtually no ghits. The only one I would cite is http://www.odu.edu/ao/news/media.php?todo=details&todo=details&id=17226 - but that might be self-supplied info. I do wish the author success with his book, though. When it achieves the notability required for Wikipedia, it will get its article. Peridon (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a self-published book, according to the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as of WP:SELFPUBLISH. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was arguably a speedy delete (as spam) but a nice long, slow delete will suffice. Per WP:SELFPUBLISH. JBsupreme (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically, PublishAmerica is Print on demand rather than fully self-publishing like lulu. In theory, they 'accept' and 'reject', rather than just enabling anything to go out. However, doubts have been cast on the editorial process, and certain other matters in the marketing, according to the article on Wikipedia. This is the reason for the comment in my post above. Peridon (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 23:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wakko's America[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wakko's America

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

Like the Animaniacs song called "The Presidents" whose article was deleted here, the song called "Wakko's America" fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for songs. Neelix (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable song from a cartoon series with many non-notable songs. Warrah (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is certainly no Do the Bartman. JBsupreme (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd be okay with a merger into the articles on the albums from the show (they did release some) but we don't seem to have articles on those. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question Why is this article under consideration for deletion, when Yakko's World is not? Seems their noteable qualities would be similiar. I'll admit I would rather lean towards keeping Wakko's America rather than deleting, but wanted to discuss this point before the vote was final. —akghetto ^talk 19:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When nominating an article for deletion, it isn't necessary to also nominate every similar article (see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Besides, Yakko's World isn't exactly equal in notability, due to arguably having some cultural references that the America song doesn't. Besides, Yakko's World is also the name of an album, which means that its article could theoretically be "fixed" by turning it into an article on the album rather than the song, while this one cannot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Mustafa Abdulkhaleq[edit]

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

Non notable biography. A commercial airline pilot, unreferenced BLP for 8 years. Now being the first female commercial pilot in a strongly Arabic country such as Yemen is quite something, given that its a "man's world" in such countries, but is it suitable for an actual biography of this person? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SINGLEEVENT. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I googled for both Arabic and Latin-alphabet names and came up with basically nothing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced since what, 2002? 2003? Either way, good riddance. JBsupreme (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are enough pseudo-bios for "The first person to [insert dubious achievement]". --Damiens.rf 03:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the creator of this article, so it's really no pseudo-bio. As far was why I vote to keep, well, it's my customary move to vote keep for articles I've created, so that's why I vote to keep even as I agree with the previous posters in that she hasn't done much else to enhance her legacy. Kind of like Simon saying "it's a yes, but you have to work on your voice"..:). That said, I actually wonder what has become of her and wondered what had become of this article...Antonio Tralalalala lalalala Martin, 05:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is wonderful that you created this article, thank you. However this is a discussion, not a vote. Your comments should have some sort of foundation in policy in order for your keep to hold merit. One thing you could do is try to find references for this individual and provide them here and within the article, you're much more likely to change others minds that way. JBsupreme (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monsterpiece Theatre Volume 1[edit]

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

I went fishing for sources on this article and came up completely empty. Every bit of information I was able to find seems to come from Imdb, web forums, non-notable blogs and myspace pages. Trusilver 18:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film on Google, Google News, and Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoeChill - no reliable or verifiable references. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator. It has unsourced information and hundreds of original research. StevenMario (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (NAC) Swarm^(Talk) 06:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Ibuprofenate[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. Article is borderline stub-grade about a chemical; on the talk page, article creator openly admits (1) a lack of verifiability and (2) a conflict of interest. Also, article states that little information is available about the chemical -- see WP:HAMMER. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A Google search turned up several hits, so it may indeed be verifiable. I'll look into it and report back here. PDCook (talk)

18:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep, the molecule Ibuprofen is an important molecule so also is copper salts can be interesting. The article can be improved.User:Lucifero4
~~Keep~~ Weak keep - based on the following references I found: 1, 2, and 3. You might not be able to review the entire articles if you're not at a University/library, but the abstracts might be viewable. I'll gladly rewrite and properly cite this article in the coming days. PDCook (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I look forward to a rewrite into a proper encyclopedia article, and will gladly withdraw my AFD nomination once the article is duly expanded, sourced, and de-COI'd. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I'm currently editing from home so admittedly can only view abstracts, but I'm not seeing that the sources would serve to establish notability -- as opposed to merely confirming that it exists. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 19:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that this compound is not exactly front page news in terms of notability, but I easily found several references for the compound via a Google search (now referenced in the article). The references don't just mention the compound in passing, but are largely about the compound. Several labs seem to have researched it, and it was investigated as both an anti-inflammatory drug and is patented in mixture as a wood preservative. However, my guess is that this would definitely rank "low" on the Wikiproject Chemicals importance scale.
Comment I am the creator of this article, and I know this article is substandard. I am reaserching this chemical in my lab, and when I get a large ammount of info about it's properties, I will add the information.The only problem that I am currentely facing is that it (the chemical) will not precipitate properly. By little information avalable, I am refering to the little info on it's properties.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Russellsaccount (talk • contribs)

You should be sure that you understand the Wikipedia policy on original research. PDCook (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pay attention because if the results of your researach are published in wikipedia it's easy for everyone use your results for their own work.User:Lucifero4
Comment - Wikipedia articles should be based on published, third-party sources -- not lab results. If no such sources exist, there is nothing to compose the article out of. In addition, without significant coverage in independent sources, the subject is not likely to be considered sufficiently noteworthy to merit a standalone article. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 22:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I had completely forgotten about No Original Research. The article definitely needs policing to make sure the research isn't published in the encyclopedia. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After a review of sources available via a Google search (I didn't use SciFinder or search Chemical Abstracts), I found several scholarly articles and patents that suggest this compound isn't entirely obscure. I have not found any coverage in secondary sources, and have thus changed my !vote to weak keep. I also removed information regarding preparation of the compound from the article, as this was unsourced and possibly OR. Several of the references discuss preparation, so if the article is kept, someone add and properly cite such information. I've done what I can with this article, so let the !votes fall where they may. PDCook (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep and expand. I'm not withdrawing the AFD nomination just yet; I'm interested in points of view based on the article's current status. Thanks very much PDCook for finding the sources. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upped my non-vote from weak keep to normal keep. I'll probably withdraw the AFD in a day or two. (And I consider this a good thing.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Association for Islamic Economics[edit]

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

Can find no WP:RS that this Association meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, have looked in google news and can find no hits. The only things I have found are some cites and refs to some self published books - but I don't think enough to meet either of the above test of Notability. Codf1977 (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The references given in the article certainly do not indicate that the association meets WP:ORG, and I question whether they are reliable sources. I found mentions in reliable sources here and here , but I'm having trouble digging up any other reliable sources. PDCook (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but if I was supreme mugwump of Wikipedia, I would probably keep it, and adjust WP:ORG accordingly. ;-) I'm more than willing to userfy it, and if the result of the discussion is delete, then please notify me on my talk page so I can do so. Thanks. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | If you reply somewhere other than my talk, please talkback me. 01:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I support userfication if Ecw.technoid.dweeb (or any established user) is willing to take care of it. I should mention that this article, the likely-to-be deleted World Database for Islamic Banking and Finance, and the already deleted Ausaf Ahmad and Muhammad Nijatullah Siddiqui articles have all been edited/vandalized by IP editor(s) that could be sockpuppets of User:Fayazahmad123. PDCook (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rettetast (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-time characters in The Simpsons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/One-time characters from The Simpsons

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

Delete. I don't know what the strange romance is between Wikipedia and The Simpsons, but this list is uncalled for and goes against the spirit of WP:SALAT and WP:LSC. Lists are not meant to be an end run around our inclusion guidelines, and if the one-time character has any relevance then they can and should be mentioned in the appropriate episode article rather than a loosely strung together list. JBsupreme (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One-time characters should be sufficiently covered by the episode summaries. —Farix (t | c) 18:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why do you cite WP:SALAT? I don't see how the page fits in there. Is it "too general or too broad in scope have little value"? No. It is a bit specific, but not horribly so. If this were a list of male one-time characters, then I might agree. After all, The Simpsons is a long-running show known for its many characters, so a listing of one-timers wouldn't be completely unuseful. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit tricky, as the page is more-than-well referenced, it has a good coverage in the news and other good points. If there is ever going to be a "List of one-time characters in xxxx" then this ought to be the one. There is a reason that six previous nominations failed. Therefore I would vote keep. Anyways, in the worst-case-scenario where this would go otherwise, I strongly suggest merge with List of Simpsons guest stars as these seem to overlap in over 80% of the entries. Nergaal (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only coverage given by the article are a series of official episode guidebooks. These guidebooks are far from third-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 19:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Next time, please take the time to actually check the references. I see at least a dozen references from third party sources. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, these AFD attacks on this page are getting out of control. The page is well referenced and has notable characters from the episodes. CTJF83 chat 18:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the characters are notable, why do they not have their own articles or are not listed in List of characters in The Simpsons? —Farix (t | c) 19:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list of characters is for recurring characters only. Some of them used to have their own articles (ie. Frank Grimes and Hank Scorpio) for a few months before being merged here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, they aren't notable for their own article, and aren't recurring enough for List of characters in The Simpsons CTJF83 chat 20:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shouldn't there be a limit to how many times someone can nominate something? It has 807 one day in January this year [17] and has had over a thousand hits a day in some past months. Why so determined to drive people away from the Wikipedia by continuously deleting things many enjoy reading? A encyclopedia wouldn't be complete without listing all characters on such a notable show. No other list would it be appropriate to merge with, nor would it fit. Dream Focus 19:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That an article has a large number of hits doesn't mean that it's an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. That an article is enjoyable also doesn't mean it's an appropriate topic. The goal of Wikipedia is not to provide entertainment value. I fail to see how an encyclopedia would suffer from failing to discuss one-shot characters of a single tv show in detail. Actually, I could argue that's giving that particular show undue weight. Doniago (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We once hosted a list called "List of big-bust models and performers" which was quite "popular" in terms of hit count. If I understand correctly, it was quite often in the top 100 most visited pages, but that sure didn't mean it offered much in terms of encyclopedic value. JBsupreme (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trim - remove entries for characters without demonstrated (i.e. sourced) notability. Doniago (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as it is a renomination of an article kept multiple times in previous discussions. The article concerns memorable characters from one of the top ten most enduring and significant animated franchises in history, i.e. despite the title, some of these appear in games and other merchandising beyond the show. No one can honestly say they are not notable. Much literature has been written discussing characters from this franchise, which means that they are verifiable through reliable sources. Moreover, per WP:PRESERVE, the cited entries at worst are mergeable and because the article is not a hoax, not libelous, nor a copy vio, there is no urgent/compelling need to redlink it and thus protect the public from it. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion and there is no truthful policy or guideline based reason either. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't entirely true. It was deleted once in a previous discussion. There have also been several previous "no consensus" results. Also, consensus can change. WP:CCC. JBsupreme (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Once an article is kept, we do not try again to delete it. Instead, we focus on improvement. As additional sources can become available down the road, we can by contrast restore and therefore keep a previously deleted article. But once it is established that the community sees value in an article, we keep it. After all "notability" does not decline. If anything, the subject's significance and available sources only increases (barring of course an apocalyptic scenario in which archives and libraries are vaporized). By the way, your use name and talk page are showing up as redlinks, even though they both still possess content. I am not technical wizard, but you can try the help request that shows up in welcome message templates to see if someone can help you with that so as to avoid any confusion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic, A Nobody, I imagine JBSupreme's use of red is an intentional joke, since color BA181F is programmed into his signature. THF (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could say why, but I would just be repeating what everyone has said for the past six nominations. Rhino131 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we were to delete this article, there'd be absolutely no chance for us to have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (eleventh nomination). I agree with the arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (5th nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons (third nomination), but I disagree with the arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (4th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (6th nomination) because those nominations did not follow the Fibonacci sequence. THF (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CCC, but I think it isn't turning in the direction the nom thinks it is . We need a place to discuss those characters that are not worth individual articles, and this is the compromise solution. . The characters are in a famous work. We cannot ignore them Conceivably we could present them in prose, but a list is simpler., The individual characters do not have to be notable --it fact if one goes by GNG, one would need to say they ought not be notable , because if they were, they;d qualify for a separate article. This is the rational solution. Ordinarily we discuss only the present article, but this is a general problem:Combination articles are compromises. Efforts to delete them are efforts to refuse compromise, but adopt as far a minimalist view as possible. There are inherently no possible solutions to the problem except compromise, or one extreme side winning over the other. Now, one side might be very much nearer my own view, but I want to get this question settled, not fight the same battle for years on end. Neither extreme side is likely to win--we are not at all likely to accept making a separate article for every relatively minor character possible, nor to have no minor character coverage whatsoever. So the option of getting one;s way is not realistic here--neither side will ever get stable consensus for its way, neither mine nor anyone else's. But since experience has shown that neither side will succeed in wearing out the other, there is only one rational course for anyone of any opinion in this--to accept combination articles. I dont really like to compromise any more than JB does, and I'm quite as able as he to argue indefinitely, but it's time for us all to be realistic. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—The article satisfies the notability criteria. To me it is a trivial list, but apparently it is significant to others so I see no reason to toss it.—RJH (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, eloquent and sensible. -- Banjeboi 20:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How many times must this article be nominated for deletion. Get it through your head that we want it to stay. Portillo (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per arguments of A Nobody and DGG. I'd to add that this has list clear inclusion criteria "( A list For purposes of this list, "one-time" means they were central to an episode one time.)" and that having a main role in a episode of one the largest TV show in the world is notable.^walk victor falk^talk 13:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some sort of a moratorium should be put in place once something has been nominated and subsequently kept this many times. RFerreira (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like an appropriate list. Per [{WP:LSC]], "The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles". Rlendog (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 21:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo hunting (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page; two of the three pages linked to do not exist MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe this should have been PRODded, but I don't know how to do that! --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- Just insert ((subst:prod|reason for deletion)) at the top of the article, and you're done. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:DISAM says that we only need disambiguation pages if multiple articles exist. Seeing as they are redlinks, this is not needed. The page can be recreated if the other articles are created. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if articles were to be created for the redlinks, there is no reason why their content should not be merged to the existing article, Buffalo hunting. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hunting a Cape Buffalo is very different from hunting a North American Bison. The two types of hunting would not belong in the same article. Whether you want to DAB to two redlinks is another story.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there actually is no article on "Buffalo hunting"; that search term redirects to the article "Bison hunting". And there are no articles on hunting Cape buffalo or water buffalo. So there really is no ambiguity here. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Melanie[reply]

Comment Well, then...slap me twice and call me a bastard. OK, while "Bison hunting" is "more technically correct", the common term is "Buffalo hunting". Maybe the creator of the dab link is planning on adding the other 2? Regardless, Bison hunting is closer to hunting Musk ox, dumb perimeter animals that you can wipe out the whole herd by starting in the center and moving out. Cape Buffalo is a real dangerous game, perhaps the most dangerous of the big 5 in Africa. I know nothing about the hunting of the Asian WB.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus and the addition of references to the article. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SmarterChild[edit]

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

Delete. One press release, one circular Wikipedia mirror, and one blog mention does not make a product, even a discontinued product, notable. JBsupreme (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post, Toronto Star, among others. I've added the citations to the article. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The NYT and WashPost references seem to provide enough coverage to satisfy WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems to be notable, given Glanfarclas' references, and also some hits on google books for example. Joshua Scott (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White Serbs[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. ((Hoax)) tag was added to article on 12 January. Talk page consensus leans toward conclusion that this is a hoax and no one has come along to refute the hoax claim. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that article should be deleted (in fact I thought i asked an admin over a year ago to do so). Poorly written, and the contents can be covered in an article about Serbs per se Hxseek (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also support deletion of this article. The article seems to be a rehash (and a mish mash) of Romantic era nationalistic legends with little factual value, and very often in contradiction of accepted historical consensus. Nevertheless, the article presents bold assertions as if they were historical facts. There is a great deal of OR and synthesis. Whatever there is of value is already in the article on Serbs. This article serves no purpose, is non-encyclopedic, and should be deleted in its entirety. It is highly unlikely that it could be improved to the point that it warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Article is well referenced, with historical references. --Tadija (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For what is supposedly a tribe that existed in the heartland of Europe, there seems to be very little coverage of the topic. A Google Books search reveals the following mentions:
Rex germanorum, populos sclavorum: an inquiry into the origin & early... (2001) by Ivo Vukcevich - link

It is a matter of record that the Serb ethnonym was as common east of the Oder as it was in the White Serb heartland west of the Oder. (p. 91)

A number of early German historians are certain that the White Serbs were the first to settle Germania's White Serbia. (p. 370)

Byzantium in the seventh century, Volume 1 (1968) by Andreas Nikolaou Stratos - link

Many sources refer to the existence of White Croat and White Serb States in the areas beyond the Carpathians. Finally, these tribes were subjected by the Avars and became part of their great Empire. (p. 330)

and virtually nothing else. A lack of coverage in English-language sources by itself does not prove that the article is a hoax or a myth presented as fact, especially if such coverage is available in non-English sources, but it is a 'red flag' for a topic such as this. If the article is deleted, then it may be necessary to edit any articles which link to it (see Special:WhatLinksHere/White Serbs). –Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the deletion proposed. The article draws on some scarce medieval sources and expands on them in a speculative manner. The only other reference given is fringe science, quite likely with a nationalistic background. No consensus in the historic community can be presented as it does not exist (other than a likely rejection of the thesis). The Wikipedia policy on this kind of issues is clear. -- Zz (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games rated M[edit]

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

Same reasons as here: unmaintainable, useless, Wikipedia not a directory, etc. Seregain (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme delete. What's next, list List of movies rated R ?? Puh-leeeez. JBsupreme (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 16:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 16:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JBsupreme. I agree entirely. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; furthermore, a category could provide the same information and would work better in this case due to its auto-update capability. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; not a directory, indeed. Jack Merridew 18:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lists of members of non-closed sets are themselves members of a non-closed set. Imagine if we were to make a category for lists of potentially infinite length. Wikipedia would be liable to collapse under its own weight. :P -Thibbs (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games rated T. --Teancum (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William James Fulton (loyalist paramilitary)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, seems to fall into WP:NOTNEWS; only a handful of old newspaper articles are referenced. PROD tag was removed by an anonymous editor without comment. *** Crotalus *** 16:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not one event, but a career of crime. Another editor removed two references from BBC News, which I have restored. The article has a long history, and the version that was nominated was incomplete. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He isn't a serial killer, but not through want of trying. WP:BLP1E does not seem to apply; he is a lifelong career criminal comitting the most serious offences in his country. One murder, seven attempted, four of those by trying to build a grenade to lob at police... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable figure in Irish crime. I suggest renaming this to William James Fulton to avoid needless disambiguation. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games rated E[edit]

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

Same reasons as here: unmaintainable, useless, Wikipedia not a directory, etc. Seregain (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A category would hold the same information and have the advantage of being auto-updated. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lists and categories are not considered overlapping in purpose or function. A list compliments a category and vice versa. æron phone home 18:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 16:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 16:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. totally incomplete, totally unneeded, very hard to maintain. GBK2010 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. A category is a good idea, though. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment with the other List of video games rated XYZ. JBsupreme (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; not a directory, indeed. Jack Merridew 18:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with AfD:Games rated M and AfD:games rated T -Thibbs (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games rated T. --Teancum (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Hal Assistant[edit]

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

Delete, computer program which fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One Google hit looked promising, but it returned an Error 404. The rest are just blogs, forums, and download sites. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage to speak of, as noted above. It's possible this sort of thing will take off, and if it does an article might be appropriate (with proper sources). But we're not there yet. As an aside, I'm not sure if the comparison between this software's AI and HAL 9000 is comforting, what with the whole Murdering-its-users thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep. This was reviewed in PCWorld, and here's an article from the Erie Times-News which reveals that Ultra Hal won the Loebner Prize for "most human" chatterbot. I'm not entirely convinced this software merits inclusion, but it looks like it. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of children of NBA MVP Players[edit]

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

This is a collection of children of famous people. Notability is not inherited so I don't think this subject justifies an article.

Since the article is also attempting to list "illegitimate" children and has no sourcing then I see some BLP issues as well.

We should not be writing articles about the children of celebrities unless they are notable in their own right. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. James Block[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable per WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous IP WP:SPA. MuffledThud (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note evident WP:Conflict of interest by the creator, who has been adding links to ~~Imagineer~~ Imagineer Magazine and its EL to many articles in a short space of time.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they likewise assert no notability apart from being editors of Imagineer Magazine, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and were created as part of a WP:Walled garden for that article, with prods contested by the same anonymous IP WP:SPA as above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is of appropriate size about a well-known journalist in Michigan. Should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajayhawk (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no primary sources and the conflict of interest is obvious. Eeekster (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete -- There are primary sources. 3rd party sources are still needed and can be added with diligence. I see absolutely no conflict of interest. Please point out one sentence that reflects this conflict before making such an outlandish statement. Thank you. --Dr. Dajay Hawkij 21:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajayhawk (talk • contribs)

Do Not Delete -- As a neutral observer, I find it ludicrous that these articles, especially those regarding the Imagineer Magazine, Alexander and Brentoni are being proposed for deletion. I can attest to the fact that these magazines are being read, not only in Michigan, but in Paris, France, where I attend university with Brentoni. This is not a run-of-the-mill publication. Look at the interviews they've published! Thanks. Yann-Yves —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sesameroll (talk • contribs) 17:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC) — Sesameroll (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Per WP:DUCK, I've blocked this editor for suspected sock-puppetry. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- None of these articles pertain to persons of interest or notability. "Dr. Dajay Hawkij" is an obvious alteration of the poster's username, who also happens to be the primary writer of the entries in question. The "nuetral observer" is questionable as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.127.169 (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete these pages, when will you stop? I added them because they are of equal merit as plenty of journalists that have wikipedia pages referencing their work. They are well-known in Michigan's journalism community, and I would suggest not disputing that unless you live in Michigan and are a part of the broad intellectual community. Sesameroll is not a sock puppet. Just because someone agrees with me and is familiar with the publication and the journalists means that they must be a sockpuppet? That's ridiculous, with all due respect. And my username is an alteration of my real name! I would appreciate a great sense of reason within this discussion, as it now seems to have stooped to low blows and namecalling. Thank you. --Dr. Dajay Hawkij 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajayhawk (talk • contribs)
Delete Completely non-notable. He is 17 years old and is listed as "associate editor" of a small (tiny?) quarterly journal in Michigan. That journal and its two editors also have Wikipedia articles. ~~I wonder if they should be next on the chopping block.~~ --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see now that MuffledThud already nominated (above) the two "editors" for deletion, and I concur with Delete for them as well. Then let's take a look at the article for Imagineer Magazine itself; seems completely non-notable and most or all of the links are self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmen Sekaran[edit]

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

Non-notable 17 year-old actor in high school plays with no evidence of notablity to be found. A total of 26 Google hits of which all are Wikpedia mirrors, Facebook, etc. Probable autobiography and unreferenced biography of a living person. Originally tagged for WP:Proposed deletion. Prod removed by IP. Voceditenore (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a high school actor with no notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination. Voceditenore (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ... everyone. JBsupreme (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brainbench[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested prod. Spammy article about an IT certification company. No reliable sources, and though Google comes up with a lot of hits, nearly all of them are blogs. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unambiguous advertising; they were acquired by a renowned company that does not have an article. The page is just a price list of the services they offer. Google News finds only routine announcements about products and funding. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also suggest protection against re-creation. Previously deleted at AFD, and this is a very persistent spammer. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks a lot like a pizza menu with a list of prices. I'll join you two for take-out. -- WikHead (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep maybe? I see 643 hits on Google News Archives. [18] I would think that at least a handful of those would be relevant and non-trivial enough to sustain an article. JBsupreme (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Google hits. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not a reliable source, but take my word that's widely used in programming interviews in Eastern European countries, for better or for worse, mostly the latter if you want my POV. I'll see what sources can be found. Pcap ping 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 230 hits in google books (!!) so this will take a while. Pcap ping 00:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article about the company in Network World, another in InformationWeek, [19] internet.com Examining the value of Brainbench certifications TechRepublic, etc. Some of their certs are described in these books [20] [21] [22] [23] etc. Pcap ping 00:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is the best known certification company for technical fields. I question the value of what they provide (as someone who wrote one of the tests, as it happens), but we don't included companies to endorse their product, but because they are notable. Definitely cleanup any advertising tone to the article though. LotLE×talk 20:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The fact that this was deleted in 2006 & 2007 should not come into play here. The company could easily have gained notability in the last 3 years. However, the article is basically advertising at this point, and would qualify for speedy deletion in my view. If it is kept, someone needs to cut it back to a small stub until some RS (and it seems there are quite a few) can be used to create a more neutral article. If it is deleted, I would be strongly opposed to create protection, there doesn't seem to be any need for that when the page was last deleted over 2 years ago. Joshua Scott (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are reliable refs going back to 2001 (actually the first link I gave), but those were not indexed by google books in 2007. Also, it doesn't help that they posted the prices on Wikipedia. I'm going to kill those. Pcap ping 07:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this is Brainbench. After removing the pricing information, the page on it is nothing to do with the ads as well. Btw, I just noticed that the Microsoft certification page has no references in notable sources except ones by the Microsoft itself, and the quick search confirms that there were just about 2M MCPs in the world in 2007 (I haven't got the latest data), while there is more than 6M Brainbench members now. I'd suggest to question the MCP page notability before questioning Brainbench. Honeyman (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close, article speedily deleted as "nn-bio and likely hoax." Non-admin closure. — Glenfarclas (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Brown[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Raven Brown

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

Minor actress, if an actress at all. Probable hoax. Bogus information (references with no mention of subject; references to non-existent articles; bogus "official website") already removed. No indication at IMDB that this subject has appeared in any of the films claimed. No indication at RCA Records site that they know anything about this subject. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as lacking an actual notability assertion (A7). That's even if the article is not a hoax. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the above. JBsupreme (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

$ierra[edit]

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

Contested prod. Zero google web or news hits on title, all hits on alternate name "Jordan Palmer" specific to an American Football player. All references are to top level of news websites rather than deep linked to articles or are to articles which does not mention this person. ~~Possible~~ hoax. RadioFan (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references found. No indication actress has appeared in any of the films mentioned. Article's author seems to be on a campaign of hoaxing Wikipedia with bogus artists and their bogus works. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the internal wikilinks support any of what the article states. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This editor has spent the day creating hoax articles.--RadioFan (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Paterson[edit]

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

Can find no information on this musician to satisfy WP:GNG or any of the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. Please note that there are many google his for a Clayton Patterson (2 't's) but he is a photographer and about twice as old, also their are two bands named 'Catharsis' with Wikipedia pages but he was in neither. J04n(talk page) 12:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having apparently never been a member of a notable band, and having received no significant coverage, this is surely an easy one to call.--Michig (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC and general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus, which reconfirmed that AfD is not the correct forum for the proposal of mergers. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of British film certificates[edit]

As said before, the article contains nothing which could not be included in the BBFC article. I therefore believe that the two articles should be merged together.-The Editor 155 — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor 155 (talk • contribs) 2010/01/29 17:26:55

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss article merges. (That having been said, British Board of Film Classification is already fairly long.) I would suggest that discussion of the proposed merge take place on the talk pages of the two articles and that this AFD been speedily closed. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article looks like a reasonable fork from British Board of Film Classification. Agree with the nom, in that there is no content reason not to include this material in that article, but there are style reasons - Eastmain is correct that British Board of Film Classification is already quite long. If that article correctly refers to this one, I see no reason not to keep it as is. I also agree that a merge discussion would be the more appropriate venue, and so would not object to a speedy or procedural close - or a withdrawal in favor of more discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close AfD is not for merges. Lugnuts (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the above.—RJH (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Ultraexactzz, this is a reasonable fork which would make an overlong history section if combined with British Board of Film Classification and you're suggesting a merger rather than a deletion. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus. Warrah (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Levin[edit]

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

This page does not meet criteria for WP:Notability. .אבי נ (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Could you expand on why you believe he's not notable? He's received significant coverage in many reliable newspapers and news magazines (a google news search of "Michael Levin" and "CUNY" alone gives 117 ghits from The New York Times, Newsworld, USA Today, The Washington Post and many others). general notability guidelines are certainly met as is WP:PROF. One may not agree with Levin's work, but he certainly is notable in his field. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 15:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 16:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 16:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Academics holding fringe views need to be evaluated under WP:BIO standards, but those seem to be met in this case. As noted above, a googlenews search[24] for "Michael Levin" CUNY gives 117 hits, many of which providing specific and detailed coverage of the subject, e.g.[25][26][27]. While the coverage is mostly concentrated over the 1990-92 period, when there were particularly vocal protests related to Levin, the time spread seems to be sufficient to ensure that this is not a BLP1E case. Nsk92 (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unusual case with non-mainstream views. Seems to have been extensively noted in media. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep His first book at least is highly notable, with multiple reviews in many important philosophy journals [28]. ther other books are widely known also. Notable as an author. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient third-party commentary on his work and ideas to confer notability under WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACADEMIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipeterproject (talk • contribs)
Strong keep. A truly horrible person, in my opinion, but also a highly notable one. Widely published. Widely discussed in academic and mainstream sources. This is a name that anyone of moderate education recognizes off the bat without research it (well, with some philosophy and ethics background anyway)! Insanely misguided nomination. LotLE×talk 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turn It Up! (Music TV)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Completed nomination for IP. Statement copied from talk page below. lifebaka++ 06:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note: nominator left this msg: Would a registered user please complete the nomination process for Turn It Up! (Music TV)? 118.209.200.81 (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated this article for deletion. Has several problems including WP:V (Couldn't find any references in the article), Wikipedia:No_original_research (Author clearly has intimate knowledge of the subject), Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (Author is likely a sockpuppet for the one of the producers - Anthony Chidiac), Wikipedia:Notability (After having done research, can not find anything reliable except downstream references from Wikipedia)). At best, this leaves little content for an encyclopedia except as part of a list. It should be deleted.118.209.200.81 (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The show seems to have been only broadcast on community and obscure satellite TV channels and WP:V and WP:N aren't met. A Google search didn't turn up any useful references, which is rather suspicious given the grand claims of importance made in the article. Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Nick-D. I could find no reliable sources who care to write about this show. Clearly written by someone close to the show/Mr Chidiac so there is lots of detail - just none that I could verify through independent channels. Peripitus (Talk) 07:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note: - nominator and his "gang" are initiating a process razing information across wikipedia. I hope a senior admin is monitoring this activity closely. Its not just this article but a large group of others. The initiator IP always seems to be a Floating IP from [INTERNODE-MELBOURNE], so likely one and the same person and likely sockpuppet of an existing admin or otherwise. Why does the process need to be dishonest? --203.219.135.147 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC) — 203.219.135.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep You know what - its a fait-de-complait anyway. Episodes on youtube are noted as per links: should likely be put to references, but I am scared of doing that job as you guys will simply delete this anyway. This show returns to air in Australia in mid April 2010 - David Shawl (MJ's This Is It) is DP, and shown to 160 TV stations through Asia/Japan via ABC Australia Television. Whilst it started out on community TV (like Rove Did), show became a monster and shown around the world (asia, Canada etc), only went into hiatus for reasons unknown to me. SBS bought the concept back a few years ago with Producers permission, and it also did very well. But why bother, the "gang" here headed by mystery IP from [INTERNODE-MELBOURNE] and also this mystery IP seems to be able to delete its editorial history after razing [Anthony Chidiac] previously. Funny thing that??? or maybe im onto something collusional?? please help me address my paranoia, thanks. --203.219.135.147 (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC) — 203.219.135.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This IP user has been blocked as a reincarnation of a previously blocked promoter in the same topic area and has a COI with the subject of the article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment looks like the gang are at it again...first a floating IP from Internode requests for some registered editor/admin to initiate an AfD of an article, then the raze gang come across and give it the thumbs up to kill it off. I know hundreds of TV shows that didnt make 30 episodes and enjoyed less success than this music show, and are included here on wikipedia. This show was picked up by Warner Bros US (iTV). Stalled production of 2009 series due to death of Michael Jackson on the day of the scheduled interview, word is April 2010 now. I see this same set of floating ip's from internode are at it deleting/razing well over 50 articles - some have been on wiki for many years. I note only some I've had a go at, and some I havent. To the gang of three who are raping wikipedia using a dishonest way of initiating an AfD (or perhaps likely one with a few sockpuppets) hope your game is over soon, you will be found out. Next, try the racehorse profiles here on wiki - they havent won any notable horseraces so why are they still here on wikipedia? really!!! Theres 200 there for you to cull. Feeling really deflated here as a novice editor thankyou very much. I wont be voting as we all know where this will be going anyway due to floating IP nomination/single purpose admin/editor completing this process --Cafejunkie (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: far from being a "novice editor", this user has been blocked as a reincarnation of a previously blocked promoter in the same topic area and has a COI with the subject of the article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in ndependent reliable sources. Even assuming the article is true though, it's still of equivalent notability to a public-access show. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would appear that the SPAs who attempted to stack the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Chidiac (3rd nomination) in favour of keeping the article are at it again in this related article. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin note (socking of AFD): - The main sock ring Nick-D mentions has been blocked. The closing admin will need to look carefully at this. The sock user is into self-promotion, and has a history of trying to obtain promotion on material with cites that are poor evidence of real notability and/or self-created material. Also past AFDs on his topics have been stacked by his IP and user account socks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, garden variety community television show. Not a judgement on the quality of the programme itself of course, but I'm not seeing any coverage of it in reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

comment oh my. admins accusing editors of this show as sockpuppets, initiating 'ring' of deletionists vandalising wikipedia (i've seen this group do the same for a few other good articles too). I honestly think all these people should get temporarily blocked from editing here for a few weeks and have a good think about what you are all doing. I remember this show. It was on Channel 8 when I was in PNG, Channel 8 is a terrestrial TV station. It was featured in the local TV guide there while I was on holidays back in '96. Thats 14 years ago peoples..just because there isnt much e-media available its easy to cite the TV show itself (the Youtube clips) the people on it (Paula Abdul, Madonna, etc. etc.) and those artists wont do community TV. Duh. Make sure you have conclusive evidence before claiming someone as a sock, and that goes for both sides of this debate. Shameful behavior and attitudes all. I wont vote as the process has been abused and this is not the first example of this abhorrent behaviour by both sides --60.240.117.215 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hmm, I didn't find it hard to get sourcing - google notes "Turn It Up!" MTV Sessions shown on MTV UK. I cant view video feed as its UK regionalised. Had Pixie Lott as host. I dont think you should be fixated at the Chidiac involvement, Chris Gabardi (all saints, Hey Dad!) and others mentioned on this article are also personally referenced and were also involved in this production. Im basing my keep finding on 1) easily referenceable material 2) the opposing above commentary belittling article without looking into it more thoroughly. Useful information should not be deleted. This info is useful as a reference if this show is to make a "comeback" as mentioned in above commentary. --60.240.117.215 (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC) — 60.240.117.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Achidiac/Archive for proof of the socking (though I suspect that you're the same editor judging from the fact that your post repeats the arguments made by the socks). Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 60.240.117.215 is exceedingly likely

Confirmed as the same user as the rest of the socks. I repeat my suggestion of packing it in. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, the nomination statement and Lankiveil's argument above. Orderinchaos 14:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American Art Music Institute[edit]

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

Contested prod. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Article was created by its "founder". All works covered are unpublished with the exception of a citation to the article creator's Wikipedia userpage. RadioFan (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following, nearly identical article for the same reasons.

Delete both. Spam / no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Trimble (designer)[edit]

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

This was actually on two articles - the other was Sam Trimble (samtrimble.com). Now it had a ((db-person)) tag on it, which is fine, so I actually deleted it. But having seen some of the publications and the work he's done, I wonder if this person is notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. Certainly it needs fixing as it currently reads like an ad, but if notability is enough then this can be corrected. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Libby[edit]

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

The Brian Libby page was created autobiographically which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. It is poorly sourcer, if at all, which is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines and appears to be largely self-serving. Wikipedia is not an advertising space. If this person were noteworthy, a page would have been created for him, not by him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.58.186 (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure - there are some sources possible, for example this story, imdb, etc., but I'm not sure these are all for the same person. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as improperly sourced BLP. The two links mentioned above are pretty low-grade, since we don't generally consider IMDB reliable and the Oregonian blog post isn't about Libby, it only happens to mention a project he was tangentially involved in. Steven Walling 02:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The IMDB link can't be this Libby because the actor's career appears to be longer than this Libby's age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.44.249 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SAW: The Next Level[edit]

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

This was listed as a speedy deletion, however I think it does assert notability. Whether that notability is sufficient, I am leaving to the wider community. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - it's a pro wrestling show; not notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus. Editors are welcome to rename the article if they feel it is more appropriate. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Realestate.com.au Limited[edit]

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

This was listed as a speedy deletion. I believe that this is a notable organization, however I'm taking this to AFD for further community consensus. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a major web site in Australia which would be advertising billions of dollars of real estate at any one time. The article is not written as advertisement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep would seem to be the Aus equivalent of Rightmove, seems to be some refs in gnews and gbooks. Could do with some work on.Codf1977 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is indeed correct. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to REA Group as the description of company does not match the title (also per WP:NCCORP).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename to REA Group per IP above. Orderinchaos 14:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Gibbs[edit]

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

There are concerns about the notability of this subject. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be stretching it to describe this article as even asserting notability.--Michig (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I find no evidence she meets WP:AUTHOR. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After I left the above delete !vote, the following comment was left on my talkpage; I'm copying it here: Glenfarclas (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article should not be deleted as the mentioned person is an immensely popular author, who has received rave reviews for her book which has 43 chapters as of now. This is not an easy feat for a 15 year old child and thus is very notable. Even if the book has not yet been published, we all make a start somewhere and having a page on a highly popular website like Wikipedia may just give the writer the boost she needs and realize the dream of getting her book published. Therefore it is my ardent request to just leave the page online and not delete it as, since Abigail Gibbs has a very large fan following, there will be a lot of visitors to this page.Jemimah 1603 (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources indicating notability are provided. I found no relevant hits on a Google news search, and the only relvant hit on a Google web search was the Wikipedia page and a facebook entry, neither reliable sources. An ebook-only author could be notable, but only if there is significant discussion or coverage to point to, IMO. If there are "rave reviews", link to or cite them. It is surely true that "we all make a start somewhere", but no one should get a start on Wikipedia -- Wikipedia is not for that. Wikipedia is to cover subjects that have already gotten a start and become notable elsewhere. DES ^(talk) 16:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as A7. . It was tagged A7, the author contested it with a holdon, but I don't know why Tbsdy didn't simply delete it-- and I think it would be kinder to remove it as soon as possible. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it best to take to AFD to get community consensus. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have declined an A7 on this, it makes claims of significance not implausible on their face. Indeed if someone found a reliable source to support the claims, i would change to a keep. I don't think that will happen, but sources for less likely claims have turned up. DES ^(talk) 16:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be shown to suggest notability. RFerreira (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet–Turkish War (1917–1918)[edit]

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

An original study or at best a WP:Fork which the content is already part of an established content under WWI. This article isn't a separate war from World War I which is already explained under Caucasus Campaign subheadings 1917 and 1918. The WWI Caucasus Campaign began in 1914 and ended with the Ottoman Empire's Armistice of Mudros signed on October 30 1918. The content of this original study is part of the WWI story. At the talk page the original autor claims "The intervention in 1917-1918 in South-Russia refereed as the main topic of this article [29]" is geographically Caucasus and thus the name Caucasus Campaign of WWI. Sergia Sarpian (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed this is already part of both WW1 and Russian civil war articles.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Orangemike, "‎(G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible)." Non-admin close for housekeeping. — Glenfarclas (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beckilicious[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, contested PROD. Fails WP:MADEUP, WP:GNG, among others. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, when I was in high school, we used to refer to stuff we liked as "HAT", or if it was particularly special, "cool beans". I suspect that "Beckilicious" has a similar origin, but Wikipedia is not for cool sounding words that you and your mates think up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete IS this just a huge pile of OR? Are tehre any sources?Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being a Wp:NEO that was made up one day. (And besides, my friend Beckie sometimes refers to herself as Beckilicious.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much to debate here, non-notable neologism. Hairhorn (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a made up word. Swarm^(Talk)
Deletitous. Pcap ping 06:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletitous indeed. JBsupreme (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need a page for that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To add insult to injury the Facebook group in honor of the slang word does not even exist. I also like the fact that there has been an attempt to claim this deletion attempt is a controversy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @118 · 01:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cristobal cavazos[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Google doesn't look to return anything of use. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish delete. He's significantly mentioned in this Univision article (Google Translate version here), and, as a GNews search shows, has been mentioned in a few other articles. However, in the end I'm not really seeing him as the subject of coverage, as WP:BIO asks. Nevertheless, he's more noteworthy than I expected him to be, and if someone can find more significant coverage of him then I may come down on the other side of the fence. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is pretty borderline, as there are a few references. However, through the opinions stated here, I am determining a consensus that favors on deletion of this article. (X! · talk) · @117 · 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Kayatta[edit]

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

Non-notable subject; apparent WP:COI. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person is clearly an eccentric, to say the least. But he is a notable eccentric. Underwood Dudley writes about him as a notable eccentric, Jonathan Partington discussed him in a lecture on eccentrics. His literary efforts are mentioned in two cited news publications and Dudley's book gives references to other newpapers. Another reliable source describes his music. This surely adds up to notability? By the way, what are these COI problems of which you speak? Rhomb (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article's history one might suspect Kayatta created the article himself.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person is enough notable (see refrences 3 and 4).Rirunmot 11:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
weak delete. In it's current form the article might be acceptable as far as the content goes. But the notability is imho borderline at best (only being mentioned in a few newspapers is not enough). If he had an increased media coverage (much more than those 3 newspapers/journals) or published a number of books his notability might be ok, but the article doesn't quite make that case. Another problem (looking at the article's history) is, that if it is kept, it probably needs to be watched constantly otherwise it might revert easily to its unacceptable earlier state.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though there is some coverage, I wouldn't call it significant. Also WP:PROMOTION.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having read some brief passages of his alleged mathematics, I've changed the assertion that he "has contributed to" mathematics to one that he "claims to have contributed to" mathematics. I'm surprised someone said the article is acceptable in its present form while that claim was there. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage of him appears to be fairly trivial. Significant coverage in reliable sources is required for WP:BIO, and I don't think he has it. Robofish (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems that, in order to describe him accurately, we need an article that reads much like an attack page. For some people (notorious criminals, say) it is justified to have a wholly negative article on them, despite WP:BLP, because that is what they are famous for. But in this case I don't think such an article is justified by the only minor level of notoriety that he has achieved. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe his translation of the Bible into rhyming verses is a legitimate achievement? ............ But then I suspect he might object to limiting the article to his legitimate achievements. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a policy that distinguishes "legitimate" from "illegitimate" achievements somehow? His Planetarium Papers may not be legitimate mathematics, but Dudley wrote a chapter of a book about them, which IMHO makes them notable. Rhomb (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we wouldn't have a page on every chapter of each of Dudley's books, would we? And he's not even the most prominent crank from his chapter; just the only named one. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. For such large claims and such a large ego, a similarly large body of references would be fitting. Yet the first source in the article dismisses him in 1 (one, as in single) sentence as a crank who mingles with other cranks. The other newspaper article (which is not linked in full) pays attention only to his Bible translation and mentions everything else only in passing; it even says at the bottom "See BIBLE, 7-E" for those who want to continue reading. It seems that his only notable achievement is the versified Bible; but the newspaper article said that he was having trouble getting it published, and the only reference I can find to it anywhere is [30], which seems to be a copyright registration. I suspect his translation is unpublished. ~~Dudley's paragraph on him, [31], simply calls him a "tireless self-promoter" and says nothing more.~~ I think that's the right spirit: Wikipedia should say nothing more about him, and in fact should say even less. Ozob (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. Kayatta is the "K." of an entire chapter "Megalomania", of Dudley's book. The paragraph just quotes references, of which there are ten, including the Wall Street Journal. Rhomb (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. One must search in Dudley's book for "Megalomania", not for "Kayatta" in order to find that chapter. Alright, I withdraw that claim. But I think my point is still valid: A "renaissance man" with big achievements needs big coverage; else maybe his notoriety is all in his head. Ozob (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough sources, including Dudley, to establish notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough sources?? The article says:

He holds three Leonardo Da Vinci Awards (as artist, author, and playwright) from the Beaux Arts Society

The article on Leonardo Da Vinci Awards says it is presented by Rotary Clubs in Europe, and we have no article titled Beaux Arts Society nor any red links to that name from articles. So maybe "enough sources", but how many of them check out? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is that a rhetorical question ? I see several press and magazine articles plus the Dudley reference. If you don't think these are reliable sources then by all means remove them from the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google has enough results on "Leonardo Da Vinci Award" "Beaux Arts Society" that I believe that it exists, but that doesn't convince me of its notability. It might be a vanity award like those from the ABI for all I know. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropic League?

and a Humanitarian Award from NYC Philanthropic League.

Google does not quickly confirm that that organization exists. Can anyone help here? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. The fact that his documented notability does not appear to reach the level of his claims is not really relevant; he only needs to be notable enough. My principal reservation is that it might be difficult to keep libel from creeping in. --Trovatore (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Revising; see below. --Trovatore (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see only one paragraph on him in Dudley's book [32]. The other mainstream references are even shorter mentions. This article is going to be a never-ending BLP struggle between his self-promotion and reliable sources that present him in a negative light for good reason. He has already spammed three other articles with unwarranted links to this bio, but I see no article on Wikipedia that will genuinely suffer by the deletion of this. Pcap ping 19:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an entire chapter, see comments by myself and Ozob above. Rhomb (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented on the Math WikiProject, Kayatta is not the subject of the chapter, just one of the examples. He is the only named example, though. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage by independent sources, plus perennial BLP problems. Nsk92 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quirky figure, maybe crackpot, but one who is discussed in multiple independent and prominent sources. LotLE×talk 19:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep crackpots can be just as notable as rocket scientists, and this one has been called "the doyen of modern paradoxers" by a prominent Math professor.[33] This guy is clearly notable via reliable sources. Crum375 (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly does not pass WP:Prof. Eccentrics can be notable but I don't think this one makes it. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Leaning delete. After thinking about it and considering David Eppstein's argument, I'm not so happy about an article that is going to be mainly criticism of a person that we could with little loss omit. I think he's probably notable enough for an article, but not so notable that we really need one, and my mother always taught me that if you can't say anything nice.... --Trovatore (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @112 · 01:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Database for Islamic Banking and Finance[edit]

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

Non-notable database/website. The article claims the site is "widely reported" and "plays a key role in financial markets", but I can't find sources that confirm any such notability. The only independent reference given just briefly mentions the database. I think overall it fails WP:WEB. I should mention that this article was a blatant copyvio of a couple websites (it has been deleted under CSDG12 and A7 in the past), but I stubbed it down. IP editors have continually removed maintenance templates and kept re-adding copyvio material. PDCook (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be just a repository website hosted by a university; it's not like this is an agency or an intergovernmental body. No significant coverage, and in fact pretty much no coverage of any sort, as far as I can tell. I could create User:Glenfarclas/World Database of Non-Notable Websites (hey, maybe...), but that wouldn't entitle me to also create World Database of Non-Notable Websites. I'm not seeing much of a difference here. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | If you reply somewhere other than my talk, please talkback me. 14:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —PDCook (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication this would meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I restored a reference on the article that I probably deleted when removing copyvio material. The reference certainly doesn't demonstrate notability, but I thought I should make sure those of you who have already given your opinions can review the reference. PDCook (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My opinion remains the same. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I figured that you (or anyone) would not be moved by it. PDCook (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @111 · 01:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Patrick Kennedy III[edit]

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

Does not conform to notability guidelines Pliny2010 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This page does not conform to the Wikipedia notability guidelines and should be deleted or merged into the article for Joseph Patrick Kennedy II. The aforementioned guidelines require that a Wikipedia biography subject must be the recipient of "significant" third party coverage over a period of extended time.

The coverage of the subject in question, Joseph Patrick Kennedy III, has not been significant. This is evidenced by the small number of sources associated with this article. Moreover, the coverage cited in this article is mostly trivial. The first is a local article that is narrow in scope, the second is a mere mention of the subject's name in a social reporting piece, the third is a brief mention of the subject's name in an opinion column, and the fourth and last is a local article narrow in scope. These sources do not justify a Wikipedia biography.

Furthermore, the coverage of the subject cited in this article has been mostly concentrated around one period of time, namely the brief period in early September 2009 when his name was mentioned in limited coverage as a potential U.S. House candidate.

Lastly, as the Wikipedia notability guidelines detail, relationships do not confer notability. The subject's status as a minor member of a prominent political family does not justify a Wikipedia biography of his own.

Pliny2010 (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not indicate that he has received significant media coverage yet per WP:BIO. If he does pursue a political career, or is otherwise repeatedly in the public eye, then an article about him can be created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles from Sept 2009 speculating about his political prospects are sufficient to establish notability. See Pols & Politics: A Kennedy in the wings Boston Herald and Kennedy twins Matt and Joe make party twice as nice Boston Herald Racepacket (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "But some say Joe K’s son, Joseph P. Kennedy III, could be the next pol from the famed clan" pretty well sums up why he isn't notable, particularly the "some" say and "could be" and "famed clan" part. Needless to say, any hint that a KENNEDY might possibly perhaps potentially carry on the dynasty is going to attract the interest of a Boston newspaper, especially on a slow news day, but that bit of might-could-be speculation doesn't amount to notability. Mandsford (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Joseph Patrick Kennedy II. Nothing here to justify a standalone article. Warrah (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. If his last name were "Schmidlap," and he did not have relatives named "Kennedy," the article would be speedily deleted. If he does something worthy of note and noted, an article could be created in the future. Edison (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful article about a person who people will seek information about based on the prospect of him running for office. Deleting is not necessary or desirable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feelingscarfy (talk • contribs) 16:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an easy one and a clear delete. WP:INHERITED applies and the prospect of a possible future political career would mean that every young person in the US would be notable!! (See WP:ATA#CRYSTAL). In JPK3's case, such a career may be more likely, but he clearly hasn't done anything to "earn" notability, other than being born a Kennedy, which means WP:INHERITED applies straight out and the guidelines in that essay should be applied here. Finally, in response to the contribution from Feelingscarfy, above, WP:ITSUSEFUL discusses usefulness of information vs encyclopedic content and concludes that useful information is not always encyclopedic. Everything here points to deletion of the article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is clearly not congruent with the notability guidelines. Simply put, notability is not inherited. And there is nothing notable about this person except his name. If and when he runs (and wins) elected office, he may be entitled to an article; however, being born a Kennedy does not merit a biography on its own. TheAmerican04 (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @110 · 01:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jadagrace Berry[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT. 1 role does not cut it. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Not enough to be notable at this stage. Much of the article reads like spamPorturology (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable child. Let her build up a resume, if she becomes noteworthy enough for an article, she can be added later. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (Non-admin closure) --Kyle1278 00:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FunnyFest Calgary Comedy Festival[edit]

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

Delete - This article has been deleted and recreated 6 times now: [34]. Most recently it was protected for a period of 6 months, which expired last month. It now has been recreated once again. It still does not appear to satisfy notability requirements for an event. I refer specifically to continued coverage. There is very limited coverage of this event in the media, and it generally occurs only right around the time of the event. The bulk of the coverage is also just routine and mostly based upon press releases from the organizer. The first few incarnations of the article were speedily deleted for blatant spam. Overall this just doesn't seem notable enough to warrant coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as decliner of speedy. I don't know what the previous versions were like but this meets basic requirement for multiple independent WP:RS. Largest comedy festival in Western Canada, in one of Canada's major cities. The claim that coverage is "based upon press releases from the organizer" is unsupported; even if so, all festivals send out press releases to journalists that are at least in part of the basis of coverage. Moreover, all events like this garner coverage closer to festival time, to expect them to receive year-round coverage is unreasonable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believed that the article has a neutral tone and is relevant as a significant cultural activity in a large city in a major region. It is not derived from the older articles; the references are from significant publications, as the Calgary Sun is a major newspaper in Calgary and FFWD is a major source of local entertainment information, and do not rely on the event's own publications.I do not feel it unusual that the coverage is from around the time of the festival- this is commonplace. However this is my first article and if I am mistaken, my apologies as I was under the impression that an event of this size in a major region in Canada would be construed as being significant. --Littlemissmachiavelli (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the fact that it's actively promoted on the web doesn't make it un-notable. Plenty of sources apparent at summary search. Mostly local, indeed, but then again, this is a local event. --Qyd (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets the requirements regarding media coverage, though admittedly not by a huge margin. The fact that other articles on this subject have been speedied in the past is not an argument for damning it for all times. I remember seeing one of the predecessors, and it was an unsourced, spammy horror. This one is neutral in tone and has reliable sources. Favonian (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an annual comedy festival in a city like Calgary with a 10-year history meets my criteria for notability. PK T(alk) 20:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to WGRB. (X! · talk) · @108 · 01:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WYNR 1390 Radio Chicago[edit]

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

Non-notable radio station, no sources or assertions of notability. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. All licensed radio stations are notable, with references or not. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge details into WGRB, the current operation on 1390 in Chicago. Plenty of sources here, but preferably it should be inserted in that chronological history. Nate • (chatter) 05:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WGRB never carried the WYNR calls, there is no license for WYNR in Chicago or anywhere for that matter (on the AM band), clearly a Part15 (non-notable) station. If references can be found that the station is in fact notable, then it should be kept, but at present there are no references showing the station is notable or even exists. Only licensed AM, FM (including Low Power FM), Shortwave, and Carrier Current radio stations enjoy the notablity standard, which allows for having a page on Wikipedia like WBBM or KDKA. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This station was licensed, but it operated in the early 1960s. The article has references from reliable sources, also from the early 1960s. Once notable, always notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WGRB. The article information is useful, but subtopics (like sections of station history) do not automatically inherit notability from their parent topic (the station's main article). Since the station's article is currently titled WGRB per Wikipedia naming conventions, that is where this text should go. --Closeapple (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WGRB. I'd point out that NeutralHomer's observation (that WYNR could not be considered the same as WGRB) would be more compelling as an argument to keep this as a separate article, under the "notability does not expire" rule. Interestingly enough, there have been numerous changes of call letters over the years, WGES, WYNR, WNUS-AM, WGCI-AM and then to WGRB. In the same way that the Sacramento Kings had been the Rochester Royals, changes of name and location and ownership can raise the argument about whether two completely different entities are one-and-the-same. It's the license that gets handed off from one receiver to the next. Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently in the 1960's it was a federally licensed AM broadcast station. That gets notability granted to all federally licensed stations which originated some local programming, per past outcomes of AFDs. Notability is not temporary. There were also press article's about it, satisfying WP:N. There is no basis for a merge to a different station. Notability accrues to a STATION, meaning an ownership, onair talent, format, and call letters, not just to a frequency. One frequency in one city may, over the years, be the home of numerous stations. This is similar to how various men may be conductors of an orchestra, or bishops of a church, in a given city, or commanding generals of an army in different epochs. There is no rationality in merging them all together. Edison (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But orchestras, dioceses, and armies aren't considered new Wikipedia entities each time their conductors, bishops, and generals change. Likewise, stations normally aren't considered separate Wikipedia subjects each time their format and callsigns change; otherwise the station we are discussing now would have 4 or 5 separate articles, including ones for the WGES and WGCI (AM) eras, both of which lasted far longer than the WYNR run. Indeed, some other broadcasting establishments with particularly unstable histories could end up split into a dozen separately "automatically notable stations" by that standard. Look at WPMJ and think about whether 94.3 at Chillicothe, Illinois should be 1 Wikipedia article about a 30 year old station or up to 12 Wikipedia articles about 2-year stations that each might have a shot at WP:N. (Or worse, that are all declared automatically notable because they are "former" licensed stations.) --Closeapple (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as licensed radio stations, even defunct ones, are generally notable and this one appears to have been well-covered by reliable third-party sources as well. Given the short timeframe of this iteration of the station, I agree that a Merge to the WGRB article is both warranted and desirable. However, if the article is kept as a standalone, it should be Renamed to WYNR (defunct) or WYNR (Chicago). - Dravecky (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that each current and defunct licensed radio stations are sufficiently notable to have articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (per my Merge above): WYNR is a still-existing station that already has a Wikipedia article — WGRB — and is not a "defunct" or "former" station deserving of its own article. A change in format does not cause a radio station Wikipedia topic to split into "former" and "current" entities with their own separate "automatic" notability on Wikipedia. Saying that WYNR is not WGRB, to get "automatic" notability for two articles instead of one, is pretty much the opposite of how 99% of radio stations are handled on Wikipedia. Even the mighty WCFL (AM) doesn't have its own separate article for its WCFL years. The chain of operation for this station from 1923 to today (as WGRB) is continuous; at no point did a station go defunct and leave an empty frequency for a new station to start in. The callsign chain is WTAY→WGES→WYNR→WNUS (AM)→WVON (AM)→WGCI (AM)→WGRB. Specifically:
- 1923: WTAY Oak Park signs on.^c3
- 1925: WTAY becomes WGES.^c1^c3
- 1928: WGES settles at 1360 kHz (time-shared with WJKS until WJKS moved to 560 in 1933 and eventually became WIND)^c1
- 1941: WGES moves 30 kHz because 1360 becomes 1390 kHz in NARBA.^c1
- 1962: WGES on 1390 becomes WYNR^c1^c3
- 1965: WYNR on 1390 becomes WNUS (AM)^c3
- 1975-76: WNUS (AM) on 1390 becomes WVON (AM)^fy (moved from 1450 Cicero)^c3
- 1983-84: WVON (AM) on 1390 becomes WGCI (AM) (WVON (AM) calls then taken by WXOL on 1450)
- 2003-04: WGCI (AM) on 1390 becomes WGRB^fy
- Sources: ^c1 calls1 — ^c2 calls2 ^calls3 — calls3 — ^fy Fybush site-061103

The WVON era is mentioned in WVON (AM) because that (fairly historic) callsign was moved into 1390 around 1976 and back out around 1983. The rest of the history before and after WVON is in WGRB. Even if one considered the time before WVON and after WVON to be different stations, Gordon McLendon's WYNR was only 3 years in a 50+ year span of continuous operation (1923—1975) — for 40 years of that, it was WGES, yet nobody is pushing for a separate "WGES" article for Chicago. WYNR was not moved into place from another frequency or location; it was just a callsign change and format change for existing WGES. Likewise, WNUS (which lasted longer) was just a callsign change and format change for the same station 3 years later. --Closeapple (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @108 · 01:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MyBulletinBoard[edit]

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

Deprodded with an assertion of notability, but I'm having trouble finding significant independent coverage about this forum software in reliable sources. Pcap ping 03:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 03:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software in Google, Google News, and Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see any significant coverage for this software, and so this fails WP:N. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Important FYI to everyone; you need to search for "MyBB", not "MyBulletinBoard", to find information related to this forum software as the former is what it is referred to in almost all cases. Gary King (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few mentions in the Google News Archives, such as this one from the Heinz Heise publishing company that discusses MyBB's move to GPL; there are also some Google Books mentions. Some of these are reviews and recommendations for it, while most are regarding security flaws found in the software. A forum-software.org review exists as well. Gary King (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did indeed make a search under that term. What was returned still did not meet what I believe are the requirements for general notability, hence I stand by my original Delete comment. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So what exactly needs to be done so this page doesn't get deleted? As anyone with common sense can see for themselves, everything on the MyBulletinBoard page is accurate but if Wikipedia requires more then you need to tell us what needs to be done instead of indiscriminately putting up a huge banner of "Considered for Deletion" with no usefulness whatsoever. Would you like links to the actual literal source code when we talk about features? You absolutely cannot be more truthful then the direct source code. In terms of "Significant independent coverage", what does that mean we have to do in layman's terms? Ryan Gordon (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. First, read the article on verifiability, which establishes that verifiability is the basis for inclusion. Then, visit the page on notability and read through that information. The article discusses what it means to be notable, and how to use reliable sources to verify notability. Consider also that articles should be approached from a neutral point of view. If you have an interest in the subject of the article, you may well have a conflict of interest issue. I'm sure others have other relevant links, although this isn't exactly the right forum for that. Regardless, there is a wealth of information available about what is needed to avoid deletion. Transmissionelement (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the third most popular free php/mysql forum software and is growing in userbase. Large team, open source GPL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbgamer45 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that? Pcap ping 02:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: After making a list of all of the free forum softwares that had a release in 2009, I looked up the domains for those softwares on Alexa. While NinkoBB and PunBB's rankings could not be properly analyzed, all of the others could, and I found, based on traffic, phpbb.com was ranked at #3,314, simplemachines.org at #3,615, mybboard.net at #11,017, and bbpress.org at #13,681 - to name just the four highest ranked. While this may not provide a completely accurate picture of the "popularity" of forum softwares, it does indicate that of the free forum softwares listed in the article I referred to, MyBB is the third highest ranked in traffic. To me, that means that MyBB is likely the third, or close to the third, most popular free forum software. That said, surely one of the top three forum softwares, which continues to be actively developed, supported, and discussed, should have its own, dedicated Wikipedia article. Belloman (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Hey Belloman (and others commenting on MyBB's popularity), that info is really appreciated, but it is not what is used to establish notability, which is the basis for whether the article is kept or deleted. I'll reproduce my reply above again, and look at the links within the comment. If you read those, you'll see what would be sufficient to indicate that the article should be kept: "First, read the article on verifiability, which establishes that verifiability is the basis for inclusion. Then, visit the page on notability and read through that information. The article discusses what it means to be notable, and how to use reliable sources to verify notability. Consider also that articles should be approached from a neutral point of view. If you have an interest in the subject of the article, you may well have a conflict of interest issue. I'm sure others have other relevant links, although this isn't exactly the right forum for that. Regardless, there is a wealth of information available about what is needed to avoid deletion." Good luck, and thanks for your efforts. Transmissionelement (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @107 · 01:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Jailbreak[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB. "Unique" Google hits: 43. ... discospinster _talk 02:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not notable, looks kinda like ad.-- iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 03:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable online community about a non-notable modification to a notable game. Definitely doesn't meet WP:Notable, and probably qualifies for a speedy as an advertising. Frmatt (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, IMO this is not in speedy territory. I declined a speedy under A7 on the grounds that "largest community" is a claim of significance, though it may not rise to notability. Some of the content is promotional, but that could be dealt with by normal editing, if the site is shown to be notable. The real issue here is notability. WP:WEB says nothing about the size of a community, it requires outside notice, either in the form of independent coverage or significant awards. No such outside notice is currently asserted for this site. However, a count of google hits is not a valid criterion either. DES ^(talk) 06:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are use aware of what "steam" is, if you don't google it and come back to me, if you do then how are you possibly calling this an unreliable source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.76.100 (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You ask are use [sic] aware of what "steam" is? Yes I am. It is an open group which anyone can join. Amongst other things it hosts forums which anyone at all can join and post to, which makes it an unreliable source. Are you aware of what Wikipedia regards as a reliable source? If not then you may like to read our guideline on reliable sources, and then you will see why we do not regard "steam" as one. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna G. Naik[edit]

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

Comparatively behind to be called as notable, No reliable sources, no publications, news DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above.-- iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 03:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject appears to have been the equivalent of a high school principal. Unfortunately, there is nothing to suggest that he was a particularly notable one. Sorry. JBsupreme (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JBsupreme. I'm not convinced that the institute he ran rises to the level of "significant accredited college or university" of WP:PROF #6. Is it really a college in the U.S. sense of a purely post-secondary institution, or is it more analogous to a U.S. high school? Is it independent of Karnataka University or just a subunit of it? In what sense is it "significant"? "Gokhale Centenary College" itself does not have any news coverage in Google news archive; Naik's name is common enough to make searching more difficult but I infer from this that he does not himself pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was the principal of a college that awards undergraduate degrees (the equivalent of B.S. degrees), not a high school. In Karnataka, the state system combines the last two years of high school with college, therefore, this particular college also offers those last two years. Also note that, unlike in the US, colleges are independent units of the university, the only connection being the syllabus and administration of exams (and this particular one is not like a community college). That said, I don't know if a college principal satisfies WP:PROF#6. –SpacemanSpiff 07:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it depend son the relationship of Gokhale Centenary College, Ankola to Karnataka University, which is given in the article on the college as "affiliated" If it is an independent institution administratively, he's notable. the term "college" unfortunately has almost as many meanings as "affiliated". The article on the University makes it clear that only the colleges in the same city are administered as part of the university,and the many other affiliates are not actually part of the university.Thisis therefore in practice an independent college-level academic institution. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment College education system at Karnatak university is similar to what you find in Mysore University,Bangalore University, Kuvempu University in Karnataka state and the University of Mumbai in Maharashtra and the other neighbouring universities. The colleges in a geographical region belong to the nearest university in that region. A few are government colleges whereas many are private colleges. On an average, 100-400 such colleges belong to a university. All colleges are under the strict supervision of the university. The Britishers established the education systems in India. In the US, for example, Rowan University is entirly situated in Glassboro town in N. J.

Also see Education in India.--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fyi- Wikipedia article traffic statistics is another way of measuring popularity especially during afd process...Usually this number shoots up when in demand/in trouble. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article's title should be discussed at the talk page. (X! · talk) · @106 · 01:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICUMSA 25[edit]

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

Somewhat incoherent article but I gather it is a standard used in sugar manufacture. No evidence of notability. Contested prod. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-As above (incoherent, no refs, notability is questionable)...-- iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 03:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is difficult. This does seem to be a genuine widely accepted standard, which suggests to me that it is worth an article. However, I agree that the article is incoherent, and really in its present form it is not worth keeping, so the question arises of finding sources to write a better article, and I have searched for such articles. However, I have found numerous sources quoting ICUMSA 25 for particular batches of sugar, but no sources at all telling us what ICUMSA 25 is. This makes it impossible to write an article conforming to Wikipedia notability criteria, or even to provide references for the current version of the article. Unfortunately this looks like a "delete", but I am not prepared to commit myself to that yet, int he hope that someone can find sources so that we can improve the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the article is better now. I added some information from newspaper articles and the ICUMSA website. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly better, thanks to Eastmain. However, there is still room for improvement, if anyone can do better. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis (note typo: the current "Method" gets fewer hits), with a redirect at ICUMSA. Eastmain's improvements and a Google book search convince me that the ICUMSA passes WP:ORG. However, the "25" in the current title seems to be an arbitrary level of sugar quality that is not part of the notability of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename David Eppstein's reasoning seems good to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @105 · 01:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thy Will Be Done[edit]

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

Non-notable band. No references of any kind, not even to their own website (there's not one I can find) or a Myspace page. No credible indication that this band meets WP:BAND. (Declined speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Found their official website: [35]. A better search than the default for sources would be this, given the vast quantities of the phrase that is used unrelated to the band. Still, coverage doesn't look like enough to me. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Notability-- iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 03:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. there is no consensus as to notability here. No consensus normally means a keep. However, no one has demostrated that the content of the article is verifiable from reliable sources. WP:V is a core policy - and thus despite the lack of consensus I am deleting this, without prejudice to recreation if reliable sources subsequently emerge. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Debating Union[edit]

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

Page for a non notable University club. Club does not meet WP:CLUB, can’t find obvious third party WP:RS ref’s nor can I find page to best merge this into. Codf1977 (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organisation has hosted major international and national debating events. A Google search throws up several external websites which make reference to the organisation. Purple Watermelon (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but is the club it's self notable ? and I could not find any WP:RS ref's, otherwise would have added. The article does not provide any encyclopaedic value Codf1977 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete, accepting the translations below as evidence that there is not significant coverage. This is all university level stuff, "major international events" is an overstatement. ~~Debating blogs/sites are not reliable sources, but there seems to be a fair bit of German coverage. Is anyone able to determine whether the union is covered significantly or incidentally?~~ --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Using Google Translate, the first two of the links on that page quote "Patrick Ehmann from the Berlin Debating Union" when talking about Debating - and do not establish notability, the third is a Press release and the forth would appear to be from "UniSPIEGEL"[36] (a uni paper ?), which is an article on debating, listing at the very end that a debate is happening under the heading "In early July: German Universities" - "The Berlin Debating Union depends on 7 and 8 July ....." followed by a "for more information contact ...." para. I will look through more of these as I get time. Codf1977 (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now been through all of those pages and none of them provides more than a passing reference to the club, none of them get even close to showing the club meets WP:CLUB, all they confirm is the existence of the club and/or that the club is part of the university, and one page that they are organising a national event. When you look at the likes of the Oxford Union or Cambridge Union Society or Monash Association of Debaters each of them demonstrates notability, through history, World Championships, notable past members etc. none of this is the case for the Berlin Debating Union. Codf1977 (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be great if the article could be expanded with further information that can be referenced to external sources. Right now, the article is a stub, but that's not a reason to delete it. Enough information can be found in external sources to prove that this is not a hoax and that the information in the article is accurate. The Union has notability as the former host of the European continent's regional university championship and Germany's inaugural national championship. It may not be as notable as the Oxford or Cambridge Union, but that doesn't mean it's not notable at all. Dorange (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You say the Union has notability - but it does not meet the General notability guideline (WP:GNG) which say If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. it goes on to say "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 but it need not be the main topic of the source material. - if you or anyone can find such material (as I can't, even in German), I will happily withdraw the nomination. Codf1977 (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have again gone looking for WP:RS on The union, with out any joy. I have also re-read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)[WP:ORG] and found this under No inherited notability : An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. Codf1977 (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To suggest that the Berlin Debating Union mereley has a vague association with the events in question is unfair. They hosted the European Universities Debating Championships (one of the largest and most significant debating tournaments in the world, and undoubtedly the biggest in Europe), and also played a key role in founding Germany's national championship as its inaugural host. Purple Watermelon (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, at the risk ore repeating myself, where are the WP:RS that support that, they do not appear to exist - to quote Mkativerata (above) This is all university level stuff. Can anyone establish with WP:RS that this is anything more than a Univeristy Club and that it meets WP:CLUB, WP:UNIGUIDE or WP:GNG.Codf1977 (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Key point: they hosted the European Universities Debating Championships. It is a tournament that any University student can enter. Big deal. I'd question the notability of the Championships themselves, let alone the institutions that merely host it. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. In the field of debating, university level competitions are the highest level competitions you'll find anywhere in the world. And this is the recognised championship for the whole of Europe. And university level competitions in many other fields are highly notable too (look at college sports in the US for example, even though in those sports, unlike debating, there are higher levels of competition). Dorange (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every University debating tournament is open entry. It's all University students and, with some very limited exceptions, the only place it seems to get covered is on blogs and websites dedicated to University debating. There might be an argument for some large championships to have articles here. But not single-University clubs like this that have completely negligible coverage and whose claim to notability (the only claim made in this discussion) is its association to certain tournaments. Consensus here seems to have universally recognised that winners of debating tournaments are not notable: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Eastaugh (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of debaters. Individual clubs should not be treated any differently unless in very special cases. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that not every university debating society should have a page. But I do think this is a more deserving case than most. It's a city-wide Union that covers several universities, and has hosted competitions beyond the ordinary run-of-the mill events. It's hosted the biggest tournament in Europe, and additionally hosted its country's very first national championship. Dorange (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that, in and of it's self, hosting an event, notable or not, automatically confers notability on the host - the fact still remains there are no WP:RS that can confer any form of notability on the BDU. It is not a matter of should it be notable rather is it notable - and at this time I am unable to find anything that suggests that it is. Codf1977 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The above debate shows notability - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How exactly does a 'Articles for deletion' debate confer notability ? No one has been able to find ANYTHING that shows the BDU meets or get close to meeting WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisted to generate more discussion about how Berlin Debating Union passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In response to Purple Watermelon's point with regard to the fact that the BDU hosted the European Universities Debating Championship in 2006 - if you look at the Past championships list you will see that all the hosts are listed as either the City or the University - NONE are listed by the Club, Union or Society associated with the City or University with the single exception of the 2006 championship in Berlin. If you look in to the history of the page to here you will see that it was listed as being hosed by Berlin Univerity and it was only with this edit that Batmanand changed it to the Berlin Debating Union. To further illustrate this point if you look at 2004, the list says hosted by Durham University as opposed to Durham Union Society. Codf1977 (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because since the championship's relaunch in 1999, 2006 was the only occassion on which the event was hosted by an organisation associated with several universities in one city rather than an organisation attached to single university. (If the Wikipedia page wrongly stated that the 2006 event was hosted by Berlin University in the past, then it's good that it's been corrected.) So this is yet another unique thing about the Berlin Debating Union. Purple Watermelon (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse being unique with. notability Codf1977 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any reason to assume this is more notable then any otehr university debating society?Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is definately reason to believe that the Berlin Debating Union is more notable than the average university debating society. It's not a society attached to a single university, but a combined society drawing its members from university institutions across Berlin (and there are very few other debating societies for which this is the case). The Union has not only hosted the biggest touranment in Europe, but also the host of the very first national championship in Germany. Those are significant points of interest which are not true of the vast majority of university debating societies. Purple Watermelon (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a society attached to a single university, but a combined society drawing its members from university institutions across Berlin (and there are very few other debating societies for which this is the case). - The same is true of the Oxford Union or Manchester Debating Union to name two others. Both allow members from other University's in the same city - so not really unique. Codf1977 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Union has not only hosted the biggest touranment (sp) in Europe - Not exactly a major event, looks like when they did, it did not even make the local papers in Berlin. Codf1977 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I seem to have found that Koc University Debate Club hosted the 2007 event. The 2001 event was not held at the University of Ljubljana but at Portorož, on the Adriatic coast of Slovenia. So it would seem that not being held at a university is not unique. By the way are there any sources that they hosted the event? Their site say they hosted it it 2005 oddly the World Debating Website says it was 2006. So this seems to be an unsourced claim that they hosted it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No - I have tried to find anything that supports it's notability and gnews or gbooks gives nothing (except a few in passing comments when refering to a person from the BDU) - the only thing is offered is that it once hosted the European Universities Debating Championship - if you care to look at Google News for "European University Debating" you get No hits and only one hit when you look at goggle books. Codf1977 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:CLUB. I don't believe that the above discussion demonstrates the notability of the subject. The page is unsourced. Google Books and Google Scholar return no accessible results for either "Berlin Debating Union" or "Debattierclub zu Berlin". I translated and skimmed through all Google News Archive results. Most discuss German debating competitions in general and only contain fleeting references to the club or some of its members (mainly Patrick Ehmann and Jens Fischer); none discuss the Berlin Debating Union in any detail. Pruned Google searches for "Berlin Debating Union" or "Debattierclub zu Berlin" return about a hundred and twenty unique results with no apparent signs of nontrivial significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The European Universities Debating Championship, which the Berlin Debating Union hosted in 2006, is by far Europe's biggest and most significant debating tournament. Hammersville (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But how does that address the issue of the absence of any WP:RS to show that the BDU meets the WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have asked for a source for this claim that they hosted the event in 2006, can we have one please?Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's in the illustrious company of the Oxford and Cambridge Unions in terms of being one of the world's few debating unions for multiple institutions in one city. And it's hosted the European Universities Debating Championships. There may well have been quite a bit of news coverage of this at the time, but unfortunately not all publications put all their articles on the web and then leave them there for several years. As has already been pointed out, the claims to notability in this article are clearly not a hoax. It needs work on better sourcing (which is unfortunately not easy for an article of this nature), but not deleting. Singopo (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please don't miss-understand the point about debating unions for multiple institutions - I only checked three unions - Oxford Union, Manchester Debating Union and Cambridge Union (I could not see it confirmed about Cambridge Union aloowing members from outside Cambridge Uni) so please do not assume they are the only three. My overall point is that I don't even think their claims to notability meet WP:GNG and without WP:RS we have no way of knowing.Codf1977 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not misunderstanding your point. I'm fairly certain that the number is in fact slightly more than 3, but only slightly. Most university-level debating societies are linked to a single university. Among the very few that have wider memberships are some of the most prestigious ones like the Oxford and Cambridge Unions. (The Cambridge Union Society's website says that it's open to students from both the University of Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin University). Singopo (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fiar enough, but I don't agree that having a wider than average membership criteria makes them in any way notable, in the same way as hosing an event does. Other than the requirements in WP:GNG we need to be looking for a distinguished history, number of World Championships won, notable past members etc. none of this is there for the BDU - not even a unsuppoeted claim, let alone supported by any source reliable or otherwise. Codf1977 (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources have been provided to back up any of the claims of notability. Most of the claims seem to apply to other debating societies as well (even if we accept them as being true). OR and promotional in nature.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of the main claims to notability do you think most other debating societies share? In fact very few other debating societies are (a) former hosts of the European championships, (b) the hosts their country's first national championships, and (c) draw their membership from various universities in a major city. Singopo (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not say that most debating societies share those traits, I said that most of the traits (still no sources I see) are shared by other debating societies.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - But only a very small number of other debating societies can claim even one of this Union's claims to noatbility, let alone all 3. Singopo (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you ave a source for that claim? It is for you to demonstrate this groups notability not for us to disprove it. If it cannot be shown to have hosted the 2006 games then that makes it no different from all the other societies that have no hosted it. If it canot be shown that it is allmost unique in allowing members from more then one accademic institution to be members then that will not be notable. Which leaves us with one national event. Hrdley notable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - (edit conflict) I do think that these two refs World Debating Results and Past Europeans taken together do indicate that the BDU hosted the Euros in '06 - assuming that Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard accepts that those sites are WP:RS as they are clearly closely linked to the subject and are primary sources [Sorry as pointed out below that is not the case and I was guilty of the sin of Synthesis. Codf1977 (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)]- however that still does not change the fact there is NO evidence that they meet the WP:GNG (as WP:ORG sates that No inherited notability : An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it.) . Codf1977 (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Just to be clear - I 'am NOT saying that I think an individual occurrence of the European Universities Debating Championships is notable. Codf1977 (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The two sources say Berlin, and that is all they say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        My mistake you are indeed correct - it does say Berlin but the hyper-link is to the BDU website. However, I do think we are straying off the point now into did or did they not host them - even if they did that does not make them notable. Codf1977 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        They beat the MÜNAZARA KULÜBÜ (KU debate club)to get it. So this raises the question, are all events in fact hosted by a club?Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Usually such events are hosted by a university, with the university funding the event and debating society of that university doing the organisational work on the university's behalf. (The debate club referred to by Slatersteven above is that of Koc University in Turkey.) So the 2006 Euros were unusual in that they were organised by debating union that was not specifically tied to a single university. And it's not the only significant event they've hosted, so their claim to notability is not derived from a single event. Dorange (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am tempted to ask, how was the 2006 event funded ? was it funded by the members of the club or, by one or other of the Universities in Berlin? - But this just prolongs this distraction; Can anyone show how hosting or organising any Student event (be it European or National) confer notability when WP:ORG sates in clear terms that No inherited notability : An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. ? Codf1977 (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how the 2006 tournament was funded, but my guess would be sponsorship. To my mind, being the body that actually ran an event goes beyond merely being associated with it. Dorange (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with that view. Look at it a different way, the event has to be hosted so the fact it is hosted is not unique so it follows that if you host the event that is also not unique. Also where would this stop - is the building that the event took place also notable for hosting the event ? The fact still remains that for all of this, the only claim to notability is for hosting an event so notable no Secondary sources can be found supporting it, one so notable the BDU's own website cant even get the details correct. Codf1977 (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a follow up to my last point as Mkativerata pointed out above with the link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Eastaugh (2nd nomination) which showed that the consensus was winners (of world championships in that case) "aren't notable per se", how can a cub who just hosts an event (of lesser standing) be notable - or are you saying that hosting is more notable than being a member of a winning team ? Codf1977 (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Was it held in the societies premisies?Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I voted in the Erik Eastaugh AfD, and I voted to delete. But I don't think we're comparing like with like here. Erik was a member of a team, and I don't think every individual member of a winning team necessarily becomes encyclopaedically notable in their own right just because they were a member of that team. In most cases, organisations are more significant than their individual members. That doesn't mean that every organisation in the world should have a Wikipedia page. But in this case, this organisation has more than one claim to notability, and these make it more significant than the average debating society. I accept that the article needs developing, but I think the organisation's claims to notability (taken collectively) make it notable enough for Wikipedia. Dorange (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I take it from that that it wa not held on thier premisies.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        There seem other errors on thier website, it would seem that they either are not that botherd with accuracy, are being dishonest or are claiming notability for something not considerd notable by the body concearned. I do not know which , as such I belive that any claim they make cannot be considerd reliable without out side sources.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think one typo on the union's website completely undermines their credibility. And I see those in favour of deletion are very conveniently finding reasons to remove all the sources that have been added rather than allowing someone who comes across this deletion debate to see them and decide for themselves whether or not they think they are sufficient. Singopo (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It most defiantly under minds the creditability of the website to be a source of anthing though. As for you claim "conveniently finding reasons to remove all the sources that have been added" - I dispute that - I am not aware of any source reliable or not, primary or otherwise that shows the Berlin Debating Union hosted the event in 2006 that has been removed. But that is not the issue of this AfD - the issue is does the Berlin Debating Union meet the WP:GNG or WP:ORG as far as notability and as of yet not a single person in favour of keeping the article has provided anything that shows it does. I concede that the 2006 EDC was probably hosted in Berlin - may be even by the BDU but that in and of it's self does not make it notable - please show us the "Significant coverage" (as mentioned in the WP:GNG) that the BDU has had - dispite almost two weeks of looking no one has managed to find anything. Codf1977 (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It Shows they do not check thier facts, they also calim they took part in 2001, but a list of teams here [[37]] does not list them as haviing taken part. Some one is wrong, but untill it can be established who then both sites must be considerd dubious as to accuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets re-jig this slightly. Is there any third party RS reporting this as notable?Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the sources that were added to the page are so unrelaible, why don't you leave them there while this deletion debate goes on and let anyone who goes to the page see them. If they agree with you that the sources are unreliable, they can then come to this page and say that they agree with you. Instead you're trying to give the impression that there are no sources at all by removing them – and I think that shows that you lack confidence that your own argument about the lack of reliable sources will stand up to scrutiny. Singopo (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The source I removed did not refer to the BDU it referd to Berlin only As such it did not back up the claim that the BDU hosted the event. It was misleading to try and use a source that did not explicitly say what it was being used to source for.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry I seem to have missed something, can you please post here the refs you think that have been deleted that shows the Berlin Debating Union hosted the event in 2006 ? Codf1977 (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So as I see it the whole claim of notability for the BDU rests on the claim it hosted the European Universities Debating Championships in 2006, a claim for which no source can be found to support it (there are sources that say it was hosted in Berlin but none that say by the BDU, the BDU site says 2005). I dispute that even if there were WP:RS to support the claim, such a claim is evedencde of meeting the WP:GNG as it would be one of inherited notability and a weak one at that as there are little or no WP:RS to show that European Universities Debating Championships are very notable in there own right, let alone a single event in the series. Codf1977 (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also we would need RS showing that some one other then the BDU considerd this notable (even if it can be proved they hosted it), not even the European Universities Debating Championships seem to say it is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although the standard benchmark of significant coverage in independent reliable sources does not seem to have been met, there is broad and reasonable disagreement here, grounded in established Wikipedia norms of notability, as to whether the subject's publications and positions mean that they merit an article. Skomorokh 23:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Greenberg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous result was no consensus. I see no indication of notability here. The only real page in all of Wikipedia that links to "Joshua Greenberg" is Greenberg, which is essentially functioning as a redirect/disambig and doesn't count. A number of the web link references are broken, and the ones that I checked generally feature Joshua Greenberg only tangentially or otherwise fail to establish notability. (A note: The user who started this article is currently unable to participate in this discussion due to the terms of an ArbCom decision, although his opinion on the matter is available on the first AfD. If it is felt that my nomination of the article at this time is inappropriate, please postpone it until he is able to contribute directly to the conversation.) Bueller 007 (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC. The majority of the sources originally cited are citations to the article subject's own webpage. I have searched and not found any WP:RS that confirm any sort of WP:N claims. I previously attempted to prune the article per WP:BLP and there does not appear to be much in terms of notability. A position as a director reporting to someone famous does not constitute notability. Additionally the bulk of the citations that are not self-citations do not establish any type of notability for the article's subject. They instead focus on establishing notability of other people that work with the article's subject. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally notable, though not necessarily academic anymore. Accomplishments fairly clearly establish notability. I do see the issue with it being unlinked though, that's an issue. But as for verifiable cites, there are quite a few in news.google that could be added. Others could be retrieved from archive.org. --Buridan (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - I work in the same institution as the subject so I may be biased. From what I see his notability is based on 2 things: 1) author of a published book; 2) one of the founders of Zotero. Is this enough to satisfy WP:N? -- kosboot (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, no. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I change my vote to Delete.

Keep His book is in 410 libraries according to WorldCat. I can find 2 reviews so far, Booklist v. 104 no. 13 (Mar. 1 2008) & Leonardo v 42, Number 1, February 2009. On the basis of that, a keep. The work with Zotero is additional notability, that might even be enough by itself. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there seems to me to be a lack of coverage in reliable sources here. The sources provided are not about him, but relations trivial mentions in connection with other things. I don't think he meets WP:PROF. With regards to DGG's comment, his book might be notable, but that doesn't mean he is. Robofish (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

peoples' achievements is what makes them notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While Greenberg has a Ph.D., his major accomplishments are in the field of librarianship. He is notable in that field. In my opinion, WP:PROF does not adequately reflect notability guidelines for librarians. Even so, he meets WP:PROF notability based on his position as Director of Digital Strategy and Scholarship at NYPL: "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society." While NYPL is not an academic institution, in addition to being a public library, it is also a major research library ( http://legacy.www.nypl.org/research/ ), and in fact one of the most important U.S. libraries, influencing library work around the world. If you disagree about the academic nature of the NYPL's , I think we need to use WP:CREATIVE to evaluate Greenberg's notability. Under those guidelines Greenberg's notability seems clear to me. First, this holds in the library world: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." Second, Zotero alone shows him as meeting this criterion: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I suspect that a closer examination of Greenberg's work in digital libraries would show him meeting a further WP:CREATIVE criterion: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greenberg himself has weighed in on this discussion on Twitter: "Should add that I'm not personally sure that I meet Wikipedia's notability requirement myself (yet, anyways)." (posted the morning of Feb. 1, 2010) -- kosboot (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which is what any rational person at any level of notability would say rather than stubbornly try to get in or foolishly try to get out. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a truly notable person not even be monitoring the situation at all? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really proposing that as a deletion rationale? We don't keep or delete articles based on the attention their subjects have paid to the process.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I was just responding to DGG's comment. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like an article about someone who has done their job well. If that was a criteria for notability, perhaps many of us would be notable - or maybe not :) However, as things stand, we would have to apply the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR here and, against these, the subject can not be defined as notable. It does not appear that he is widely quoted, cited or that widespread independent reference is made of him or his work in journals, books or other academic/learned media. He does not appear to have received any notable award or developed original ideas/concepts/technique. Hence my suggestion to delete. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has everybody read this? Abductive (reasoning) 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what of it? A 3-year old article full of idealism, some of it unrealized: now both Ferriero and Kent are gone, and LeClerc is scheduled to leave next year. Better to construct articles of living people on the latest information. -- kosboot (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage in reliable sources, and we shouldn't keep articles at this low level of notability.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment wasn't it jimbo that said that subjects are notable or not, there are not levels, similarly, once notable, it is always notable. so if you think he has a level of notability, and i think he clearly passes it as a software developer and possibly as an author, and certainly as a library leader who does keynotes and such, then... he's in. reliable sources do exist for him, they aren't that hard to find. --Buridan (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course there are levels of notability. I doubt Jimbo said that, if he did he was wrong.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. no delete votes standing (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 00:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Machines Forum[edit]

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

This article was deprodded with the assertion that it describes a fairly notable forum software. There are a number of google books hits on this, but none that I looked at are more than a mention. Perhaps we need a slightly lower standard than WP:GNG for this type of software. What do you think? Pcap ping 00:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (nom-withdrawn, see below) 04:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that the nominator was right bringing this to Afd. As Pcap says, hits on google books don't offer so much more as a mention and without verifiable proof of encyclopedic notability, I'm afriad there is more reason to exclude this article than to include it.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 00:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (another sock of a banned user. Pcap ping 00:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - A fairly popular forum software package. Not as popular as vBulletin or phpBB, but still significant. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be popular, but can you provide significant proof of encylcopedic notability? Most of the article's inline citations are to SimpleMachines sources. Remember, we need third party coverage from reliable sources, not just sources affiliated with the subject.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 00:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete(sadly) : unless more sources can be found. Only one source currently in the article seems reasonable. DP76764 (Talk) 01:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep : Please pardon my unfamiliarity with the tools/links in the AfD template. Results for books and scholarly mentions are clearly adequate for WP:N. DP76764 (Talk) 04:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exactly as Dp76764 says, unless sources can be found.--Prodigy96 (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (Sock of banned user. Pcap ping 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Strong keep. Mention in 18 different books is more than plenty for notability of a software product, even if those are not each in great detail. LotLE×talk 04:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (after last try at same comment "went missing" through MediaWiki glitch!). There are also 31 Google Scholar hits. Many of these provide a reasonable degree of description of the software (e.g. comparisons with other tools to explain why this one was chosen for the academic purpose). LotLE×talk 04:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can utilize some of these mentions in the article, I will change my !vote to Keep. Where is this list of 18 books this is referred in? DP76764 (Talk) 04:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list of books--as with all AfDs--is right up at the top, in the "Find Sources" template. Dp76764 misunderstood the criteria for AfD discusson. We are not discussing whether the article could be improved by more sources listed in its content (clearly it could), the point of this discussion is whether the underlying topic is notable enough for an article, regardless of how good or bad the current version is. To my mind, a piece of software discussed in 18 books and 31 scholarly articles clearly meets this standard. LotLE×talk 04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) He was referring to the google books search you can click on above. There's not much in those that you can use in an article, although they do contribute a certain amount of notability in my view as well. Pcap ping 04:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-WP:TROUT and nom withdrawn: [38] Linux Journal, [39] Linux.com review-like articles. There's also a more in-depth one on forum-software.org, although that site is a little hard to establish as WP:RS (no bylines, list of staff or writers, no explicit editorial policy, and no information about the owners either.) Pcap ping 04:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not expect to find those articles on Linux-dedicated sites because this is proprietary software. I suppose the license changed at some point... Pcap ping 04:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @098 · 01:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mambo Sauce (Band)[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion by anonymous user, who then forgot to write the actual nomination. I am doing it for them. No vote. JIP | Talk 06:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no reason given to delete; the article looks fine. Them From Space 15:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, neutral. 69.250.151.50's rationale is given on Talk:Mambo Sauce (Band):"I really do not think Mambo Sauce (Band) has the notoriety to justify creation of a Wikipedia article...they are not really known by anyone, even in the Go-go scene!" — Rankiri (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage by Washington Post, seemingly enough to satisfy WP:BAND. — Rankiri (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by NawlinWiki TN X Man 20:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Henin career biography[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Justine Henin career biography

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

This article is a duplicate of the content on the main page, so it needs to be deleted!BLUE _DOG^TN 19:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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