< 2 February 4 February >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. This article relies too heavily on non-secondary sources, and will likely find itself up for deletion again if this is not fixed quickly. Much spamminess has been removed, but this still needs work. Non consensus to delete at this time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umbraco[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. I have been unable to find any coverage of this product, including 0 gnews hits. Was speedy-deleted two weeks ago. Haakon (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am not affilliated with the company that develops this product in any way. This dispute started a few hours ago when the article I created was not even worthwhile a stub; thought it could do with additional work, it is significantly better now. The article is about a major player in the CMS market. 0 gnews hits proves nothing except that gnews hits is not an adequate criterion. Though I recognise its value as a factor in such decisions in the absense of specialist knowledge, in this case such knowledge exists. The independent survey mentioned in the references has a well-documented and credible methodology for selecting the 20 CMSs it considers noteworthy; it excludes a number of CMSs that have wikipedia articles, but recognises Umbraco as the second most important .NET CMS in terms of market share. Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I once heard David Crystal saying how bad WikiPedia as an encyclopedia is and basing that claim on the fact that according to the Wikipedia article about him, his kids still lived with him. I fixed this an hour later making my point about what Wikipedia has that old-fashioned encyclopedias do not.

Once an article is up, it can be fixed. I am not entirely happy with the article myself. But the main question is if an entry on umbraco has a place in wikipedia or not. Given that nobody here seems to be suggesting that articles about less noteworthy CMSs than Umbraco be deleted, I believe this question has a clear answer. The survey I am referencing in the article is free and it contains the top 20 CMSs in terms of market share. There are countless CMSs out there and WikiPedia has articles about CMSs that are not even in those top 20. So, as far as I am concerned, it is clear that, currently, WikiPedia considers noteworthy CMSs with a market share smaller than umbraco's. The fact that it is the #2 .NET CMS and follows a different approach to other CMSs carries some extra weight in my decision to write and defend this article. For me, there is no question of whether there should be a WikiPedia article on umbraco or not. My opinion would certainly have been different if there were no articles on a number of other CMSs, but there are -- and to be honest, I prefer it this way.

Having established, I believe, that there should be an article on umbraco, there is a second question to be considered: should the article, as it stands, be deleted, because it has content of no value, is badly written, or is part of some marketing campaign? As long as none of the above *clearly* applies and an umbraco entry has a place in Wikipedia, effort should be made to make the article better. One can change 'leverage' into 'use' if he/she is so inclined; there was something I wanted to convey with that word, but unfortunatelly it does look like it came out of an IT product marketing brochure. 'Simple', I will delete as it is so ambiguous that at the end it means nothing. `Lightweight', I am inclined to keep because the binary distribution downloaded impressively quickly, something much appreciated by someone who first programmed on a Spectrum with 16KB of RAM and has an aversion to bloatware. However, I am not entirely happy with this word either. But then again, I am not entirely happy with the article as a whole either; but I prefer a WikiPedia with it in it, than one without it. It is work in progress and hopefully myself and others will continue to improve it.

To propose that an article be deleted because one disagrees with the use of certain words is counter-productive. Given that I am using my real name and putting my personal reputation at stake here, I am more than willing to listen to criticisms for improving the article. But I believe they are a seperate issue best addressed in the article's talk page and that the article should stay. I hope this gets resolved quickly because I am spending too much time here and too little time improving the article itself.

Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certain terms irrevocably brand an "article" as advertising. The vile verb "leverage" is one already mentioned; my favorite software bete noire is "solution", but all fields fall victim to "up and coming"/"rapidly emerging"/"radical new" in various permutations. In general, anything non-neutral in tone which sounds like you're trying to sell us the product counts against retention. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the help of an IP user, I've cleaned up the spammy language. I admit not having read it past the notability claim in the lead previously. Pcap ping 05:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it has not been more than a couple of days that I wrote what I wrote I had not distanced myself enough to do exactly what you have done. Thanks! It looks much better now! Ain't Wikipedia, great? ;-) Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the site with more content about the framework and hopefully some more verifiable references. --Mardenpb1 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umbraco is a significant player in the area of .NET CMS. The two referernces to cmswire don't count for anything because of the way cmswire operate / post reviews. In my view cmswire references should be removed to improve the article. The figures quoted in the Popularity section are somewhat misleading. The figures shown are the total number of project downloads (including readme and documentation archive downloads, not just the WCMS source code). The article certainly needs work, but based on the significant marketshare it has I think it should stay. Sendalldavies (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If those references are no good, how do you propose we establish what you just wrote? Pcap ping 06:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding download stats: look at http://umbraco.codeplex.com/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=33743. There are 7 other downloads besides the main download file. These downloads are included in their stats.
Regarding cmswire: I've looked through their website and see no web page regarding how they operate in terms of posting articles. To establish my claim one would have to ask for information about having your own CMS reviewed. cmswire email me every few months asking for permission to write a "review" in exchange for a reciprocal link. Such reviews are not independent or unbiased as product owners get the last edit prior to its publication. The site is basically a review farm making money from selling ad space (http://www.simplermedia.com/mediakit/v1-00/titles/cmswire/rates.php)
Regarding "significant player in .NET CMS" and marketshare: my comment comes from professional experience in this field; people wanting help improving their website or wanting to migrate their website to a different server. Sendalldavies (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the founder and publisher of CMSWire and would like to say that your characterization of the site as "basically a review farm making money from selling ad space" is way off the mark. We publish roughly 200 original articles per month with 90% of those written by regular, on-staff writers. If you look at our CMS reviews section (http://www.cmswire.com/cms/cms-reviews/) you can see that since the Umbraco review on May 28, 2009 there has been exactly one other review published, on December 9, 2009. If this is your definition of a review farm, then something is very wrong with this discussion. Further, regarding your assertion that someone at CMSWire emails you every few months for "permission to write a 'review' in exchange for a reciprocal link" I would assert that your statement is a) confusing -- what does "permission to write a review" mean exactly? b) an exaggeration -- was it me who emailed you? How many times exactly? And can you provide the precise dates that this happened?, and c) the interaction was misrepresented -- we recruit specialized outside contributors all the time as a way of bringing in valuable, current lessons from the field. Nearly all trade magazines do such things -- there's just no way that journalists can know as much as field consultants. This practice is a great way of sharing knowledge in a sector. Regarding the discussion of a "reciprocal link", guest writers on CMSWire are always entitled to a bio section in their article and this includes a link to their project or company, etc. I consider this respectful and friendly. Reciprocal links are typically considered "link exchanges" and that is not at all what we are doing. I fail to see how a link in the author's bio detracts from the content, which IMHO should be evaluated independently. In reference to the Umbraco review written by Barb Mosher, this review is -- at any rate -- free of any such alleged contamination. Barb is the managing editor of CMSWire and labored rather intensively on this review. It is generally credited with being the most thorough review of the Umbraco CMS. I'm happy address any further questions any of you have about our processes or publication. Though I must say that this being my first discussion as part of Wikipedia, I am disappointed by the assertions made -- especially those that I know personally to be exaggerated beyond reason. --Bdunwood (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the question of publishing "reviews" in return for reciprocal favours, which means that CMSWire is not an independent source, there is also the question of how CMSWire sources its own articles. I have seen CMSWire articles which have actually stated that their only source is Twitter, which makes it an unreliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note JamesBWatson, CMSWire does not "[publish] reviews in return for reciprocal favours". And it certainly does not publish reviews based on Twitter content. Reviews are published based on the merit of the content. The review in question was written by CMSWire's managing editor, based on her original research and testing (as I mentioned above). I don't understand this campaign to slander the review or the source in question without yourself providing evidence for your claims. CMSWire is not The New York Times. OK, I get that. But if there are any real questions about the quality or motivations for the Umbraco CMS review I have yet to hear them. --Bdunwood (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even google takes paid advertisements. I see no indication there that CMSWire takes money in exchange for reviews. What you are proposing as an alternative is original research, and not very useful because the download counter gets reset on every version. I'm changing my vote to delete. Pcap ping 13:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one doesn't reset - 97.000 downloads in 10 months, 3rd most downloaded app on the Microsoft Web Stack. You have hundreds of articles on WikiPedia covering less notable than this: http://microsoft.com/web/gallery/Categories.aspx --NHartvig (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately most of the above does not relate to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at all. For example we are told "it exists- yes, it really does" (or words to that effect. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about anything that exists: we require subjects to satisfy our notability criteria. Likewise "Microsoft has decided to offer this thing as part of their Web Platform Installer catalog". The fact that a particular company (even a large and prominent one) markets a product does not constitute notability: there needs to be evidence that there has been significant attention form independent observers. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe my previous comments have been cherry picked to build an unfair case. I think that criteria of notability is met by both the evidence of popularity in Microsoft's Web Platform Installer catalog and by the data you find in Google Trends. Can you please tell me why data from two of the largest websites on the Internet are being discounted? Are not Microsoft and Google considered reliable sources? --Bdunwood (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


After reading the drupal article, I fail to see why the Umbraco acrticle has to go. How ever i do agree that part the section about Umbraco's top x position is kind of spammy and should be edited. Woltersw (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that criticism on the chin -- not my greatest NPOV work. I've found an article that was written end of last year with more neutral ranking of the main CMS's on .net that I'll update the page with shortly. --Mardenpb1 (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am afraid that the issue of speedy deletion has a negative effect on the article. Those like myself that think the article belongs in Wikipedia have to 1) prove Umbraco is noteworthy and 2) ensure the language and the kind of information found in the article are appropriate for an article in an encyclopedia, not some marketing brochure. When trying to prove umbraco is noteworthy, we end up trying to give figures and facts showing that it is one of the important players in the .NET CMS market. I feel a bit uncomfortable with a significant part of the article being about figures aiming to show Umbraco is a noteworthy .NET CMS. It is. We need to move on from there and concentrate on improving the article. Unfortunately, it does not feel safe to leave out such figures; we still feel that we need to show umbraco is a notable enough CMS to have an article in Wikipedia about it. To be honest, the article would be better off without some of them, but at the same time those of us that are contributing to this article would be better off, if we did not have to worry about two things at the same time. We need to finish with this speedy deletion dispute and work on the article. Once we know the article is here to stay, we may have a cooler head about deciding what facts and figures to include and which to leave out.

Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


[Note: I transferred the above three comments here from the article's discussion page.] Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three questions: 1. Should or should not Wikipedia have an article on the top 3 .NET CMSs in terms of market share, assuming the articles are of the required quality and have an encyclopedic value? 2. Is umbraco one of those top 3 .NET CMSs? 3. Is the umbraco entry and does it have an encyclopedic value? My answers are: 1) yes, 2) I believe the evidence showing it is currently the #2.NET CMS, and 3) yes. In fact, I am able to find information now in the umbraco entry that I could not easily find elsewhere. For instance, I saw elsewhere that umbraco is tied to Microsoft SQL Server and this made it to my original version of the article. This has now been corrected. I had also written that it comes under an MIT open source licence, but now the article makes a distinction between the back-end and the UI. This is the kind of accurate, referenced, up-to-date information I have grown to expect Wikipedia to provide at a glance. Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 08:23, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd Manifesto[edit]

The 2nd Manifesto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A "demo" means it must be totally non-notable Richhoncho (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 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) 00:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Jewelry Center[edit]

World Jewelry Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This project has been halted before even being started, and there's no indication it will ever happen at all; it's hard to see a reason for an article about a proposed boondoggle building. jpgordon::==( o ) 23:37, 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 Keep (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza del Lago[edit]

Plaza del Lago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:18, 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) 00:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia - A New Community of Practice?[edit]

Wikipedia - A New Community of Practice? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. Article was prodded by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) but M3tainfo (talk · contribs) objected to deletion on article talk page and on NawlinWiki's user talk, therefore making deletion not uncontroversial. Original deletion rationale was "no sources to indicate that this book is notable."

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of initial response to the request for deletion below. I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this, and it's not like I put a lot of work into it or anything, but I obviously would prefer the article was not deleted, hence against — M3TA(info) @ 15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There are currently no external sources to indicate notability due to the fact that the book was published in September 2009. I have a copy in front of me, and it is an academic treatment of the Wikipedia community, particularly as a Community of Practice, and as such I thought it would be relevant to include in the category of 'books about wikipedia'. I was in the process of writing a bit more as a description of the book and have now filled out the article slightly, including a few references. Since it's an academic book, the Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Academic_books guidelines suggest that it need only be based on 'how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines' and this appears to be the only serious book on Wikipedia from a historical sociological perspective (rather than, for example, a computer science perspective). I would also point out that the author is speaking at an academic conference on wikipedia in March this year. The article is also marked as a 'stub' so that it can be expanded if and when it is cited or reviewed in future."
Also, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Review_desk where a review of this book (incorrectly titled 'Wikipedia: From Print to Text to Participation', but still by Daniel O'Sullivan) is requested, and User:Thespian has responded. I would also be happy to write a proper review.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None of the "stop delete" !votes provide evidence of the notability of this individual - basically saying "I know he is notable" is not sufficient evidence. No reliable sources of information were found so the information in the article cannot be verified. The consensus here is clearly to delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Madaninejad[edit]

I've protected this page from editing by new and IP editors due to disruption by someone on a dynamic IP. New and IP editors can make comments on the talk page of this AFD, if they're not disruptive they can be moved to this page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amir Madaninejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Son of a millionaire, sole claim to notability. I believe this is a clear fail of WP:BIO, prod removed without explanation by IP author. RayTalk 23:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Amir Madaninejad is 100% accurate and that can be verified from various sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.36.171 (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC) — 78.144.36.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: An IP (the one voting below) changed my vote above to "stop delete", the same wording used by all the other keep voters. I've changed it back. Hairhorn (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've already voted once before (at least). AFD is about generating consensus, not about vote stacking. If he's so notable, then please add the sources demonstrating notability. Simply asserting that he's notable won't save the entry from deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't add any sources at all (see Wikipedia:Citing sources for help). All you did was add an external link to Madaninejad's own webpage, which has almost no content, none of it relevant ("here are picture of boats in my hometown") and hasn't been updated for more than 3 years. And please stop voting already. Hairhorn (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have found more sources regarding Madaninejad's family and they books from Texas https://txspace.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/5750 for future reference please search for Madaninejad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by British-broadcast (talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC) — British-broadcast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You're linking to a relative's PhD thesis? That doesn't make them notable, and it certainly doesn't make Amir Madaninejad notable, he's not even mentioned in the link. Hairhorn (talk) 15:06, 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) 00:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Project Zoo Limited[edit]

The Project Zoo Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CORP almost looks like an ad with no reliable sources. 1 hit in gnews [4]. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 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 speedy keep. NW (Talk) 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum Health[edit]

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

Written like an advertisement and half the references are the company webpage. The Frozen Snowman (talk) 22:36, 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 speedy keep. NW (Talk) 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GermaniumWeb[edit]

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

Seems to just be a blatant advertisement. The Frozen Snowman (talk) 22:33, 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 Speedy deletion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I Can't Have You (Kelly Clarkson song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
If I Can't Have You (Kelly Clarkson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notible, only charted on the Bubbling Under chart, was never a single and is not being considered for a single that anyne knows of. Has only been mentioned on twitter as a possible, making the article a crystal ball Alan - talk 22:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, It didn't chart on a notable chart. The bubble under is an extension of a chart, and rather meaningless. Read what the Bubble Under chart actually is here: Bubbling_Under_Hot_100_Singles; " It comprises 25 positions that represent songs that are close to charting on the main singles chart, the Billboard Hot 100", hence, It never charted on a major chart Alan - talk 03:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: It has enough information to warrant its own page and is not considered a stub, thus it should stay.....and the bubbling under hot 100 singles chart is still a chart and is one of Billboard's most popular charts....---Allyoueverwanted (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Brexxfor details.[reply]

  • Comment the song charted on a non-significant chart (bubbling under) for one week, the description of the Bubbling Under chart itself is that it is not a chart, but an extension of a chart for songs that have not charted. Unless the song becomes a notable single, there will never be enough to validate the article to meet quality guidelines (it will never be more than a stub). Further more, the article was only created because Clarkson hinted in a twitter tweet that the song may possibly become a single (which may or may not be true) a day after saying on twitter that they are aiming for September for the next single (which also may or may not happen, just as her supposed album at the end of 2010 may or may not happen). This article belongs more ona fan-site than on wikipedia and completely fails WP:NSONGSAlan - talk 22:06, 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 redirect to Mallu Magalhães (2009 album). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shine Yellow[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSONGS, no indication that the song has charted anywhere, covered by a number of notable artists or won any significant awards. No indication that sufficient material is available to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Article has been redirected to the album per convention but article creator has reverted this several times without comment, bringing to AFD for larger discussion. RadioFan (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notability guidelines for songs are significantly more strict. I'm not seeing anything in the article such as mentions of awards, chart position, etc. that would indicate that this song might meet those guidelines. Being a source of information is nice but that is something for the artist's website, not Wikipedia.--RadioFan (talk) 14:15, 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, Cirt (talk) 22:16, 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

Despite relisting, only one delete !vote (plus the nomination itself) was made. The comments (and the lack of work on the article since the AfD was originally opened) do not offer evidence of notability for this company. With no keep !votes, and no dissention apparent in the comments, I feel that the consensus is to delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Data Parallel Systems[edit]

Alpha Data Parallel Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A nonnotable microelectronics business. The only claims for notability is that components it manufactured are used in some famous locations. Not a word why the products or company are notable by themselves. We don't write articles abut a company which manufacture elevators for Empire State Building. - Altenmann >t 16:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:04, 26 January 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) 22:15, 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 (NAC). Swarm(Talk) 06:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Packers Plus Energy Services[edit]

Packers Plus Energy Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable company; article created by a SPA. No independent third-party sources, despite a sources cleanup tag in place since October 2009. Psychonaut (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 17:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC) — Egjackson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment: I have redesignated all but the first of Egjackson's "keep" !votes as "comments", only one !vote per user, please. – ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 2 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) 22:14, 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 merge to Selwyn House School. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse scandal in Selwyn House School[edit]

Sexual abuse scandal in Selwyn House School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although this article refers to a "scandal", it is about several incidents which the article fails to connect. There is no evidence that any of these incidents were referred to as a scandal. There is already an article about the school. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/05/12/jonathan-kay-on-his-alma-mater-selwyn-house-then-and-now.aspx#ixzz0dr4OhfEg The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

The article actually says the opposite: "casual news readers might be deceived into thinking that Friday’s bombshell is part of some sort of uninterrupted epidemic of abuse." The Four Deuces (talk) 22:38, 27 January 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) 22:11, 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. not necessary to merge and no required for attribution and covered where visitors might reasonably expect to find it and nbot a useful search term for a redirect. So the only question is does the article meet inclusion criteria for standalone notability. the consensus is that it doesnt Spartaz Humbug! 07:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Ohio Mitsubishi MU-2 crash[edit]

2010 Ohio Mitsubishi MU-2 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet the notability standards for aviation accidents set out at WP:AIRCRASH. It might merit a sentence at the article about the airport, but nothing more than that. The article about the make of plane suggests that this event was not a significant accident for the type. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 25 January 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) 22:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. If you realize that others may cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on you, I thought you should provide an explaination with regards to why it does not apply, rather than saying "PLZ DUNT DO DAT, SRSLY". Anyway, the actual issue is irrelevant - general aviation incidents are different from scheduled commercial flights. Notability does not depend on number of fatalities. Are airliner incidents entirely lacking fatalities or with only a single fatality any less notable than a random Cessna plane crash where possibly 3 or 4 people perished? Probably not. This incident fails WP:NOTNEWS. Blodance the Seeker 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well in regards to otherstuffexists, I was almost 100% sure someone would cite it on me but I think my point about aviation fatalities is still valid. But thats starting to fork off into another discussion. The real issue is that we don't have any true aviation guidelines on Wikipedia, sure yes as it has already been noted WP:AIRCRASH is a project guidline that many have come to follow, but is not an official notability guideline. I don't like following essays when we have a general notability guideline. Plus there are plenty of sources and while one might say is just WP:NOTNEWS it actually can help to grow this article while we wait for the NTSB report. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you noted the previous AfDs about aviation incidents, you might have noted that people generally agree with this version of WP:AIRCRASH so far. i.e. As far as I can see, the community consensus is with it. This incident as of now does not appear to be notable, and we are not supposed to "wait till it (perhaps) becomes notable", as there are no strong/convincing evidence that the incident is notable. If it really turned out to be notable later, we can always undelete this one. Blodance the Seeker 17:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented in many air crash related afds before and never seen this consensus you are talking about, but perhaps times are changing. And im not saying to wait until this becomes more notable, but rather making a remark that it may become even more notable. The fact of the matter is that WP:AIRCRASH is still not an adopted guideline as distinguished by community consensus, until that time comes it is no more then an essay even if it does have support from people who take place in these afds. There are many reliable sources which satisfy WP:N and WP:RS, but they have been overlooked. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the sources - they discuss the deceased people(especially Donald Brown) extensively, but when it comes to the plane crash itself... sorry, I really won't call that "significant coverage". Also, there is a reason why WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays on notability. Blodance the Seeker 02:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having reliable sources does not make something notable. I could find hundreds of reliable sources on each day's stock market movement, but we don't have an article over those, and (probably) never will. It's significant coverage within those reliable sources, which this topic fails to have. mynameinc (t|c) 03:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course they should write essays as "guidance", rather then guidelines (of less they are adopted as such) I have seen many different variations of WP:AIRCRASH from very weak regulations to the conservative ones used today. I have been a member of WP:AVIATION since its inception and we have never had any clear guideline for aircraft incidents. Even as recently as November/December this version has received some criticism; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability#challenge to the guideline. But if we are going to use WP:AIRCRASH perhaps we should look and see if this incident may meet the people criteria, it sound like Donald Brown may be an important person. As for the reliable sources aspect, I would say that the sources out there satisfy WP:GNG. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Brown invented the drop ceiling. That doesn't make him notable. Also, this is something that was covered once in the news. In fact, the article is written like a news article. mynameinc (t|c) 14:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the definitions section at the top of WP:AIRCRASH it says "A notable person or group is one that has their own Wikipedia article.", the person killed in this crash does not have an article according to the Donald Brown dab page. Also, the People section says "If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the person or group" and the specific criteria that you are claiming notability under (P1) says "A standalone article will normally only be appropriate if more than just the notable person or group is significantly involved.".
Regarding the "challenge to the guideline" you cite, nobody has initiated discussion on any specific aspect of the guideline that they feel could be improved in the nearly five months since they were implemented (21 September 2009), despite there being an explicit request for comments at the top of the guidelines. The discussion that ultimately resulted in the current guidelines gaining consensus lasted about 2.5 months (early July to late September). All this, and the numerous times they've been cited in deletion discussions since then, suggests to me that despite being just guidelines they do enjoy consensus. If you have specific comments about one or more of the criteria then please start a discussion at WT:AIRCRASH as requested. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well someone moved WP:AIRCRASH, and the discussion I was referring too sometime within the past 36 hours. But if it truly is the "consensus" then obviously we are taking a a very strong and conservative approach towards such accidents. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
erm, WP:AIRCRASH has not been moved. The discussion you referred to has been automatically moved to the talk page archive by a bot (irrc the settings are that all threads older than 60 days are so moved unless doing so would leave less than three threads on the page. I started two new threads yesterday, so that probably triggered the bot to move the old ones). Discussion has just started again about the guidelines, but so far nobody has commented about changing this particular criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Hudson Taylor IV[edit]

Herbert Hudson Taylor IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable college athlete. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Liawilde415 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Thank you very much for the suggestions. I appreciate your help. There are thousands of third sources that mention him. Here are some specific ones that focus on his unique achievements in collegiate wrestling
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Maryland,_College_Park
  2. http://www.umterps.com/sports/m-wrestl/spec-rel/042209aaa.html
  3. http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-wrestl/spec-rel/120809aaa.html
  4. http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-wrestl/spec-rel/022608aaa.html
  5. http://dcsportsbox.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=763&Itemid=70
  6. http://www.marylandwrestlingnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:marylands-hudson-taylor-named-acc-wreslter-of-the-week&catid=21:college-take-down

Liawilde415 (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Liawilde415 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Reply - The above sources are important; however the article itself provides excellent sources and documents nearly all stated assertions. Also, it ought to be noted that the University of Maryland page itself mentions Taylor as a notable athlete in the school's athletic history. UMD is one of the best athletic schools in the country. And Taylor is their all-time best. I'd like to highlight that the collegiate wrestling world is the highest level for American style wrestling. If we don't allow collegiate hall-of-famers at major Division I institutions to be considered "notable", particularly when they are NCAA and conference hall-of-famers, we risk ignoring a whole group of very notable athletes. These people have reached the highest level of achievement in their respective sport and they are famous in the American style wrestling world. Time2evolve (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Time2evolve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wikipedia is not a source, and the other five sources prove one thing; he was an amateur wrestler who did not compete at a high enough level to meet inclusion. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

people who have competed in the Olympic games; however this is a very burdening policy for famous amatuer wrestlers. The Olympic and international levels include form of wrestling that is NOT used in schools (from elementary to college). Accordingly, some of the best and most famous amatuer wrestlers do not go on to the international level, because it is a different type of wrestling. Similarly, professional wrestling (like the WWE) is very different from international wrestling and from scholastic wrestling in the United States. Accordingly, some of the country's most successful and famous wrestlers are collegiate wrestlers. This is why it makes perfect sense for people like Hudson Taylor and Joe Dubuque to have Wikipedia pages. They are not professionals or international wrestlers, but they are beyond elite and notable on the national level. Not to mention, Hudson Taylor is an NCAA hall-of-famer. This is about as notable as you can be as an American style wrestler. Time2evolve (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Time2evolve (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. — Time2evolve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

find out current wrestling info (search terms were “Hudson Taylor maryland”). Definitely keep this page. He’s a major figure in national wrestling and has a permanent place in the Maryland and NCAA books. I looked up the Wikirules on this and it seems to fit. It was also interesting to learn that he’s gotten 12 Athlete of the Week honors from the ACC. That’s got to be an ACC record for wrestling as well. He’s not just some good college athlete—he’s a prominent figure who has changed the face of the sport for Maryland and the ACC. The article provides legit sources too—it’s very informative. Chasec87 (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — Chasec87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Reply Hi Darrenhusted; I appreciate your help clarifying Wikipolicy. All I was trying to say was that this article on Herbert Hudson Taylor IV is important; and that the merits of the arguments above (which suggest that Wikipedia keep the article) make a lot of sense. And, I saw from the guidelines that it's the merits of the arguments that matter. I'm new to Wikipedia and I didn't join an army. I decided to post when I saw that Taylor's page was tag. If you google his name and team the page comes up right away. Thanks again though--this system seems really organized and clear. I'm glad to learn more about it.Gtobias57 (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines for ATHLETE are simple, compete at the Olympics (or other international competition as an amateur) or as a professional. Or do something else, like publish some books or star in a film or release an album. UFC, MMA, WWE or TNA would be options for amateurs, but if the sum total of the person's achievement is wrestling at the collegiate level then they have not done enough to have an article. ATHLETE is a bright line standard, you either pass of fail, Taylor fails. You are right "NO college athlete in any sport... is notable", unless they compete at the highest level. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or if they pass WP:GNG...if there are enough notable news sources about them other than just trivial mentions. Nikki♥311 20:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then delete for now and recreate once he competes in the Olympics. We don't judge bios on future performance, that opens a can of worms for all BLPs. Should we then start allowing band bios because they will have an album out in two years time? Put bios for 12 year olds acting in nativity plays because in two years they will be in films? He's an amateur wrestler know for being an amateur wrestler and nothing else, there are hundreds of wrestler all of whom may compete in the Olympics, but at the same time he could tear a muscle next week and his career could be over, there's no reason to IAR on a BLP, without the wrestling he doesn't pass the GNG, with it he doesn't pass ATHLETE. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:41, 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, Cirt (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In collegiate or freestyle wrestling, the NCAA is the highest level. WP:ATHLETE states that the highest level is usually considered to be the Olympics, not that it is required to be the Olympics. Both Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy have articles even though they have not competed at the professional level and there is no international competition for American football. Taylor should be evaluated on that standard, not that he is not a professional or an Olympian. (GregJackP (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Sam Bradford and Tebow (to address below) won the Heisman and Colt McCoy was runner-up, That's an achievement. But mostly it has little to do with Taylor. His career so far does not justify a bio, and without it he doesn't pass GNG. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:02, 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) 00:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Diamonds[edit]

Gallery of Diamonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a local jeweler who runs a contest that has gotten a couple of mentions in small newspapers and trade journals. I don't think it satisfies WP:CORP or WP:N in general. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:47, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Tor-Thompson[edit]

Margaret Tor-Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a non-notable Liberian politician who was never elected to any office. This same stub of information is already included within Liberian general election, 2005 Onthegogo (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep An article about an influential activist who ran for President which has multiple independent sources is clearly notable. The information regarding her death from breast cancer in 2007 and her career as an activist and religious official is not and should not be included in election article.--TM 22:32, 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 to delete. There is no consensus as to the notability of the organization in the discussion below. The feasibility and appropriateness of a merge/redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Americans for Peace and Tolerance[edit]

Americans for Peace and Tolerance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing to indicate why the subject is notable, and I cannot find anything to suggest that it meets any criteria for inclusion, specifically WP:ORG. All mentions I can see appear to be incidental and many are merely Jacbob's opinion pieces. wjematherbigissue 21:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A[n] organization ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources....
If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources [which we have here] should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability....
Evidence of attention by international [which we have in this case] or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.
--Epeefleche (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". This is all we have here. wjematherbigissue 16:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there was any attention paid to the organization, you might have something here. There hasn't been. The group is mentioned solely in the context of "Soandso, deputy vice panjamon of Americans for Peace and Tolerance, says ..."  RGTraynor  19:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORG clarifies what is considered "trivial" or "incidental" for these purposes.
"Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story." What that means is that if there is a quote to the effect that "Joe, the President of X Corp, happened to be walking down the street when the firefight broke out, and says the terrorist shot first" -- well then, that would not count towards notability of X Corp. Here, that is not the case. Every instance where there is a quote, the person quoted is being quoted in their position as, and speaking for, APT.
Furthermore, WP:ORG goes on to clarify what is meant by trivial or incidental mentions: "Neither do the publication of routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, routine mergers or sales of part of the business, the addition or dropping of product lines, or facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest." What we have here is much more than that -- we have multiple independent articles, with international coverage, of APT's people speaking about, typically, a main or the main issue of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So then include those views in the articles related to the topic of the comments, you still dont have a single source that talks about the organization itself. nableezy - 21:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have extensive coverage throughout by RSs both within and outside the US of issues that are the main focus of the article, by an organization whose role is to comment on issues. Including an RS printing an op ed. That's clearly more than what is meant by trivial and incidental (far more than mention of someone being hired by the company, or it closing an office, and the other examples in wp:org). As DGG says below, this sort of coverage is standard for what we rely on for organizations of this type.
Put another way, when a newspaper covers a company, integral to its coverage is the company's product. Here, this company is in the business of taking positions on issues, and the article is replete with RS refs covering instances of the company's officers/directors/employee doing just that.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And these quotes are specifically covered by WP:ORG, which explicitly states "Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story." (emphasis mine) That a number of users are ignorant of the provisions of WP:ORG I don't deny, but their lack of understanding of the relevant guideline doesn't invalidate that guideline.  RGTraynor  11:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@RGT: Already addressed above.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Going through the history" of an editor and AFD'ing things doesn't sound appropriate to me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, as with some similar comments below, I believe the point that is missed is that when Jacobs is referred to in the refs (including quotes, his Boston Globe op-ed article, etc), it is as the President or a founder or board member of APT. The comments are all therefore clearly attributable to him in his APT role.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation of sources by Nableezy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There are currently 13 sources cited. That may seem like a lot, but none of these sources are independent secondary sources that make anything more than a passing mention of the organization. The references are as follows:

  • 1: This is the "About Us" page from the organizations website. This is the most heavily cited source in the article, being used nine times. This source does not demonstrate anything regarding "substantial coverage" in "reliable, independent secondary sources"
  • 2: This source mentions the organization one time: Much of the criticism and suspicion of mosque leaders has come from the Jewish community, although the new organization criticizing the mosque, called Americans for Peace and Tolerance, is led by an Episcopal layman, a Muslim scholar, and a Jewish activist. This source does not provide "substantial coverage" of the organization.
  • 3: An editorial by the president of the organization which does not even mention the organization except to say that the editorial is by the president of the organization.
  • 4: A single mention of the organization again: The primary critic of the mosque has been Charles Jacobs, a longtime Jewish activist in Boston who previously founded the American Anti-Slavery Group, which works to oppose slavery in Sudan and elsewhere, and The David Project, an Israel advocacy organization. He has founded an organization called Americans for Peace and Tolerance with two longtime allies, Boston College political science professor Dennis B. Hale and Virginia-based Islamic scholar Ahmed S. Mansour. The group plans to stage a protest at the opening today. There is no "substantial coverage" of the organization in this source.
  • 5 (also available in Lexis-Nexis): A single mention of the organization: To that point, Charles Jacobs, a longtime community activist and head of Americans for Peace and Tolerance, said depicting Boston as a bubble was not wholly inaccurate. "It's the epicenter of liberalism in America, maybe even the epicenter of Jewish liberalism," Jacobs said. Again, no "substantial coverage" of the organization.
  • 6: A single mention of the organization: It is all about what Dr. Charles Jacobs of Americans for Peace and Tolerance called Islamophobiaphobia. Again, no "substantial coverage" of the organization.
  • 7: I don't have access to the full text of this article, but the abstract does contain one line that mentions the organization: The Islamic Society of Boston's Roxbury mosque recently held its grand opening amid protests from activists, including Charles Jacobs, president of Americans for Peace & Tolerance. There may be more here so I cannot say for sure that this source does not provide substantial coverage.
  • 8: A single mention of the organization: Christian Renewal Church, 556 Cabot St., Beverly, will host "Pursuing Peace in a post 9/11 World" on Nov. 15, featuring speaker Dr. Richard Booker, who writes on biblical scriptures and about threats from radical Islam. Also featured will be Ilya Feoktistov, research director for Americans for Peace and Tolerance. The event is free, but an offering will be taken for Booker. No "substantial coverage" of the organization.
  • 9: Apparently relying on a snippet from a google search, there is a mention of the organization: Ilya Feoktistov, research director for Americans for Peace and Tolerance. This is not "substantial coverage".
  • 10: A single mention of the organization: Among the group of Mehanna's supporters was at least one dissenter, Ilya Feoktistov, of the group Americans for Peace and Tolerance, who said, "Boston has one of the oldest, moderate, educated Muslim communities in America, but unfortunately in recent years there's been an influx in radical ideology that's having a terrible effect on Boston Muslims." Again, no "substantial coverage of the organization.
  • 11: A single mention of the organization: "We want [aldermen] Steve Linsky and Ted Hess-Mahan to apologize, and to go for sensitivity training or resign," Charles Jacobs, president of Americans for Peace and Tolerance, said in an e-mail to the Globe afterwards. "If they do not apologize, we will consider forming a movement to recall them." No "substantial coverage" of the organization.
  • 12: A single mention of the organization: According press accounts and the research Jacobs conducts as head of Americans for Peace and Tolerance, a group devoted to exposing Islamic extremism, before receiving his lawyers Naji told his US interrogators he pledged to fight in Lashkar-e-Taibe’s jihad against India and was given mine-laying training in the group’s camps. No "substantial coverage" of the organization.
  • 13: A single mention of the organization: President of Americans for Peace and Tolerance Charles Jacobs said he opposes the idea.

In total, there are 0 (possibly one, though I doubt it) independent secondary reliable sources that provide any type of substantial coverage of the organization. The entirety of the coverage in all of the independent secondary sources is that Charles Jacobs is the president, the organization is "a group devoted to exposing Islamic extremism", and it was founded by Jacobs with Dennis Hale and Ahmed Mansour. There is no substantial coverage of the organization in any of the references I have been able to check, save the "About Us" page at the organization's website. nableezy - 08:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which six or seven refs are you saying do not "even mention it by name"?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just now gone through all the references again. Contrary to RGT's above assertion, rather than finding that "only half of them even mention it by name," I found that every single reference without exception mentions it by name.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the thirteen references are third-party sources about the organization, not just mentioning it? nableezy - 05:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need to be entirely about the organisation: WP:GNG states: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." (my emboldening). I think several of the cited sources clearly go beyond "trivial mention". Contains Mild Peril (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you list all of the "reliable, independent secondary sources" that provide "significant coverage" of this organization? nableezy - 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you state a policy based reason for keeping rather then an unfounded claim against a minor edit made to the article.Ridernyc (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually quite a major edit as it fixed two issues in the prior version, which looked very much like a coatrack for the Roxbury Crossings mosque controversy and the statement about Jacobs' tape was completely out of context. wjematherbigissue 21:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show us which sources cover the organization and not Jacobs. 08:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.

Going on to WP:ORG, the specific guideline governing organizations, there is this quote:

Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story.

Not a single source discusses this group at all, and no Keep proponent has addressed this. I'm having a hard time understanding claims that this group is "notable" when the article fails to meet the very definitions of "notable" given in WP:N and WP:ORG. For those voting Keep solely on the premise that this is a revenge nomination of some kind (some AGF might be useful here), perhaps we can solve that issue, because if the AfD closes without a result of Delete, I'm going to renominate it myself fifteen minutes later; may we presume I lack any animus against the article's creator?  RGTraynor  18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, given Rjanag's comment, I agree that a merge/redirect to the notable Charles Jacobs (political activist) or Dennis Hale is appropriate. Cf. Center for Class Action Fairness, which does have significant news coverage of its activities meeting WP:ORG (esp. after the March 2010 issue of ABA Journal comes out), but is as yet only a redirect. THF (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail." Which of these sources discuss this organization at all? What religious backgrounds the founders have is not at all about the organization. It isn't so much that you haven't seen a source that's an in-depth expose of the organization; we've yet to see an independent source discuss the organization in any detail whatsoever.  RGTraynor  22:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are overstating your case. A source that writes "the new organization criticizing the mosque, called Americans for Peace and Tolerance, is led by an Episcopal layman, a Muslim scholar, and a Jewish activist." - is addressing the subject directly, and in some detail. To say this source does not discuss this organization at all, as you are saying, is simply wrong. Ditto for a source which writes " founded an organization called Americans for Peace and Tolerance with two longtime allies, Boston College political science professor Dennis B. Hale and Virginia-based Islamic scholar Ahmed S. Mansour. The group plans to stage a protest at the opening today." - it addresses the subject directly, providing deatils about its founders and its planned actions. Now, this level of detail may not be extensive, and is certainly paltry in comparison with the amount of coverage that an activist group like A.N.S.W.E.R. gets, but it is certainly on par with the level of coverage that similar, lesser known groups get. I've provided a couple of examples above, but there are of course others. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain further? Not a single source, except the "About Us" page at their website, does more than mention the organization a single time. How is that "sufficiently specific"? nableezy - 02:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Isn't in the least degree "prominent" in Boston politics; the only issue upon which these folks were particularly visible was in trying to stop the Roxbury mosque from being built, a task at which they failed.  RGTraynor  07:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That is not accurate. As a former Bostonian, I can attest to their visibility, certainly during the Roxbury mosque affair. Single issue groups are not rare, and notability does not depend on a group's success at achieving its goal. Read Citizens for Rowling as just one example. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:31, 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 no consensus. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles Complete On Ukulele[edit]

The Beatles Complete On Ukulele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Some third-party references, but several of them are non-notable (e.g. Blogspot blogs.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:34, 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) 00:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AWS Heavyweight Championship[edit]

AWS Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third party sources available to help establish notability for the company, let alone the title. Nikki♥311 21:32, 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) 00:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Kozlev[edit]

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

Contested Prod, Fails WP:BIO, unsourced BLP. BigDunc 21:19, 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 CTJF83 chat 21:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Eckersley[edit]

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

Cricketer who played one game for Yorkshire against the RAF. No sources beyond cricket database info. It may be argued that that meets the terms of WP:ATHLETE, but I do not think that one game justifies it. Quantpole (talk) 21:18, 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) 00:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions attributed to British colonials and British Raj in modern India[edit]

Contributions attributed to British colonials and British Raj in modern India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a clear example of original research via synthesis of unrelated news items, essays, opinions etc. The claims for or against the contributions are subjective personal opinions only. Ragib (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry ... Still synthesis and still Original research. :) --Ragib (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • from Contributions attributed to British colonials and British Raj in modern India to
  • Benefits of British Colonial Rule in India to
  • Benefits of British Colonial Rule and Imperialism in India to
  • Contributions of British Colonial Rule and Imperialism in India to
  • Positive byproduct of British Colonial Rule and Imperialism in India.
Clearly these moves have done nothing to make the subject more encyclopedic or less POV, and illustrate the problem with such POV forking from existing articles (Company rule in India and British Raj) that handle the subject well. I could critique the bloated content, improper synthesis, quote mining, inadequate attribution, and use of 19th century primary sources (Karl Marx !) - but even if those issues didn't exist the subject would remain irremediably POV and in need of being deleted. PS: If the consensus of this discussion is to delete, the numerous redirects that have been created recently will need to be deleted too. Abecedare (talk) 03:49, 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Miami School of Business Administration[edit]

University of Miami School of Business Administration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was going through a GA review, Racepacket (talk · contribs) decided that based on the feedback he received, the UM Business School required its own article based on the fact that a chunk of the UM article focused on magazine rankings stating that the UM Business School was #X amongst other business schools. I redirected it back to the main UM a total of 3 times, but Racepacket continues to undo my redirect and say that "[I] should not delete the page, if [I] want it gone [I] should send it to AFD". So here I am.

Of the various references utilized for the article, 11 of them are published by the Business School (located on the Business School's website). Another four are "UM's Business School is #X according to this magazine" references. The other references are two non-trivial mentions in news papers and another is a reference at GradSchools.com to show that you are awarded an MBA by graduating from UM's Business School.

Compared to the other divisions of the University of Miami, I don't find this one any more notable than say the College of Arts & Sciences (the largest at UM), the School of Communication, or the Frost School of Music (which has an article that I have no opinion on, but should probably go too).

All in all, the Business School is just a building on the UM campus that only has a page on Wikipedia because Racepacket has it in his mind that the main University of Miami article must be promoted to GA through any means possible because there is no WikiProject for the University to organize such an endeavor. The forking of content is certainly not necessary, especially when the article reads like an advertisement (the "boosterism" that Racepacket has been saying he is trying to avoid).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:09, 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) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr resonate[edit]

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

non-notable - all "references" are under direct control of article subject; reasonable web searches did not locate appropriate sources Studerby (talk) 21:05, 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 Keep (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 21:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Bliadze[edit]

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

Lacks notability. The provided reference is dead. The only achievement this fellow ever seems to have had was a silver medal at the 1969 FILA Wrestling World Championships. —  Cargoking  talk  20:50, 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 Dark_Sun#Playable_races. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pterran[edit]

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

Overdetailed article on a relatively minor element of a Dungeons & Dragons game. I redirected to Dark_Sun#Playable_races, but the author reverted, so I'm looking for consensus to support the redirect. No sources cited other than a game guide book. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:04, 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 speedy delete. As G11 entirely promotional and A7/ no indication of notability with respect to the relevant guidelines. I've salted several variants. I suggest attention to other edits of this contributor. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Kiki Twins[edit]

The Kiki Twins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was twice deleted previously on csd grounds, once by me and once by another admin as noted here. I explained to the creator that the article's deletion came about as the result of the article being in violation of too many policies to remain on the site, and gave two avenues for its potential recreation here. I made it very clear at the time that the article, if re-uploaded, would qualify for csd deletion again if the reloaded version was not vastly superior to the deleted version. My advice apparently fell on deaf ears, as the reloaded page here is an exact copy of the two previously deleted versions. I am therefore nominating this for deletion on grounds that it fails notability and reliable sourcing guidelines TomStar81 (Talk) 19:13, 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) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning[edit]

Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Journal from World Scientific, started in 2006, but still in no significant index. The article listed Compendex, but I do not find it in their Journal list, [25] and neither does Ulrichs say it is indexed there. I'm checking indexing statements on articles about other journals from this publisher, with their articles added by the same apparent COI editor. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 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 Speedy delete g11, (not-very-well) disguised advertising for one artist's work. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oodle Art[edit]

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

Non- notable neologism. This article reads like an essay concerning a vague new-age-ish theory of art that has not received any notable coverage and seems to be elaborated only by one Mark Broder. This is neither a notable movement nor a notable theory. Lithoderm 18:25, 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) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NoVa Media Watch[edit]

NoVa Media Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe that this is not a notable blog. There are no reliable sources available for this blog. A speedy delete request was refused by an admin with the statement "Slight chance of notability - would prefer taking this to AFD". Request an AfD therefore for lack of even one reliable source supporting notability. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 18:23, 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 merge to Panos Institute. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panos London[edit]

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

Non-governmental organisation with no real notability. I don't see any significant coverage from reliable sources; all sources on the article are unreliable and/or related to the organisation, with the possible exception of the print source and the obvious exception of the BBC source. These, however, don't give significant coverage to Panos London. PROD removed without comment by someone other than the author. Nyttend (talk) 18:22, 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) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Tau Omega[edit]

Zeta Tau Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a local sorority with no sources whatsoever. Organizations that are local in nature are not notable unless their activities are wide in nature or at least reported widely. Accordingly, this article fails the general notability guidelines and organization-specific guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 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) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Pi[edit]

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

Local sorority which fails to demonstrate its notability. There is no evidence of any significance outside the local region, and there is no significant coverage of the organization in secondary sources. Although there are three apparent secondary sources cited, one is a mere directory-style listing of their Sweetest Sin Party, one is the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation home page with no mention of the group, and one is the university policy barring sororities. Accordingly, there is no demonstration of either general notability or specific notability for organizations. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 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 Speedy delete a7, no credible claim of notability, no sources cited that refer to Mr. Elia. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Elia[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Claims of notability (features in Rolling Stone, Spin, Alternative Press and GQ) cannot be verified by searches of those magazines' websites. Probable hoax. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:39, 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.

Shon Brooks[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MouseHunt[edit]

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

Does all Facebook games derserve an article? This game is small, insignificant, and does not meet the general Notability guidelines. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment
Admins, be very careful of this page because they maybe an influx of editors/ips that will oppose the deletion. I know that the gamers may offer incentative (like in game currency) to sway the votes of the community. This has happened in game numerous times to sway the votes of other communities. See: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?xid=mousehunt_contests_2&app_id=10337532241&c_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fmousehunt%252Fboards.php&r_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fmousehunt%252Fboards.php&sig=ddc111322d657e9dbf13dde747f6b19b&topic=5942, which says

This is a pretty simple contest. I am trying to win a grant for a dog rescue and need votes for my dog, Oso. Read all about it here:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?xid=mousehunt_tavern&app_id=10337532241&c_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fmousehunt%252Fboards.php&r_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fmousehunt%252Fboards.php&sig=0e6fc603c9144e75c5c833fb6fb86638&topic=72001&post=1352948#post1352948

Anyway, to drum up more support for the voting, I am starting a contest. So for every 25 votes Oso receives, I will give away 25K in gold. All you have to do is vote, and say you voted on this thread. That's it.

How will I determine a winner? Well, if it is, say, 2 p.m. and he has 50 votes (he already has over 25), the person closest to posting a "I voted" comment will win the 25,000 gold. Simple? Ready? OK, vote here: http://mvp.bissell.com/mvp_PetDetail.aspx?id=8589956282

Thanks for playing and voting!

--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a template for pointing out that AFD debates aren't a straw poll? If you really think it would be an issue, sticking it at the top of the page would be more beneficial than throwing attacks at the community. --Sonic Mew (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Stricken two blocked socks. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 3 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) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do all high-voltage power line towers deserve an article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_crossing_1 . The difference between the article I have provided and the article being lumped together for deletion is that the latter is both more well-known and with a few edits to preserve neutrality, will be as significant as the former.198.166.35.81 (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more than enough significant independent coverage to demonstrate notability. The Star article is dedicated to this one game which it covers in considerable detail, and the Washington Post article also includes significant coverage, in addition to the two TV items.
I would, however, question the author's decision to move the article about the 1997 film MouseHunt to MouseHunt (film) in order to make way for this article. I can see why it makes sense, since the more recent subject may be the one for which more readers search, and it avoids difficult decisions as to what to call the new article (e.g. MouseHunt (game) or MouseHunt (Facebook application) etc), but is the Facebook game more notable than the film, and does it matter whether it is or not? I'm probably being completely irrational here, but moving older articles like this strikes me as a bit like pushing into a queue in front of those who have been there longer. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:54, 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) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devann Yao[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE as it appears he has made no professional appearances The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yao has just signed for Ipswich Town (January 4th 2010), therefore should NOT be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.44.59 (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean 3 February? And no, this doesn't confer notability. He needs to play for the club professionally, per WP:ATHLETE. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 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) 00:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breakin' Down Society EP[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Breakin' Down Society EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is empty; has not been improved after edit tags nearly two years ago; reliable sources are scarce beyond various social networking and blog sites. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:35, 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 (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout! (Ugly Betty)[edit]

Blackout! (Ugly Betty) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's just a plot. It doesn't even summarise the plot. I tried to redirect to a list of episodes but I was reverted and there's nothing to suggest this is "too notable" to go in a list. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:29, 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. harej 20:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian pederasty[edit]

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

Essay by banned user pushing a POV. None of these sources appear to be about "Albanian pederasty", which returns a grand total of one google books hits, which says "Albanians were themsevles convinced pederasts". I strongly doubt something like that that is a reliable source, or NPOV. Pcap ping 15:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the first paragraph there are 5 references. Either it is not possible to see these references online, or there is nothing in them to show pederasty. Please show me ONE reference out of those five to convince me of the validity of these claims. In particular this reference [33] proves that Haiduc, the article writer, and an indefinitely banned user of Wikipedia, has nothing to reference. Out of the 13 references, only one [34] talks about gay sex in 1997 Albania, not pedearasty.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentPlease note that the reference you are bringing is homosexuality, not pederasty. The article writer is a POV pushing with a unique obsession: pederasty, see [36]. Haiduc brings only ONE reference and it is for homosexuality. The whole pederasty thing is a hoax and unsubstantiated. This is a clear example of WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:FORK and WP:Vsulmues (talk)--Sulmues 20:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I inform you that the specific book speaks about pederasty too:

So please, you should read the section before saying that this isn't about pederasty.Alexikoua (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Jayron32: If you read this part of the book (not only the title), like in p. 193 (Plomer reports that ali's son..." you will realize that it speaks about pederasty. Moreover, the source is wp:rs.Alexikoua (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so how is that pederasty and not pedophilia? Again, source says "so and so likes boys" but does not say that that is pederasty. To make the leap from the former statement to the latter claim that this represents pederasty requires a synthesis of ideas. Once you eliminate all cases where the source material does not explicitly use the term pederasty, or describe the practice thereof unambiguously, you have nothing. --Jayron32 20:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that while there have been pederasts in albanian history and there are certainly some albanian pederasts today, there's nothing particularly Albanian about these creeps. They're much like British, or US, or whatever pederasts. This is not a topic like Pederasty in Ancient Greece and this article, as written and conceived, mashes together a whole host of homosexual behavior from the morally acceptable (between consenting adults) to the borderline (adult and a 17-year-old) to the clearly morally reprehensible (basically raping 13-year old kids).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not two trivial mentions, it is half a page, and it is described in detail. The source is high quality, and lots more can be found [38] [39] if you just do a simple search on Google books. Enough at any rate, to establish the subjects notability. Athenean (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's pretty trivial. There's only one mention of the phrase "Albanian pederasty" in the entire book, and it's within the context of "Greek pederasty." It's certainly enough to source it for the sub-section in the parent article, but not for a stand-alone. UnitAnode 18:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worth mention that the most substantial source presented there is a book not about Albanian pederasty, but about Islamic homosexuality, which perhaps suggests that this topic could be mentioned there in addition to my proposed merge to pederasty. Moreschi (talk) 21:39, 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 procedural keep. (NAC) Swarm(Talk) 06:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W. John Walsh[edit]

AfDs for this article:
W. John Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Violates WP:ONEEVENT there were claims that he was notable as per WP:AUTHOR but nothing has been found to support this claims. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok there was a discussion that resulted in no consensus. Notability was claimed but other then 2 sources and never proved notability on anything other then his comment on one event.. How would bringing it to Deletion review have any difference. The article will be debated there or here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Especially not when there wasn't one to begin with....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, it would help to wait long enough that there is some chance of forming a clear consensus. I usually advise 2 or 3 weeks regardless of what I think of the article--and please don't assume I want to keep this one--the resulting discussion is better than if we proceeded immediately. That's the difference between a no-consensus and a relist. If an immediate followup would solve things by getting more participation, relist is the way to go. If it would be better to let opinion mature, give people a chance to reconsider, and then start the discussion from scratch, it needs some time to happen. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 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) 00:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pederastic couples in Japan[edit]

Pederastic couples in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Synthesis by banned user pushing a POV. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic relationships (3rd nomination). Practically identical to that article in scope and structure, except limited to Japan. Pcap ping 14:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete personal essay that distorts sources and stretches the definition of "pedarastic couple" to include all sorts of things that don't belong, in an apparent effort to make pedophilia appear more acceptable.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's what I think to be the best course of action, in the hope the other article is not deleted. --Cyclopiatalk 15:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I am afraid not...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Guido[edit]

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

Unref'd bio created in July 07 by a contributor with no other edits. Article attempts to make claims of notability, but nothing of note comes up via Google. No incomming links and nothing to indicate this person is, infact, notable. Lugnuts (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! Happy to withdraw this now. Lugnuts (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, in this case it wasn't an unreasonable proposal for deletion prima facie (added subsequently: - "and very scant content" - but after all, this was a stub inviting expansion Opbeith (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)), but some of these fire-fighting exercises are infuriating. I can't see that the existence of latent articles does any real harm - they're there ready for someone to follow up when they come looking - and responding to impending deletion often means putting other important things on hold. Marcello Guido's architecture is worth the article, though not really worth the distraction - architects will survive without attention and the information hadn't been adequately assembled. However other proposals for deletions that people end up battling to save such as articles about massacres with a significance in international criminal law supported with information but lacking adequate referencing are appalling. Opbeith (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said it wasn't an unreasonable proposal for deletion prima facie because there weren't any deccent references. So I provided some. The bloke's Regional President of the national architects' association - confirmed at the association's website; the Dedalo Minosse Special Prize he was awarded is featured at the Dedalo Minosse Prize website; the Wikipedia Dedalo Minosse Prize article describes how prizes are awarded "by a jury that includes internationally-renowned architects, writers, art historians, journalists, industry executives, and planning officials." Independent enough? reliable enough? OK, he's not Brunelleschi, so go on, then, delete. Every time I come back and have a look at AfD I end up wanting to roll over and die at the determination of some people to find reasons for deleting human knowledge from one place. I have other articles I want to spend my time on, but Guido warrants his rather than deletion. Right, I'll go back to a few more notable Dungeon and Dragon characters or Pikachu, pointless wasting time trying to reinforce serious articles when I know what Wikipedia rules prefer. Opbeith (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please believe me when I say that I far prefer articles about notable architects over Dungeons and Dragons characters, and the fact that I found a lot more reliable sources mentioning Guido than anyone else has done shows that I have approached this discussion in good faith, but I still don't see anything that makes me consider him to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the first one of your references I read - [2] - the InArch Lazio lecture by Alessandra Muntoni includes him along with the likes of Frank Gehry and Daniel Liebeskind. What am I missing? Opbeith (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not contagious - just being mentioned in the same sentence as someone who is undeniably notable doesn't in itself demonstrate notability. I'm perfectly willing to change my mind on this issue if you can produce any independent reliable sources that have a few paragraphs about Marcello Guido. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While you were adding that I was just looking at another of your references - [3] is all about Guido's Piazza Toscana project and refers to how Bruno Zevi was proposing to publish some pictures of the Piazza Toscana project in the journal he was in charge of even while it was still under construction, which the author of the article Cesare de Sessa of Univ. of Naples Faculty of Architecture described in the article as "Fatto del tutto eccezionale, nel circa mezzo secolo di vita della rivista." - something quite exceptional in the fifty years' existence of the journal. De Sessa then goes on to compare the architectural dynamism of Guido's project with the corkscrew lantern of the dome of Borromini's Sant'Ivo alla Sapienza. There's something in Wikipedia rules somewhere which I can't remember that says you don't have to dot the i's and cross the t's, a bit of brain can be assumed in the reader (I confess I added the last bit) - but there's no need to when it's already there. And for heaven's sake look at the work. I don't say instead of anything else, but look at the whole picture.Opbeith (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the interview in the presSTletter newsletter at [56] Luigi Prestinenza Puglisi asks Franco Porto, President of the Sicily Regional Section of InArch, which living Italian architect would he choose to build his house - guess who he picks (for the way the contemporary language he uses allow both creativity and an awareness of history to express themselves)?[57] When asked which international architect he picks Richard Rogers, so whether you choose to respect or challenge his judgment he's not just flicking through the Yellow Pages. Why on earth are we semi-informed amateurs chewing over this? Why doesn't Wikipedia have a review system so that people with some expertise and familiarity with the subject area are the first point of referral when a deletion request is supported on grounds of lack of notability? Crazy. It would save so much time and effort.Opbeith (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article / discussion offers an example of how dangerous the very frequent practice of using basic search engine results as a guide is, particularly but not only with reference to non-Anglophone sources. Opbeith (talk) 13:06, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Baines[edit]

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

Notability concerns Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could be abit more specific and say exactly why this person isn't notable? I see you have listed some other AfD's lately - it would help if you could link to policy/guidance for each case. Happy editing! Lugnuts (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrase: I do not believe that this person shows any evidence that they are notable enough to be on Wikipedia. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:35, 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) 08:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of office bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia[edit]

List of office bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the general notability guideline. I have made a good faith search for sources, and can only find sources for the current OBs, and this is not from an independent source. A list of current OBs may be notable, but this is already in the article National Union of Students (Australia).  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:43, 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. (NAC) Swarm(Talk) 06:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Asplen[edit]

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

I'm not convinced he is notable enough for an article. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:35, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Arrowsmith[edit]

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

British slalom canoer who finished 17th in the C-2 event during the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:33, 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. (NAC) Swarm(Talk) 06:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Armold[edit]

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

Author of a number of somewhat obscure books. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:26, 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) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Archer[edit]

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

Executive of a subsidiary of Activision... is this notable enough? I would not have thought so. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:23, 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Appelgren[edit]

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

While the record label he was head of is notable, I'm not certain we need an article about him. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even better! Good work. Lugnuts (talk) 14:32, 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) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basappa A. Uralegaddi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    B. A. Uralegaddi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article doesnt have sufficient facts for notability DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 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 speedy keep. Nominator has changed their position to the subject being notable, no outstanding delete arguments —SpacemanSpiff 22:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Harish Gaonkar[edit]

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

    Gaonkar is wiki notable. This I realized now after going through these discussions. Lots of things are confusing on wiki. It does not say that Butterfly expert is wiki notable like all politicians are wiki notable. Sorry for the inconvinience.

    DoNotTellDoNotAsk (--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC) ) --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a case for improving the article, not deleting it. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. Almost the only current expert who has done a proper survey on Indian butterflies. AshLin (talk) 05:33, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Human Factors Lab[edit]

    Human Factors Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    non-notable/non-reputable sources and coverage BringThemDown (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)— BringThemDown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    1.Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.,The band has had articles and interview in many national and regional publications including looker magazine, rag magazine, City Link,new times, ect.[89]
    4.Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.-They have toured the U.S. 7 times, their 2 most recent tours with Mushroomhead received extensive amounts of press, a quick google search can show some for the pages such as MTV[90], and Blabbermouth[91] that covered the tours.
    5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).Toxic Shock records[92] is a notable indie label. HFLs label mates include psychotica, and Team Cybergiest featuring Angel from Dope
    6.Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.-The band is led only by one person and features rotating live members Seven has also worked closely with other bands such as Crossbreed, and 16VOLT. They also release a remix album with remixes by Crossbreed, 16VOLT,KMFDM, BILE, Team cybergiest, as well as many other national " notable" bands.
    11.Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.-Human Factors Lab has regular radio play national, as well as varies podcasts such as razorblade dance floor,
    I think it is safe to that that although Human Factors Lab does not meet ALL 12 of the criteria, (to be notable they only have to meet one,)they do in fact meet 5 right off the bat). Statements made by Elblots and Smerdis of Tlön are indeed false by saying the band does not meet the notability guidlines, Perhaps more research before makeing such statements would have helped —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 18:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject of the MTV and Blabbermouth articles is Mushroomhead, not Human Factors Lab. Human Factors Lab is named but not discussed; this is only incidental coverage. Toxic Shock Records may be a notable label, but there's no evidence that it is. The question of its WP:notability is moot because it has no WP article. However, the only other of its bands to have a WP article doesn't seem notable, either. The Rag interview does help establish notability, even though members are as noncommittal as an NSA spokesman when talking about the band. As to the rest, you must produce reliable sources that support what you say. Certainly no one else is going to Google "seven" hoping to confirm what you've said. I think too it's fair to ask, is User:HFLSev3n this "seven" of Human Factors Lab? Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Subject of the MTV and Blabbermouth articles are in response to the #4 of the 12 guidelines set forth by wikipedia.the band " Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country"
    Mushroomhead was in the fact the headliner of these tours, Human Factors Lab(toxic Shock Records) and Autumn Offering(Victory records) were also apart of the same tour.In addition to Toxic Shock, Human Factors Lab also works with Viabrent Management[93] yes HFLSEV3N is seven from Human Factors Lab, and has been signed on every post made. I think i have just as much right to defend my position in this debate as any one else, And i am trying to do so in a way that is not only fair to Human Factors Lab, but fair to Wiki as well. i DONT use wiki veyr much, until recently i have not been involved in the cration of upkeep of the bands wiki site so perhaps there is information that could be added to help end this debate. as you can see i am not the only one voting for Keeping the page, and also not the only one wanting to delete it. I do feel that the decision should be a fair one. The nomination itself seems like it is not fair, since it was done as an act of vandalism in an attempt to " bringthemdown" them refering to Human Factors Lab" I dont feel that this debate was started with the best interest of Wiki in mind, but instead with malicious intentions. please understand my involvement in this debate is simple to point that out, as well as make sure it remains a fair debate. I truly believe that Human Factors Lab meets the notalibity guidlines for wiki, maybe they are not as well represented as they could be. I am trying to show that the evidence is there that they do meet them. even if its only meeting one of the 12, or 5 of the 12. I guess that is for us all to figure out —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Trivial coverage is i.e. "they're touring with Mushroomhead" or "they're playing tonight at Goths-R-Us", even if it's in Rolling Stone. This band was not discussed at all in the MTV or Blabbermouth articles, but only mentioned incidentally as a detail of Mushroomhead's tour. That's trivial coverage, and you won't get much traction trying to argue otherwise. If the author had nothing substantive to say about the band itself, its music, or its members, then the coverage is trivial.
    Whether the nomination was "fair" is irrelevant. All that matters is, are there reliable sources that demonstrate that this band is notable as WP defines that term. Nor does it matter how many say 'yea' and how many 'nay'. This is not a vote. An unseen wiki-immortal will decide the matter wiki-wisely based on the substance of our arguments. Unsubstantiated rhetoric isn't helpful; without reliable sources to back it up, it's just so much hot air. Given that, you're well-advised to focus your effort on producing some of those "hundreds of printed reviews and articles" instead of arguing with your friends. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    i understand what you;re saying, I wasnt clear on exacly what was mean by " trivial". Thank you for clearing that up. I guess i don't fully agree with the defenition, i understand that the guideline these 12 guidelines in place to determine wheather a band is Notable. The facts are that Human Factors Lab has toured the U.S. 7 times, performed with varies other national acts. our music is nationally distributed and avilable on iTunes/Amazon ect. these are things that your average "local band" has not and cannot do. The fact that the MTV and blabbermouth as well as a bout 50 other articles in the google search have us listed as part of the mushroomhead tour should be cause to not delte the page on its own in my opinion. we have performed in every state but 3, multi times,to crowds ranging between 500 and 8,000 people. We are on national radio, have national distro, and have received press as well. again things your average " local band" has not done. Im not here to say " oh we are so kool" just because its my band. I am simply saying it seems strange that the page would be deleted. I think the fact that the page was nominated as a result of vandalism should be taken into consideration as well. because its not like anyone in this debate thought to delete HFL because it didnt meet the guidelines. it was a purley a malicious attack. As far as arguing with " friends" that is not my intention.. i dont even know anyone else involved in this debate, it seems half of them are posting just using their IP address anyways. I am trying to simply state a case for not delting the page, based off of the facts involved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.152.6 (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As you are in the band itself, you are of course going to see yourself as valid. That aside, without a single valid citation, you have actually fulfilled 0 of the 12 guidelines. 65.2.198.190 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles that the band appears in are a mixture of Regional( or as stated "local") articles as well as national. The Looker Magazine article linked earlier is in fact a globally distributed release. The band has had a lot of regional press, but has done so on a national level. there have been printed articles and interview in college magazine or local music magazines, but these have been done on a national level. not just to the local area in which the band resides. in regards to the label, yes it is small in the sense of only haviing 9 bands. But the 2 bands listed above, Psychotica, and Team Cybergiest on their own are very notable. Psychotica was a part of the lalapolooza tours ,as well as a few tour with Tool, and have a number of national and global released and distributed albums . So your claim about the labels and the bands is simply an assumption you made having little or no knowledge of the subject, and not researching the topic before making the statement.. its completly false.
    bands members working with notable acts, as stated Seven has worked with both 16VOLT, and CROSSBREED. these bands ALSO did remixes but his work with theses bands was independant of Human Factors Lab
    The mentions on blabbermouth and MTV were simply examples. if internet sources are not valid there are just as many if not more print sources available,what citations ad valid links are needed? perhaps they could be added. You say no notable print reviews, as stated the band has had hundreds of printed reviews and articles, what to you is " notable" ? the looker magazine article didnt seem to be notable enough for you, and that has global distro. . The band is NOT using Wiki for self promotion, the band was not involved in the creation of the wiki site ,ad has had very little to do with it at all until the past 6 months, these edit over the past 6 months were only to update and have more acurate information, as well as to undo the many vandalism attacks that have taken place by EX members —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the future, please sign your edits with four tildes (~~~~), HFLSev3n, so that it's clear who is saying what. If the "Fetish Chic Cheat Sheet" is the Looker magazine content that you're speaking of, then I don't understand how it's relevant to this band. Perhaps you can explain. If there are "hundreds of printed reviews and articles," then cite a few. In any case, please stop fighting with your mates and address yourself to the issues instead. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The point still stands that the label is by far not major, nor notable in any way. Working on a remix for a band does NOT make them a member of the groups, and thus the original statement stands.
    There are no links to support any of the claims being made. One un-cited publication does not make you valid by any means. College and local papers are also not notable.
    This debate is being held by the band singer himself as is observed by the username, which is a conflict of interest, and has been the main updater of it for a while now, so the statement about how he has had little involvement is also false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say that the label is not notable. What I said was, the notability of the label is undecided because there has never been reason to consider the question. Please don't misrepresent what I've said. The identity of HFLSev3n is only relevant to evaluating what s/he said about Sev3n's role in this band and his/her relationship to other notable bands, and then just barely relevant because what s/he said must still be supported with reliable sources to carry weight in this discussion. But then, so do yours. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have been a major part of this debate, but im not sure how that is a conflict of interest, please explain? Are you saying to do not have a place in this debate? i feel that i have offered fair and factual evidence and examples of why the page should not be deleted.
    I stated before that i did not crate the wiki page, and up until the last 6 months, i have not been involved in the editing, this fact can be seen by viewing the dit history. Most of my edits have been a combination of undoing vandalism, as well as updating the page to current and correct information. As far as my involvement with 16VOLT and CROSSBREED i stated that i worked with both bands OUTSIDE of Human Factors Lab in addition to their remix work they did for HFL. I was part of the 16VOLT Denial HWY tour 2008 filling a number of roles, including live guitars, live keyboards, [[94]] Also worked in the studio with crossbreed on their New Slave Nation EP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Touring as a fill in member of a band isn't exactly notable. As for the involvement in/with other groups, even if those were in fact valid, there is no proof/citations on the matter. 65.2.198.190 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Nature of 16volt, as well as many bands in the industrial rock or Industrial metal genres is that they are often led by one main person, and in a touring situation there are varies live touring members. examples of this would be NIN, KMFDM, Ministry, ect. Eric Powel is the driving force behind 16volt and the people he chose to fill the live positions were chosen because each of them held a degree of notability among the fans of Industrial Music. Steve white(KMFDM), MIke Peoples(daniel Ash band) , Jason baznet(CHEMLAB) and Seven(Human Factors Lab) Im not sure why you would say " even if those were in fact valid" i included a link to the 16volt site. but you can also check ANY press release made in regards to the 16VOLT denial HWY tour and you will find the same information i am providing you with here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific than that (please see WP:ATA). Exactly which criterion do they meet and how? TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also - As KMFDM is inarguably a "notable" artist, Wiki's own page for KMFDM's discography references the band... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMFDM_discography - This "bringthemdown" stuff is obvious for what it is. No, I am not a member of this band, and a quick internet search provided the KMFDM discography page - I believe that alone is enough to satisfy wiki's notability guidelines. Whoever is putting so much effort into removing this band's page would probably be better served focusing their efforts elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.93.33 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Who here even implied that KMFDM isn't notable?! And what could that possibly have to do with whether or not Human Factors Lab is notable? They got paid to do a remix; that doesn't make the other band notable, it just shows they (or their label) have the money to pay KMFDM to do a remix. TheJazzDalek (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    by implying that Human Factors Lab is not notable you are also implying that KMFDM, as well as just about every band on wiki is not " notable" you are also implying that KMFDM will do a remix for any band out there with money,making them musical whores.. this is also VERY far from the truth. the reason KMFDM did the remix for Human Factors Lab is because they share a lot of the same fans. Also note that Human Factors Lab and KMFDM also work with Viabrent Management, Also Steve white from KMFDM plays guitar for 16VOLT, Sev3n from Human Factors Lab also worked with 16VOLT.. This shows that they are in the same musical circles, playing a lot of the same venues, sharing a lot of the same fans. KMFDM is OBVIOUSLY a MUCH bigger band, but this doesnt mean that Human Factors Lab is NOT Notable.. This entire descussion was started as a personal ATTACK against the band and holds no merrit at all. actions like this WILL AND ARE destroying wikipedia. No one will donate to this site, or even want to come to this site.. the site itself will start be known as a joke and not a reliable source of information if vandalism like this is so easliy accepted and allowed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.152.6 (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the statement about how the bands large fan base relies on wikipedia for news and updates, that is NOT the purpose if wikipedia. Things such as that are left for a bands personal web site..which.. incidentally, this band has none (dead link).
    personal vendetta or not, the point is still that this group is unable to provide an ounce of credible truth that they are in fact notable for the site.
    resorting to attacking wikipedia with threats of "No one will donate if this continues" only shows an unprofessional approach on the matter. The mods have been simply asking for reference points, and the group has none to show. All they seem to have are words, and not facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC) — 65.2.198.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    This band has it's own we site. A who is search shows they have had it since 2000. The website has also fallen under attack,that's why it's a dead link. People have provided links to show the notabllity of the band. Saying "havnt provided one link" is true. More than one have been given. I think the comments about no I e coming to wiki are true. It's not a threat. It's an observation on how actions like this in recent months is making people unhappy with wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.128.216.12 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks more to me like there are three distinct camps. Two of those camps appear to be newcomers to Wikipedia: fans and/or members of the band who want the article kept, and the "enemies" of the band who want the article deleted. The third camp is actual Wikipedians (I make that to be Ihcoyc, Nick, Yappy2bhere, and me) who are judging the article's notability on its own merits (including its references, or lack thereof), not how much we like (or dislike) the band. Being new to Wikipedia, to be sure, does not invalidate the newcomers' opinions; and if even one of them gets interested in Wikipedia from their experience here (good or bad) and comes on board to edit articles and help improve the project this mess will all be worth it. However, I strongly recommend that anyone new to Wikipedia and the AFD process first read this and then carefully read this to better understand what we're talking about when we say things about "notability" and the like, and to better keep their arguments focused in a productive direction. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was already pointed out that the subject of the MTV and Blabbermouth (which, is a blog supported by user supported data, and thus not a true valid third party source of information) were about mushroomhead and NOT Human Factors Lab. They are simply named and not discussed, and thus incidental and does not fit the requirement. Buying on to a tour does not make a band notable, the same as paying a band to do a remix for you..regardless of a shared genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There were opionions about the MTV and blabbermouth articles and counter opnions given as well. I belive they DO hold merrit. As far as buying onto tours and paying for remixes you are assuming that the only reason hfl was on these tours is because they paid. That is a false assumption. They were chosen because they were notable for the tour. Wheather they paid a buy on fee(which all bands do,including mushroom when they bought onto ozfest and mayhem fest),is irrelivant. It's part how the music industry works. Not EVERY band can have KMFDM and other bands do remixes. And not EVER band can tour with mushroomhead and be mentioned on MTV or blabbermouth. HFL did these things because they ARE notable. NOT because they have money. The state of the music industry these days I'd be shocked if they even had money —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.128.146.49 (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Both the MTV and Blabbermouth articles only mention Human Factors Lab name ONCE, and each time just listing them as being on the tours. Not a single sentence is written that talks about them in any other way. Seeing how they were also a buy-on opening band and not a co-headliner also shows they are under qualified to meet the notability for this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.42.91 (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They were NOT a buy on opening band for the tours,and there was no co-Headliner. Mushroomhead was the only headliner and autumn offer and human factors lab were both part of the tour package with different opening bands every night. According to the wiki guidlines human factors lab was on a tour that received national press. This meets the notability guidlines set by wiki. As do many other examples given in this debate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.128.250.70 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As the tour was not advertised as Mushroomhead and Human Factors lab (it was simply a Mushroomhead tour), the band was in fact just an opener. Side note: Web logs (such as blabbermouth and the MTV article which is a blog) are typically not viable sources of information. The band remains highly non qualified and incredibly unreferenced. To reinstate would give many other groups ground to re-add themselves as well using this article as an example. From what I understand, the guidelines are tight for a reason. The wikipedia moderators themselves have asked for SPECIFIC references and answers directly, and they are typically dodged as no support for the claims can be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.42.91 (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also to note is that Human Factors Lab is listed LAST in the list of bands that were on tour with them, which if that doesn't make them simply a buy-on opener, it proves they got no coverage on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The order of their listing has NOTHING to do with how notable they are.They order they performed also changed every night as well. Some nights they were the first band on.. somenight they went on right before the headliner. all the support bands were of upcoming equal national standing, with mushroomhead being the bigger, headlining band That statement just like EVERY statement you have made on here is simply to say " im not listing to you" as someone else pointed out. even though i disagree with some statements made by the logged in users as least can respect the fact that they give valid reasons for disagreeing and present it in a constructive manner. Its obvious you just have personal reasons for wanting the bands page taken down that have nothing to do with if they are notable or not. no matter what anyone says you either ignore it, or just say "no it isnt" human factors lab was NOT just a buy on band. There are ALWAYS expenses associated with tours as someone pointed out, its not like any band can walk in with bundle of cash and suddenly except to get on a national tour. it doesnt work that way. Bands are considered for tour the same way they are considered for Wiki. Who ever is putting the tour together looks at a list of criteria to see if the band should be on the tour. Examples=does the band have a simular fan base as the headliner, do they have a large enough fan base to contribute to overall ticket sales by being on the tour, do they have national radio/video play, do they have nation distro. This is why the press from the tour, and the tour itself is important in this conversation,and show that Human Factors Lab is in fact a notable band. if you had some local garage band, and a stack of cash you would NOT just be able to get on a tour like this? make sense? also here are some link to back up what i am saying about how the order of the names doesnt mean anything its just however the person writing the article felt like putting them. these thinks show Human Factors Lab in multiple cities being listed in all different spots. [95],[96], [97], [98] —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 06:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice try. 3 of those articles simply list the bands in alphabetical order, and the 4th one simply mentions the band as an opener. The blabbermouth and MTV articles went out of the way to list Human Factors Lab last. Also, buying on to tour is a very common practice. Buying on to a smaller tour (say as in Mushroomhead in comparison to a band like nine inch nails for example) really is only about money. If the buy-in had any merit, it would be called "Mushroomhead - With special guests (or featuring) Human factors lab". Your band was barely even a footnote in every single article. As stated several times, provide some actual notability, its been over 3 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.42.91 (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    True as that may or may not be, that still doesn't validate them for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.42.91 (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad Faith or not, they are being shown to be invalid for the site. The original nomination may have in fact been done maliciously, but should the band get a "Free pass" that allows them to remain on here even tho they do not meet the criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave no weight to the SPA nomination, but evaluated the article as I saw it. No that there are acceptable "delete" !votes, "Speedy keep" is not an option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know and completely agree. However I do think you're using the term "!votes" rather loosely. Swarm(Talk)
    Actually, Only a few people have tried to say they are valid, but the MODERATORS keep confirming that they aren't. Read the history above, all I see are the mods continuing to say the band has not provided valid sources of notability. The main defensive posters here all share the same bad spelling, and one is from a mobile phone IP address. Also as said above, If you wish to defend yourself with any merit, it would be wise to REGISTER an account and post as yourself instead of one person on various IPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviews of HFL albums Pap3r and PLASTIK, and an intervew with HFL. Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would like to point out that both articles are hosted on the same site. The site itself is sketchy. Hosted on a free server (doesn't even have its own domain) as listed on its main page, and run by a single user. A pretty far stretch for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic we should entirely disregard your statements here ("doesn't even have its own [user account]"). Fabryka may well the work of a single user, but it does have a ten year history reporting on its chosen genre [101]. It's up to each editor to decide how these two references contribute to notability, but to characterize Fabryka as "sketchy" is unfounded. Tell us, which genre-specific publications could establish the notability of this band? You've said that Fabryka isn't relevant, but what then is industrial rock's Rolling Stone? Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't you say yesterday that "[i]f you wish to defend yourself with any merit, it would be wise to REGISTER an account and post as yourself instead of one person on various IPs." [102] Have you changed your opinion, or do your own views as an IP lack merit? Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern with the nomination is that anonymous users usually don't make their first and only contributions to Wikipedia by listing an AfD. Bad faith nominations (any nomination made with malicious intent) can (and should, in my opinion) be speedily closed. However, this is an exceptional circumstance since the bad faith deletion attempt is validated by deletion policy. I'm not saying it's a bad nomination in itself. I don't think it would make sense to close the discussion at all, now. However, I don't like to see blatantly bad faith actions supported on Wikipedia. Not really a big deal, that was just a side opinion I threw in, and I still cast my opinion in the discussion in favor of deletion. Swarm(Talk) 00:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Print and web - http://www.zillo.de/index_original.html , http://www.musicmaniac.de/tin/magazines.html , http://www.regenmag.com/ , http://www.side-line.com/ , http://www.movinghands.net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there some reason a regional publication can't be a reliable source? The R.A.G. interview[103], which you've overlooked or ignored, is a good step toward notability, but in my opinion one such is not enough. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they can be, but lots are kindof fly-by-night publlications, and (living in the general area) Rag is one of those types. There just isn't enough journalistic integrity to lend credence to that being a major mention. However, that being said...if he has 'hundreds', why is that all we get? Surely in those masses there must be something that many of us have heard of. Maybe even something that's a little less regional- ie, something statewide as opposed to just one small area. Really, that's what I'm looking for. Some kind of recognition. And if you don't have it, that's fine- but can he please be honest about it? GraceEgg (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't even a single comment made on the bands OFFICIAL MYSPACE post to show support over this bands notability. Their large fanbase must all be on vacation or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.42.91 (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to say that although its appreciated (As I am a representative of Deadstar Assembly), this is not a debate over that group or band. Please allow this page to be about Human Factors Lab, as its already a huge debate and I'd rather keep it easier for them to state their claims without too much clutter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I'm just stating that by comparison Deadstar has more credibility. I'm all for the deletion of the HFL page. 65.3.128.41 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC) HB[reply]
    Please don't toss in facts and figures without citing sources to support what you say. Paid advertisement doesn't contribute to notability. Popularity can be a factor, but in this case I think its the difference between a few fans vs a few more. Each article is judged on its own merits; it's irrelevant to this discussion that there is no Deadstar Assembly article. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting ridiculous...at this point, the band could post a full page article from Rolling Stone and you'd all STILL find a way to downplay that... Every SINGLE link that's been posted, when really only one is necesarry, gets attacked for its "notability"...I lived in South Florida for most of my life, and while I was there, Rag magazine was THE music magazine to go to for any information about artists, shows, and everything music industry in South Florida- Just because you disagree doesn't make it any less true. So it's Regional - So are newspapers, radio stations, etc. You've gone from disputing the band's notability to attacking the notability on each individual article or piece of evidence. You're asking for proof, people are providing it, and you reply with "that's not good enough, and this is why" every single time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.93.33 (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the links were in fact notable and unquestionable, there would be no room for debate. The moderators themselves have pointed out many times now what they are looking for. If there were in fact HUNDREDS of articles written about the band, one with more notability shouldn't be so hard to find. Only posting one source shows that the group in fact has little coverage and as such, do not belong on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, if this band can come up with something that meets the Wiki requirements, I'll be first in line to change my vote. But I think we all understand that being mentioned once in passing does not qualify as 'notable', especially when the main defender and lead singer of the band can't even correctly spell the name of someone who he's supposedly friends with and is the lead singer of the 'notable' band he's been in (which has already been proven to be untrue by a previous poster). And (to keep this a short rebuttal), Rag used to be locally pertinent. Not so much anymore. We're just saying that if there is question about its notability (which there is), give us something better! If I'm shown bigger proof about this band's qualifications to be here, then I'll gladly change my tune. But even people like me, completely outside the situation, can't find anything reputable online about this band! Maybe you can find something for us that will keep them here? Please, show me something concrete! And the mods are the ones who ultimately decide, so maybe instead of attacking people on here, you should spend some time digging up evidence for the mods so this band can stay here. Our comments don't mean much, but their opinion rules the day. GraceEgg (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact remains that the HUNDREDS of articles written about the band don't exist except for probably in their own minds. Also anybody with enough money to throw around can tour with "notable" bands. If this band were as big as they claim they wouldn't have to name drop as much as they do. They would be able to stand on their own accomplishments. Not ride on the coat tails of bands that actually do something. 65.3.128.41 (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC) HB[reply]
    Of the references you added, [1], [3], [4], [6], [7], and [8] appear to be trivial coverage of performance dates, and [5] is the Broward/Palm Beach New Times article I listed above, but what please is said in reference [2]? (And of course, please correct me if I've misrepresented the other references.) I don't agree that element 5 of WP:BAND is satisfied, though, because I think the label needs more than a two notable performers before it can be "one of the more important indie labels." Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Six and eight were already part of the article; eight is the label by the way. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune [2] is incidental; it's just a citation on the award nominee point. The refs I added addressed ((fact)) tags placed in the article, e.g. [1] sourced their first live performance being at South Florida's "Culture Room" club. –Whitehorse1 22:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of sources they are mentioned in are incidental. The Rag and Fabryka being the only exceptions. R.A.G. magazine, however has no valid reference link. Yes theres a magazine scan, but I was under the impression that in order for a link to be notable it needed to be referenced by a third party and not the band itself. The linked images are on the bands own myspace, and thus not a secondary source in my opinion. Photoshop is a wonderful thing, afterall. (not saying this is the case here, but putting it as an example).
    Dean guitars lists every artist they endorse, regardless of their significance, on a spotlighted page. http://www.deanguitars.com/home.php Does this automatically mean that if a group is endorsed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.229.112 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple exceptions in other words. No, there's no need to provide online links to newspaper or other secondary sources according to the Verifiability policy. Thank you for the clarification about Dean guitars; their endorsement criteria in no way affect validity of the remainder of my points. –Whitehorse1 23:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads-up w/the periods in RAG. A search on that brought their site up. Their issue archive lets anyone verify the interview in the (June '08) issue. –Whitehorse1 00:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have also spoken, in passing, to several other artists on the Toxic Shock label, and they have mentioned that the owner is considering dropping HFL over 'undisclosed legal issues'. So it may be that the label thing is moot regardless. Just wanted to add that in. GraceEgg (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, though it's basically hearsay, so we wouldn't be able to factor it into any decision. –Whitehorse1 22:17, 11 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. Guidelines are just that and local wikiprojects do not get to overrule project consensus. Destinations pages are for convienience when the main article is getting too big but the consensus here is that this hasnt reached thzt point yet. No convincing case for keeping this as a standalone has been made that overpowers arguments based on gng and WP:NOT. Therefore this falls for deletion as there is no need to mege material back. Note that recreation is specifically permitted when the main article expands beyond acdetpable length (we have a MOS on that) or where the number of destinations expands to the point that they overpower the article Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Porter Airlines destinations[edit]

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

    This page is a simple content fork of Porter Airlines. I propose merging the content back into the Porter Airlines article. This was the case before and it was done because a complete duplication of the information of the destinations of this airline was in both articles. ʘ alaney2k • talkʘ 03:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - What also is a weak reasoning is "They will run out of fleet". That's placing too much importance on conjecture and PoV - totally against the basic principles applied here. Jasepl (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - No conjecture, just very obvious. They have two planes to arrive, so how many destinations can they add in the short-term with two planes? It's not a big airline, people. ʘ alaney2k • talkʘ 21:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - So you're for deleting this. Are you also for or against the original proposal of merging the information back into the main article? Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My recommendation is for deletion of this article as it is simply a directory. Inclusion of the destinations covered may be possible in an encyclopedic manner (see my comments below) but let's focus on this article for now. I42 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Being pedantic, but there were four "Keep" and three "Delete" for the Montenegro deletion nomination. Hardly conclusive in either direction. Jasepl (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not (or should not be) a mere count of votes. My assertion is that keep rationales based purely on WP:AIRLINES should be discounted because that policy cannot trump WP:NOTADIRECTORY. The AfD was closed as merge, so this was presumably the closing admin's view too. I42 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is not a directory in any sense, it's just like any other airline destinations! Zaps93 (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it's a directory. It's a listing of places I may go to with that airline. And it doubly fails inclusion criteria as a travel guide. This is an encyclopedia: information about an airline's history and importance is encyclopedic; notable events leading to a route being included is encyclopdic; a mere directory of served destinations is not. I42 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While that may be a valid point, it is a much larger discussion. I don't think the AfD of a fledgling, insignificant (in the grand scheme of things) little airline is the place to be discussing this. Jasepl (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This, like all the keep rationales, is based entirely on the WP:AIRLINES guideline. But that is only a guideline, not a policy - and WP:NOTADIRECTORY (which is policy) must take precedence. Other articles have no bearing on this discussion. I42 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only occasionally seen the WP:ONLYGUIDELINE argument used to delete articles. Wikipedia is also not a system of laws (which by the way is a policy). Guidelines are established by WP:CONSENSUS (another policy) and heavy community input as to how to treat certain subjects and situations. I'd prefer to avoid Wikilawyering, having meta discussions on guidelines-vs-policies and not have to conjure up contradicting policies and guidelines in an AfD debate.--Oakshade (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely agree. This AfD is indeed helping form consensus. Depending on the outcome I think we should review either WP:AIRLINES or WP:NOTADIRECTORY to fit. I42 (talk) 19:58, 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) 08:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IEEE JMI[edit]

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

    While the IEEE is certainly notable, individual branches are not. No other article on an individual branch of the IEEE exists, and no sources can be found to indicate that this particular branch is in any way more notable than any other branch. All references in the article are from the group's own website. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Following comment transcluded from talk page:[reply]

    I respect your opinions and i do agree that IEEE is notable. But i do not agree that the individual branches are not notable. It is these Branches that together make up the IEEE. There are more than 80,000 student members all over the world.
    No where in the article is it written that IEEE JMI is more notable than the other branches and if other branches do not have a page on Wikipedia then it does not imply that those branches are less notable then the one in question. Each and every Society of IEEE makes it to Wikipedia, then why not the individual Branches??
    Another thing, there are hundreds of Branches of IEEE. IEEE cant have individual information of each and every branch on its site. At max what you can find is the name of the Branch and a link to its homepage! If you are looking for some additional information then please specify and i'll try my best to get those to you. Here are some more additional links which may help you, if you want to take a look at them.
    • [104] IEEE Delhi Section
    • [105] List of Branches of R-10 Region
    Yours Sincerely
    fzhaque

    end transclusion


    Reply Mr. WikiDan61, I ask you, Are you a member of IEEE? Do you know what the IEEE Student Branches are doing?? Especially what the JMI branch is doing in Delhi Region and at the Asia-Pacific Level? Often many things are not available on the internet and you just cant ridicule these things because of lack of information in the virtual world. I guess you will have to come to New Delhi and see for yourself what all work is going on here......

    IEEE does not provide the information on its site because it directly gives you the link of the official website of the Student Branch. And IEEE knows that the information available there is 100% correct. And if you want to know about the Notable Contributions which IEEE JMI has made and which makes it a little different from the rest of the Branches in Delhi or for that matter in India, I suggest you take time out of your busy schedule to take a look at the various reports and news items on the Official Website!! fzhaque --Fzhaque (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply No, I'm not a member of the IEEE. But as an engineer and former engineering student, I am aware of the work being done by various IEEE student brances. When I say that these organizations are not individually notable, this is not ridicule. I believe the work of the IEEE and its student branches serves a valuable role in the education of future engineers. And I'm sure the JMI branch is doing wonderful work there, as I'm sure the RPI, MIT, CalTech, University of Manchester, etc, branches are doing as well. However, none of these activities has been the subject of significant independent coverage, which is the litmus test of notability here at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey Dan! My name is Imran Ali and I am currently serving as the Branch Chairperson of IEEE JMI. Besides this I am also serving on the R10 SAC Committee which is directly responsible for most of the IEEE awards. I agree with you that you probably need more citation for the facts we have mentioned. I guess the IEEE MGA Vice Chair, Professor Mini Thomas mailing you the details of the awards won should be substantial enough for you? As an IEEE worker in a way I know the technical problems associated with the maintenance of IEEE award and competition stats and I won't be ashamed in stating that we do not do a good job at it. The society is approaching 400.000 members and is run by just 1000 employees. Maintenance of stats on the website as such is not the most high priority job that they are taking up atm. Maybe in due time they will. The underlying fact remains that IEEE JMI is a role model branch definitely in the R10 if not the entire world because of their impressive innovations. If I may go on to say, a lot of branches emulate what we do. I can get you quite a few testimonials to back this claim for highly reputed IEEE volunteers! Cheers! P.S: FYI please do not compare R10 SB activities to R1-R7 as IEEE themselves are amazed why these regions do not contribute to the IEEE's progress. Technical projects aside these branches are of no good to IEEE as per their internal findings. IEEE invests in student branches to promote leaders and find those individuals who will run the society tomorrow. Proud to say that R10 is one of the region and we have a huge say in it!

    --Imran Ali —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC). — RadoPOD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    Changes As demanded by Jujutacular i have added some more links which are independent of IEEE JMI Official Website. They are proof of the awards won by the website. Please have a look at those. This improves the notability i hope --Fzhaque (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The new links, which indicate that IEEE JMI has won awards within the IEEE student activities groups for its website design, do not indicate notability at large. I.e. no coverage of this award occurred outside the IEEE organization. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:44, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Adams (General)[edit]

    Chris Adams (General) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I'm just not certain of notability. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • In which countries would generals not receive coverage? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 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) 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Amazing Mendezies[edit]

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

    There are no references, so I'm suspicious of notability. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete nothing to suggest notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:38, 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) 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Coppola[edit]

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

    Notability concerns Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:21, 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. There is consensus below that the proffered sources are sufficient for notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Albert Casuga[edit]

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

    Not notable enough to deserve an article. User234 (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unless we can find some sourced indication that the award itself was ever considered notable; googling Parnaso Poetry Contest, even without quotes, doesn't bring up a single Google hit that isn't this article on either Wikipedia or a Wikipedia mirror. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, you're trying to get me to improve the article. But I'm hampered by Google's snippet view. Nevertheless, even the snippet view produces Bloom and memory: essays on literature, culture, and society by Jose Wendell P. Capili which calls him a "luminary", another source listing him as one of the more important poets from his cohort, the Tamkang Review says, "Other writers whom we may cite at this point as possessing this historical sense... are Maidan Flores, Albert Casuga, and Benjamin ..." These are secondary sources that analyse the subject, and so it should be kept. Abductive (reasoning) 04:45, 11 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, without prejudice against the future creation of a policy-compliant article of similar scope.  Skomorokh  01:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Historical pederastic relationships[edit]

    Historical pederastic relationships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Okay, this page is an example of Original Research about a highly contentious topic whose primary editor (with 809 edits) has just been banned. My reasoning is thus - pederasty and pedophilia are considered synonymous in standard dictionaries and psychological texts. Some historians have differentiated the two but this is by no means universal. We now have a logic jump where a term which is used in some contexts (particualrly classical greece) is now splashed about willy nilly and attached to a whole heap of relationships across continents and times. I contend this violates WP:OR and WP:SOAP - hence is misinformation and the very article needs to be removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • As far as I can tell, I can't find it duplicating another article as such. Was thinking about this myself. The subject is quite a tricky one to navigate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is where we get into problems - the OR is in describing these relationships be a word (i.e pederasty) not used in the sources - the word itself is used in an attempt to distance and legitimise some pedophilic relationships (as well as some technically non-pedophilic but actually containing some of the same power differential and abuse characteristics) from pedophilia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Pederasty' is also the preferred term used by pedophiles for themselves. The mere use of the term suggests an agenda. See e.g. here (caution, NAMBLA website) Think of the children (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, but I guess I would see the analogy as if there were some militant group espousing terroorism who gave a particular form a different name and tried to promote it as not-terrorism. If you look harde enough you can find all sorts of odd definitions of things....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's see what the community's views are on SYNTH, OR plagued articles written by activists pressing for the normalization of sex with children. This one doesn't stand up to even 5 minutes scrutiny.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll see what the community says, for sure, but it would help both of us (and the community) if you can argument rationally your points instead of using what looks like moral panic. The editor has been banned, and we agree that there are POV concerns. But you yourself said that there could be legitimate entries: why can't we use them? What's objectively wrong with having a list of such relationships (or such allegations), if properly sourced and unbiased? --Cyclopiatalk 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Try reading WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:FORK and WP:V for starters. And stop calling me irrational and putting words in my mouth. You've been consistently arguing for the unkeepable; this is no exception.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know these links, thanks. They again don't make a case for deletion, since you yourself said that the list can be reduced to five genuine cases. And no, I didn't call you irrational: I asked you to argue rationally here, which is a different thing. To my knowledge I didn't put words in your mouth; if I did so, I apologize. As per "arguing for the unkeepable", well, that's your personal opinion. Maybe the community will agree, but apart from that it's hardly a compelling argument against my points. --Cyclopiatalk 17:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually take largely your position above, however I think that the "delete and recreate" route is actually better in this one case than the "keep and let someone fix it eventually" route. Normally, in 99% of the cases, cleanup is preferential to deleting. However, this article has such huge problems, and we literally can trust NONE of the sources given the fact that the creator and maintainer of the article is known to have widely misrepresented sources, there's really no content to fix here. A complete reboot seems like a better solution than simply letting this lie around waiting for someone to get interested in fixing its miriad problems. --Jayron32 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be right. I have had few interactions with Haiduc in my time here, and I think our edits have only intersected on one or two articles, so it's certainly possible that I'm unaware of the scope of the problem. My impression has been that he's often too willing to go beyond what given sources actually say, resulting in novel syntheses and the like. For instance, rather than starting with a source and using it to write a paragraph, he'll write a paragraph and then find sources that, when combined, might sort of back up what he wrote. That's unacceptable, of course, but I've also been aware of some perfectly good edits, including satisfactory sourcing, on his part. So I'm leery about any kind of a purge happening. It would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Rivertorch (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Or cutting out the cancer to save the body... --Jayron32 21:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Yes, that metaphor might be just as apt. I'm wavering enough to strike my "keep and fix" recommendation; I still think it would be the ideal way to proceed, but since I have neither the time nor the inclination to contribute to a fix and no one else has offered, it would likely just get stubbed and ignored. That wouldn't do. Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Separating the wheat from the chaff would require a specialist library on pederasty (with a special focus on historical scholarship in this area), countless hours of researching and reading, cross-referencing with index cards, and then a full re-write from top to bottom. We'd be left with a well-written and less skewed piece of original research if I did it, but still original research. Oh yeah, since really almost everything useable on this topic is about pederasty in various historical periods and not pederastic relationships per se, there'd be a healthy dose of synthesis to go with it. Were i to take this task on -- a dull and distasteful task, i might add -- i'd nuke the whole article and start from scratch. Of course, i'm not going to take that task on (not least because it will still would require a healthy dosage of synth and it's still a fork from Pederasty and the article where the real scholarship exists Pederasty in ancient Greece.) This is all a long-winded way of saying there is no wheat here and what is here, masquerading as balanced and generally accurate to the uninitiated, does far more harm than good.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My main reason for nominating was that the article's very existence is a (subtle) distortion of facts, given the history behind the definitions as such. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep.Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, people come for information. It is a very well referenced list that does not hurt the laws of our project. Actually the best advice was given by Cyclopia:"The article has several problems: first, it should be renamed "Historical alleged pederastic relationships": while it seems that all entries are sourced (and some of them are well known, like Pasolini and Davoli), they are rarely proven as such, and in most cases all what can we say is that there is one or more RS discussing their possibility. Also, it is worth noting the controversy on the definition of pederasty, and the article suffers of POV/bias for sure. That said, these seem to me all problems readily solved with editing, not deletion, and the subject, even if quite creepy perhaps, is a notable and encyclopedic one." Bruno Ishiai (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Pedantry", huh? Pedantry can be tiresome, but it's hardly unusual at WP.  ;-) Rivertorch (talk) 05:14, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Greenie[edit]

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

    This purports to be a Disambiguation page, but it doesn't disambiguate anything. There is not a single blue-linked entry to an article called Greenie. Four terms are not even linked. Most of the rest are dubious slang/nicknames. The wording at the bottom of every disambig page is: This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. This one fails, given that there is only one article with Greenie in the title and thus no need to disambiguate. Emeraude (talk) 10:37, 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 as a machine translation, without prejudice against the creation of a new version in proper English.  Skomorokh  01:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mykola Mazepa[edit]

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

    Machine-translated autobiography. Most sources are citing Mykola Mazepa himself, dubious notability. DonaldDuck (talk) 06:36, 3 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) 00:17, 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) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed Prutschi[edit]

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

    According to the talk page, he is " becoming popular as an author about travel and criminal law". Taking to AFD for discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:22, 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. There is broad and reasonable disagreement here as to the notability of the topic, which is unlikely to be surpassed by extending the debate.  Skomorokh  01:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ireland–Pakistan relations[edit]

    Ireland–Pakistan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Ireland (despite being the richer nation) does not have an embassy in Pakistan. most of the third party coverage centres on sports results on multilateral relations looking at the first 70 of these [113]. yes there has been coverage like this but the article states "made major contacts" and "shown interest" rather than real investment. sure there may be some but you kind of expect IT companies in Western Europe to do some contracting in the subcontinent. LibStar (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a rather choppy collection of factoids now. I should criticize, given some of the ones I have started. Enough to establish notability. I would be inclined to add more on the Irish involvement in what is now Pakistan during the Raj. I don't think the title restricts the article to modern, formal relations between the two governments. It should cover all aspects of the relations between the people of the two countries. The note on textiles in interesting, because I think at one time the trade was in the other direction - cheap Irish exports harming the local industry. Could be wrong, but it is worth checking. A reasonable basic article on a complex subject with a lot of room for expansion. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See the talk page for more cites.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The relations between nations' governments are not necessarily representative of the relations between nations' peoples. For the purpose of these debates, I suggest we use the broader definition.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm restoring the information you removed. The Irish peace process is relevant to Ireland and the comparison was direct. Your copyvio corrections are appreciated.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    seems like an almost identical standard text argument was used here and here. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well since you nominated all of them for deletion, maybe we should just disregard your nominations too. No. Obviously not. The argument that these articles are inherently encyclopedic is a valid point that's been raised before and deserves to be considered here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    and I've used different text and different gnews searches for each. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I intentionally cut and pasted the same argument to ave myself some wasted time retyping minor variations of the same statement. What's wrong with that? Alansohn (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    it gives the appearance that you have not read the AfD or article or made up your mind beforehand. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Far from the truth. I've seen your previous nominations and I review every article and its sources before passing judgment. That the same words work and cutting and pasting saves time is a reflection of my attempts to avoid wasting effort. If subtle variations in wording somehow make a vote more worthy that's your issue, not mine. Alansohn (talk) 01:45, 11 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 Nomination withdrawn. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Gallow Hill (Abigail Williams EP)[edit]

    Gallow Hill (Abigail Williams EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Bootleg collection that is not notable WP:N enough for inclusion; a Google search results in blogs, forums, and non-notable sources, WP:MUSIC. This article can be considered original research WP:OR. There are no sources cited WP:V. Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am withdrawing nomination following further search for sources. My apologies! –Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:38, 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) 00:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Apollonius Institute of Language and Linguistics[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Apollonius Institute of Language and Linguistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Does not appear to meet criteria for notability of organizations. Not easy to even verify its existence. The article claims the organisation publishes three journals but it does not appear to be mentioned on the journal website, whose copyright is held by Shakespeare Centre Limited Press. Nurg (talk) 05:09, 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 withdrawn by nominator with no outstanding arguments to delete. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bernard Baars[edit]

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

    vanity article of not-notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothughthomas (talk • contribs)

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Society for social studies[edit]

    Society for social studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Completely unremarkable society. No reliable sources exist (strangely, I couldn't find even web sources, leave 2). Request AfD delete. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 04:29, 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 Speedy Delete per A10 by SchuminWeb. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Terry (Terrence) O'Brien[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Terry (Terrence) O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Duplicates Terry O'Brien. -Rrius (talk) 03:07, 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) 00:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Delta Chi Lambda[edit]

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

    This was listed as a CSD A7. Perhaps I am being overly too cautious on this one, but there is an objection from the author that they are notable enough for an article. If enough people say to speedy delete (which I suspect will be the case here) then I'll do so. I've added a watch to this AFD discussion and will periodically review. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:03, 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. (NAC) Swarm(Talk) 06:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Motörhead extended discography[edit]

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

    Much of the content is redundant of the individual articles. Remaining content could easily be merged into the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:57, 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 Speedy Keep. Invalid grounds provided by nom while no others suggested deleting the article. (non-admin closure) Blodance the Seeker 03:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dawn Padmore[edit]

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

    This singer is called Liberian, but she appears to live in NYC now. Her press page doesn't list much substantial, and I can't find anything much in google or google news. For a notable performer in the US there should be more coverage than this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:52, 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 Speedy delete a7, no claim of notability, making a mixtape does not constitute "working with" a famous artist. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    J-Bar (rapper)[edit]

    J-Bar (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Title appears to be an attempt to evade the creation block put on JBar after repeated recreation. Claims of notability are not backed up with references. Album mentioned in the article is untitled and unreleased. Zero Google news hits on the title or with Soulja Boy in the search. Some web hits but the reliability of those sources is not clear. This artist might be notable once the album is released but not today. RadioFan (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. This appears to be an attempt to promote an unrecorded artists. It should be deleted until notability can be confirmed through legitimate sources. Georgiamonet (talk) 02:48, 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, without prejudice to a merge at editorial discretion. There is certainly no consensus here that the article ought to be deleted.  Skomorokh  01:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anahata Yoga[edit]

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

    This was listed on CSD to be deleted because it was blatant advertising, but I cannot see it myself. It appears I'm not alone here, as a number of editors have expressed the same opinion on the talk page. However, general consensus on talk is that we cannot determine if this article is notable in the Yoga world, and it was suggested we take to AFD. I am therefore listing this here for further discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The following of Anahata Yoga appears to be significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. In my opinion, it passes the notoriety test. Georgiamonet (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    merge to yoga...its categorised as a "minor form of yoga", as a matter of fact, all other minor forms of yoga should have a mention on the yoga page, and their entries deleted. --60.240.117.215 (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: please note the similarity of the opinion expressed above with the opinions expressed by User:Debnathsandeep as found here and .here. Debnathsandeep was the editor who listed this article as speedy delete for spam. A look at his contributions shows that he has been extremely active in an effort, as he puts it, to "clean up my passion pages and describe Yoga, Tantra & Ayurveda in the most proper and precise way". I'm afraid this article may be a baby being thrown out with the bathwater. An effort to establish Yoga Purity is in my opinion open to question. One might just as well delete articles about various protestant denominations and sects for failing to follow the True Church, or delete Sunni Islamic groups for failing to follow the True Faith of Shia. Etc. This is a dangerous path, and I have just seen the trail of the spoor of this editor, and I find it disturbing indeed. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nemonoman: First things first. You are an absolutely proper Wikipedian considering the contributions you have made and also the quality of contributions you made while editing articles & cooling down arguments in the articles. You truly are an asset to Wikipedia, and just to keep up your record, I would humbly request you to not make a mistake now by misunderstanding me. As said in the documentary Enlighten Up (and also elsewhere), that "18 million Americans practice a Baskin Robbins variety of Yoga". If thats true (astonishingly - it is), then there will be a page for each and every flavor of yoga, thats created by a particular person. I do agree that its a (good) baby being thrown out of water, but maintaining more than 1000 (good) babies doesn't seems appropriate. Tomorrow if I come up with my own baby (Bhuto Yoga) and place it in Wikipedia - that houses Yogas by great seers, then I do not think so I am being fair. As per my opinion, NOBODY has the authority to establish a Yoga Purity, but all I am tending towards is Yoga Accuracy, considering the guidelines of WP (which might seem dangerous) & taking in account only the information available on the internet (and not using my own brains to make an opinion). Of all the different forms of Yoga flavours I plan to clean, NONE of them fails to follow the parent(s) yoga. Infact, as per my opinion, each and every (including Anahata) is completely inline and tune with Yoga. The only reason to delete them is WP:N (and the reason stated above)
    All in all, I would like to end this reply, concluding that I would rather respect Nemonoman's decision than follow my own opinion. -- Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 17:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep I believe this is the first article I started, and I was a newbie for sure. I have not kept up with the article since. Some factors to consider:

    I am on a forced wikibreak with short, haphazard access to the internet, so I will be unable to fix this article for several weeks. If it's deleted, I'd like to be sure that it's not blacklisted, so I will be able to recreate a more substantial article. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nemonoman
    FIRST: To the best of my knowledge, this maybe a derivation of Buddha's Heart Sutra. There are seven chakras in the body, and each can have 10 derivations of Yoga. Someday, even I plan to create a line of my-own yoga style, based on one of these chakras and will name it Bhuto Yoga (and yes bhuto means the Five great elements in Sanskrit, inline with Yogic connections). But as all yoga experts know, this is one way of cutting down and limiting the vast tree of Yoga.
    SECOND: Bikram Yoga is having 10 times more notability as compared to Anahata (as per Google's result page). But even that needs to clean up, since that is once again - just another flavor. -- respectfully Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    merge. :This is one solution given by an unknown user, that I have been thinking of. Since the notability of these yoga articles, are hanging in between, only the name (with possibly a one-line description) can be put on the page of List of Modern Yogas (and not Yoga). Even I am a bit skeptical of removing the different flavors of minor yoga, since this is only place, where we can know the different kinds of Yoga that exists today. -- Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 18:00, 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 - this is a disambiguation page, it's not just an "outlet for vandalism". - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    2+2[edit]

    2+2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This page appears to serve no purpose other than as an outlet for vandalism. If someone is capable of reading wikipedia, are they likely to need to know the answer to an elementary school (if not kindergarten) maths problem? Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong keep — actually this is a disambiguation page with three meaningful entries in addition to the maths, which itself (the maths) makes some kind of sense there as an intro to the disambig page. When the deletion nomination was made, two of the definitions and their links were absent because of several vandalistic edits which the nominator presumably hadn't seen. – Kieran T (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Keep This is a disambiguation page. 2+2 has multiple encyclopedic meanings. Maybe they are not represented properly on the page currently but this should be included. DegenFarang (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    DELETE. If someone cannot add 2 + 2 then I doubt they can read a Wikipedia entry about it. This is a pointless waste of computer memory. Georgiamonet (talk) 02:52, 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) 08:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashes to Ashes (Apoptygma Berzerk song)[edit]

    Ashes to Ashes (Apoptygma Berzerk song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non notable single from a demo album. No notability Richhoncho (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was common to merge background supporting text on an album (actually a single with B-sides in this case) to the appropriate section of the history in the band's article. Then it would be acceptable to delete the track-by-track information along with the rest of the album article. That is what I am suggesting here; possibly I am misusing the technical definition of "merge." DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my understanding of your comment. I am actually quite interested in how it "violates our licensing policies" especially with a wikilink. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Licensing requires us to preserve a complete edit history, for attribution purposes. If we merge text from article X into article Y, the authors of article X are now also authors of article Y. Deletion makes it impossible for anyone who's not an administrator to view the edit history of page X; consequently, it's impossible for the average reader to know the identities of all of the authors of page Y. A proper merge includes two pieces: (1) copying the text of page X into the text of page Y, along with a note (either in the edit summary or at the talk page) that it's being copied from page X, and (2) a conversion of page X into a redirect to page Y. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for your response. WP:Merging says, "Merging—regardless of the amount of information kept—should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from. Superfluous redirects do not harm anything, and can be helpful in finding articles, e.g. from alternative names." I will remember this for future reference. Thanks again. --Richhoncho (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, now my vote is just plain old Delete. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:15, 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) 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    AJ Steeves[edit]

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

    This was tagged for speedy deletion, however given that it says he's won a Tony I think it best to bring this here. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:24, 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.  Skomorokh  01:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Kol Menachem[edit]

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

    This is a non-notable publishing house. All the sources either give a very brief description or are reviews of editions of books published by the house or are sources which are not independent (being other sources run by Chabad. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, per nom. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which of those references are to independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of Kol Menachem? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. Non-notable publishing house which only gets a few hits on the first page of Google[116]. What is notable is the Gutnick Chumash, which is listed under Chumash (Judaism)#Various Publications. (It should also be listed under Jewish commentaries on the Bible#20th and 21st century commentary.) Perhaps the Gutnick edition deserves its own article? Yoninah (talk) 12:56, 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Janet Karvonen[edit]

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

    This is an EXTREMELY poorly-sourced BLP of a non-notable (and non-professional) former women's basketball player. UnitAnode 01:31, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Opor Ayam[edit]

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

    No notability and impractical to expand past a stub Supertouch (talk) 01:29, 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. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Sri Lankan Moors[edit]

    List of Sri Lankan Moors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable cross-categorization. Anna Lincoln 09:15, 26 January 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) 00:43, 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) 00:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Starmind Innovation[edit]

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

    Non-notable company lacking GHits of substance and GNEWS. Has a couple of minor articles that do not appear to be of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY ttonyb (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - Thanks for your feedback on the article 'Starmind Innovation' that I have created. I feel that the Starmind community (of which I am an active member, but not affiliated) is noteworthy as it reaches out thousands of users across the globe and involves some very influential people within university institutions. I based the layout of the article on the 'Innocentive' article. As I am new to Wikipedia and this is my first article I think I have not managed to properly demonstrate the notability of the community -- this is my fault, and I will try to improve the article to establish it. Could you please tell me what GHit and GNEWS mean? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonBerryWiki (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – GHits = Google hits and GNEWS = Google News hits ttonyb (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - Admittedly there were no GNEWS hits, but I check the first five pages of GHits for 'Starmind Innovation' and they were almost all relating to the community. DonBerryWiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonBerryWiki (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - In addition to quoting large Swiss institutions mentioning Starmind on their home-page, I have cited Several independent news sources explicitly discussing Starmind, and linked to more than one article in major National Swiss newspaper, as well as several websites. Starmind is a paradigmatic example of a crowd-sourcing community, a phenomena that has recently warranted several books dedicated to its discussion. Therefore, I think Starmind is just as notable as, say, InnoCentive, and that article has significant Encyclopaedic content. I will link to the books discussing it too if this helps. DonBerryWiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 27 January 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) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - The claim about the popularity of open innovation is supported by references. The references for this article do not 'all' point to the Starmind blog -- only four of fifteen do, and these only because the blog contains independent sources such as a scanned page of a national swiss newspaper that could not be found online. DonBerryWiki (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.187.164 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - Supposedly contentious claims removed and additional independent references cited to support claim about open innovation -- including an article from the New York Times. 86.177.187.164 (talk) 18:03, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Raj Ramayya[edit]

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

    Unreferenced BLP on a non-notable musician. Closedmouth came along and de-prodded but failed to provide any sources either, let alone ones that would make him notable. Fails music, bio, etc... Bali ultimate (talk) 14:20, 27 January 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) 00:29, 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 speedy deleted per author's request. JamieS93 20:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    FYG[edit]

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

    Unreferenced article on non-notable Linux distro project, along with howto per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Not a trace of a project or distro by this name can be found online. Prod contested by article's creator, along with a subsequent speedy deletion for copyvio which has since been fixed (I think). Evident WP:COI by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted the page-blanking, but the author's wishes should be noted as part of this discussion. MuffledThud (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is requesting deletion in good faith, as per WP:CSD G7 the page should just be deleted, no need for the AfD discussion to continue. (CSD supersedes AfD) SpitfireTally-ho! 17:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The explicit request for deletion can be found here. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, there is an explicit request now rather than a page-blank. Thanks for clarifying. MuffledThud (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Mm; "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request." Anyway, I've re-tagged. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite: Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. MuffledThud (talk) 20:42, 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.
    1. ^ Celebrating Canada's top innovators. Financial Post Retrieved Jan.29, 2010.
    2. ^ http://www.professionearchitetto.it/mostre/notizie/1592/Manifesto-tecnico-di-Marinetti-e-l-Architettura-oggi
    3. ^ http://www.professionearchitetto.it/news/archivio/piazzetta_toscano/piazzetta_toscano.asp
    More