< 6 October	8 October >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Helfenbein[edit]

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

From report from WP:BLPN, questions about notability. Procedural nom, no personal opinion expressed by nominator on notability itself. -- Cirt (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Claim to fame is as a young assistant for Hillary Clinton. Regarding his work, The New York Times article states: "None of this would be remarkable... except that Mr. Helfenbein is only 21, a college senior." I am not convinced this is as remarkable as the NYT would have us believe. Location (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The undergrad thesis is a grand total of nothing-notable. Anyone can copyright any original work. It was published in what appears to be school's own in-house journal specifically designed for this level of work rather than an independent publication with external referees. The "The Cane Senior Honor Award" is a student-body-selected member for contributions to the class/student-body, website states "third most popular senior". If that's the level we have to stoop to find some shred of something to make him seem notable...he ain't. Maybe someday he'll do more or build upon a promising start, but articles aren't written for future achievements. DMacks (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Arguably the article doesn't assert importance because there is, as of yet, no importance to assert. Ray^Talk 22:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even completely disregarding the single-purpose activity, clear consensus for retention among a cross-section of the community. –MuZemike 23:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don Webb[edit]

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

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

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

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

Unsourced BLP does not establish notability. Contested prod (removed by IP editor). Yworo (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep It's hard for me to imagine this is even a topic under discussion, given the author's prolific output, his major (and minor) publishing work, his place in the '90s zine publishing world, his numerous writing honors, and his roll is a significant alternative religious organization. Terranull (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Webb is the author over a dozen books, several of them from a major publisher (St. Martins), and his stories have been selected by Ellen Datlow and Gardner Dozois for their respective year's best anthologies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.129.203 (talk • contribs) (note: IP geolocates to Austin, Texas where the subject resides)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep with improvement - subject is pretty clearly notable (per above IP), article needs reference improvements though - David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I've added some citations. Subject's notability is established by range of reprints of his writing, plus IHG nomination (not a minor literary award).Shsilver (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Don Webb is widely admired among readers and critics (around the world) of avant garde and experimental fiction and of literary horror fiction. It is not suspicious in itself that someone from Austin put up the initial entry on this page: there are 786,000 people in Austin,and I would bet there are a minimum of 10,000 computer-literate people in Austin who know Don Webb and his work. His religious beliefs, however unorthodox, are also a legitimate part of his biography. There is nothing here to indicate that Webb himself wrote this. It is written in the Wikipedia style, not in Don Webb style, believe me. Furfish (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - This author is noteworthy due to the particular avant garde style of his contribution, over and above merely being a published author and beyond being nominated for significant honors. The official Temple of Set website continues to feature his writings as part of their explanation of their organization, therefore, he is an authoritative expert on the Temple of Set and its distinctive theology. His year of birth is not in doubt either - 1960, referenced on numerous websites and listings and never contradicted by him. higherednerd (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC) — higherednerd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Keep - I also feel this author has a body of work significant enough to be retained in Wikipedia. His volume of output itself justifies inclusion. BaghwanB —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC). — BaghwanB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Shsilver (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as author of a dozen novels, many from major publishers, easily crosses the notability line. - Dravecky (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Easily notable. Not to my taste, but that's not important. htom (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Definitely notable. I suspect the autobiographical tag referred to an old version of the bio, which was possibly (note: possibly) written by people affiliated with the Temple of Set. Much of that original content was deleted, and the bio is now a hodge-podge of tidbits from a large number of contributors. Madamecp (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Nominated for a major award (International Horror Critics), and has had several stories selected for anthologies including The Year's Best Science Fiction and Year's Best Fantasy and Horror. Being selected for those anthologies meets criterion 1 of WP:AUTHOR, "being regarded as an important figure [...] by peers". The same might be said for his being selected as the Guest of Honour at several horror conventions (though that's a weaker claim, because I'm not familiar with the "Death Equinox" conventions and don't know how narrow the field is). His books have been reviewed fairly extensively, I think. Not my genre or to my taste, but that's utterly beside the point. --bonadea contributions talk 09:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Agree on all points with previous commenter. As a general principle it seems better to fix entry flaws than rush to delete. --DeafMan (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I've been a short story editor for over thirty years and Don Webb's contributions to the field of sf/f are certainly notable. User:datlow —Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Comment - Before I vote, could somebody please explain why they think that the sources provided in this article meet WP:RS? I'm leaning towards a weak delete, but seeing as there's such overwhelming opposition to that proposal, I'd like to hear an opinion. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Partial Response to Comment I'm not sitting here digging through all of the references, but a few immediately leap out. Locus is one of the most established Sci Fi literary magazines. The Locus and Internet Speculative Fiction Databases have both been active and reliable sources for partial bibliographies for well over a decade. The UCLA bio for Don Webb is a University (of California) program instructor bio, on the University web site. While Council for the Literature of the Fantastic is a newsletter, it is a newsletter published by a University English department (University of Rhode Island this time). The entry was written by Paul DiFilippo, who is a CLF contributing editor and who is also a notable author. Some of the references might be better as external links (and most of the books could have ISBN #s added), but there are some good ones in there. Madamecp (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep:. Don Webb is also noted for his online teaching in the writing certificate program at UCLA. His courses in fantasy and science fiction writing, and especially his course on writing great villains, are invaluable to up-and-coming writers. User NShulerphd 67.207.226.168 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I've read Don Webb for years. He does some great horror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.167.177 (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep: Speaking as an editor who has reprinted Don Webb's work in my Year's Best Fantasy 8 volume (see http://www.tachyonpublications.com/book/YearsBest8.html ), Don Webb is certainly notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC) aka Kathryn CramerReply[reply]
keep for same reasons Aisha9152 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heather Robinson Live Communication[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage from WP:Reliable sources, borderline WP:SPAM. Prod contested by creator of another WP:PROMO article created on the same day, promoting the same company, Live Communication. Top Jim (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's a non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, with evident WP:COI and WP:PROMO for this company, borderline WP:SPAM, can find no uses of the term online apart from usage by a small number of marketing firms as a product marketing buzzword.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete nothing in gnews [1]. LibStar (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete both Non-notable. The company article doesn't even assert notability; no references supplied and none found on searching. The "Live communication" article seems like a cross between a dictionary definition and a "well, duh!" explanation of a totally obvious concept. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Network Topology and Application Analysis[edit]

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

Unreferenced new buzzword without a clear meaning. Searching around it seems to track back only to one Russian company that promotes related services. Tikiwont (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - unclear what the actual topic is beyond some vague handwaving. No sources provided, and none could be found to establish this as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete we seem to be getting a great many of these systems engineering and management articles on catch-phrases with no or weak sourcing. I consider them all basically promotional, though it is not necessarily obvious exactly what they are promoting. I declined it as speedy because it did not seem to be promotional about anything specific, and prodded it, but the prod was removed. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. Remember that further discussions regarding merging can be discussed locally on the articles' talk pages even after this AFD. –MuZemike 23:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Capping Show[edit]

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

Although this article makes a small claim to notability, the claim is unreferenced; and as a whole the article reads like an advert. At the very least, I feel this article should be cut down to a paragraph or so in the main university article - at present it's being used too much like a fan page for a non-notable club. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Longevity indicates an extremely high likelihood of press coverage. Sourcing needs improvement, obviously. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Seems to be covered in sources such as The University of Otago, a centennial history and Anatomy of a Medical School: A History of Medicine at the University of Otago, 1875-2000. And here's a programme from 1910: Otago University Capping Carnival, July 14th & 15th 1910: songs and cartoons. I reckon it's the NZ equivalent of Footlights. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to University of Otago#Student life. If it was rewritten so as to emphasize its long history, and sources supplied that are not self-referential, I could change my mind. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thought management[edit]

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

This article is essentially a large bag of original research. It presents a brief introduction about a philosophy of "managing one's thoughts to control one's reality" and then offers a slew of examples purporting to espouse this philosophy, but offers no verifiable citations to any analysis that indicates the examples (films, quotes from various business and philosophical leaders, etc) actually knew anything about this philosophy or had any intention of espousing it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as original research / essay. Plus a huge quote farm! -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete It's not an encyclopedia article, but is there some other Wiki arena where it could be transferred? --MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Numeracy in Latin America[edit]

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

PROD declined. Essay that is a classic example of WP:NOT. Ray^Talk 20:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how this is an essay - it seems to be a pretty good article, and tells you lots of things about numeracy in Latin America. If it can be improved, it should be, otherwise it is fine how it is. Look at http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Numeracy+in+Latin+America%22 - there are plenty of people talking about Numeracy in Latin America, and deleting this article will not help increase the amount of knowledge on the subject Numeracy in Latin America seeing as the article contains useful information. there is also a need for the article to be improved so it looks like a standard wikipedia article with pictures and so forth, but that can be done by anyone. I will be making some changes to the article. Nooba booba sooba looba (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. This is an essay rather than an article. (FYI, you'll find my name in the History as starting this article. I only completed the transition of this article from its previous existence as a category. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_20#Category:Numeracy_in_Latin_America.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Reads like an essay/OR. There are no reliable sources to support notability. Limongi (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete not just an essay, but worse, a POV opinion piece. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This nomination is a classic example of NOT following WP:BEFORE. All the nominator seems to have done is propose the article for deletion within a few hours of its creation - an obvious incivility and then nominate for deletion when this was, of course, refused. The article was created as a result of recent discussion in a similar forum: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 20#Category:Numeracy in Latin America and so bringing it here so soon is disruptive. It is trivial work to improve the article, as I shall demonstrate, and failing that modest effort, it would be better to merge to Numeracy which could use some global perspective. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I think this is an opinion essay that is hopelessly non-encyclopedic from top to bottom. Anyhow, that was my evaluation of the article, and if you feel it's trivial to rewrite it, feel free to do so. Personally, I feel that it's only "trivial" in the sense that a proper article would delete the content entirely, retaining only the title, and keeping a few of the sourcess, while desperately needing additional sources for balance. Ray^Talk 15:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I don't think it's uncivil. As you note, it had been debated on Categories for Discussion for over a week, because it was mistakenly created as a category rather than an article. I took the step of following consensus there and moved it to articlespace, but I had no illusions that it was an article worth keeping. I expect some people from CfD were waiting for the article to be created so they could bring it up for deletion, and that's fine with me. YMMV. (Also, the talk page of the category's creator doesn't inspire me with confidence, since it's entirely notices of possible copyvio. So even though I can't find this text elsewhere on the web, it feels like it's copied from somewhere. Just a hunch, though.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re-write to eliminate POV. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete—full of POV drivel. Anyone who wants to create a decent version of the article is free to do so, regardless of whether or not we delete it at this time. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 17:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not full of POV ! It's full of useful information. When it was claiming things, I've sorted it out so that it doesn't make any particular claim. I wouldn't say that because there is bad numeracy in Latin America, we should delete this article because it says there is bad numeracy in Latin America. There is Bad numeracy in Latin America ! Seriously ! Nooba booba sooba looba (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is full of POV. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 20:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's an essay, WP:ESSAY; it's personal point of view WP:POV, and it's original research WP:OR; The claims in the article will neded dozens of reliable, well sourced inline references (WP:RS) before it will fall within any Wikipedia criteria for inclusion.--Kudpung (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete To me, it reads as an essay. The topic is probably valid, but this article doesn't address it in an encyclopaedic manner. "Some people" isn't good form, and there is opinion. And there are other issues, such as a total lack of referencing. If anyone can rewrite, and provide sources, please do so. It's not the subject itself I am objecting to. Peridon (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Most definitely reads lilke an essay. --Kudpung (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Yes it is an essay, but more to the point, no clear demonstration of why this topic deserves an article seperate from numeracy itself. Eusebeus (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Delete. Without prejudice against recreation from reliable sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)~~Reply[reply]
Speedily delete under WP:CSD#G12. The article appears to be mostly assembled from paragraphs of [2]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete the copyvio seals it, but even if not, it's a poorly sourced, badly skewed essay on a topic that isn't particularly latin american (education isn't perfect in lots of places; latam is just one of them).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. This is a straightforward application of WP:V: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The article is still entirely unsourced and nobody on the "keep" side has cited any sources, except Colonel Warden, who however only supplies the name of two sources, without citations or any information about the nature of the sources or the level of coverage. Sandstein 06:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marsh Lane (Longton)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a particularly notable road. The "attractions" listed are fairly mundane, and the article has no sources cited. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

… and the actual encyclopaedic subject, documented in sources with these pubs and marshes beside it, that I found with about five minutes' reading, is the Ribble Way. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as WP:MILL. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's an essay. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But it's a good principle for sorting the substantial coverage from the trivial coverage that I agree with. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Condemning topics as trivial is an expression of opinion which is contrary to core policy. The relevant guideline is that of notability which tells us that we should instead see whether third-party authors have noticed the topic. And they have. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or, more accurately, the general notability guideline requires signficant coverage. Footnote 1 refer to, namely, "The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice". That is an example of third-party author noting the topic without qualifying for notability. I'm happy to discuss how much coverage is needed to qualify as significant, but it's more than a third-party author merely "noticing" it. And I fail to see which bit of WP:NPOV forbids people from expressing opinions about notability of wikipedia articles on project pages, but that's another matter. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In light of Uncle G's findings I suppose we could just redirect it to Ribble Way as it is apparently part of that route. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Not notable at all. Dough 48 72 03:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Uncle G has refuted this above. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I'm not sure it has. All I found in the Ribble Way article was a mention of Longton as the start of the path. (Okay, Wiki article don't count towards notability themselves but they can give clues to where the coverage is.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - The Ribble Way article as it stood at the time that you wrote the above did exactly that. It has a further reading section, and two of the potential sources listed there mention the Dolphin Inn and Longton Marsh (and indeed several things that this article does not) in relation to the Ribble Way.
      On that note, notice that this article has erroneous content. The Ribble Way is not 20 miles long, as this article claims. Sources disagree as to the exact length, possibly because the route has been altered, but they all put it at over 110km.
      I encourage U.K. editors with access to these books to help Senra with the improvements to the Ribble Way article. Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - It's reasonable to expect posters to deletion discussion to do quick search for sources, but I cannot be reasonably expected to check every book in a further reading list in a different article that might mention the subject. Anyway, I found a mention on the second book on Google Books, but the only coverage I found was an instruction to walk along this road as part of the directions for walking along the Ribble Way. I don't think it's workable to have a wiki article for every road a long-distance happens to follow. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        You can, however, be expected to find "clues to where the coverage is" in the references and further reading sections of an article pointed to as "the actual encyclopaedic subject, documented in sources with these pubs and marshes beside it". Uncle G (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with Longton, Lancashire. It will be better that the content be used to enhance another article, rather than being deleted out of hand. Merely redirecting was lose WP some useful (if mundane) information. Ribble Way is not structured such that the information can be added. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The topic is documented in sources such as The story of proud Preston and A History of Preston in Amounderness. Just another article in need of improvement per out editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- How much coverage is there of this specific road in these sources? There might be a case for historical notability if the coverage is substantial, but I'd want something more specific than "documented". Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Enough coverage that deletion is not a sensible option. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Tried finding the relevant text in Google Books, doesn't seem to be available. By all means say what the coverage is, but I want to see it for myself and make up my own mind, rather than take instruction on whether coverage I haven't seen is enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep per colonel and Uncle G, sourcing it is easy, almost as easy as putting it up for deletion. Okip 00:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it peculiar that my initial statement is being used as a basis for argument about this subject. Whilst this discussion has been proceeding, I've been working on Ribble Way, the subject that I found the sources talking about. I haven't read either of the books cited by Colonel Warden, above. Uncle G (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found that odd too, but when the radical inclusionist mob has their eye on an article or has decided that a particular user is their enemy logic and reason take a back seat, all that matters is completing the "rescue." Claiming things and not backing them up, attacking the nominator, using policies as weapons to try and stifle debate, making vague allusions to sources without being clear about where they are or what they actually say, canvassing their allies to jump on board and join a discussion on their side, all in a days work. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Is a short, run-of-the-mill road with mostly residential houses. The landmarks this article lists here are also run-of-the-mill and not notable, making this article more like a directory. Sebwite (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gustav Mole[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable fictional character. The author and the books this character appeared in are all redlinks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - per nom, not even the book or author has an article, therefore non-notable. Derild 49 21 ☼ 22:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Oddly enough, the redlinks seem to never have been blue. Absolutely no assertion of notability, no prejudice against moving and repurposing this article to focus on the author and her works, but that seems like a lot more work than just deleting this and starting over if anyone actually cares. Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Non notable. He iro 04:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per comments by Jclemens. --LoЯd ۞pεth 06:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was speedy keep/redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Student Media (Kent State)[edit]

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

No sources cited or other evidence of notability. Every college has such a program, very few of them are well known outside the campus they operate on. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe selectively merge any useful content to Kent State University#Student media. Some of the content of this page is already discussed there, but perhaps some of the rest could usefully be added. I do agree that a separate article is not necessary, although it should also be noted that a number of these student media outlets already have their own separate pages (see the links in the Media section at Template:Kent State University). Also, note that this page appears to be based on, and to follow closely, the content at http://www.jmc.kent.edu/students/media/default.aspx, but my cursory unscientific sampling of the text didn't detect any obvious copyvios.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huh. I guess I should have checked the main Kent State article, this probably wasn't necessary, we could just redirect it to the relevant section and material worth merging could be pulled form the page history if needed. Sound good? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup, sounds good to me.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dalia Mohammed[edit]

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

Delete for lack of notability. No citations to reliable sources, tagged for 9 months. No evidence of notability stated in stub article, no evidence of awards or significant third party coverage of her. Fails basic WP:Bio --Bejnar (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO not notable Infinitely Humble (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Probably doing a good job - but not notably (by WP standards). If that's all that can be said after nine months (and no references supplied to support the little there), it should go. No prejudice against a new and improved version (with miracle ingredient NineRefs) being created. Peridon (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Could not find any outside information about her or her career. Google News Archive found only an article where she was quoted as a kind of woman-on-the-street. [3]--MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. –MuZemike 23:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stealing Angels[edit]

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

Article has had a few problems recently with a COI editor; but I'm unconvinced the band is even notable. Two of the members being related to famous people is clearly not a reason; a single that charted at 59 on a minor chart clearly isn't either. GNews reveals 45 hits; the problem being that only 7 are actually about the band, and those are local paper listings saying they're playing near X soon. My band-o-meter says "not notable" - what think you? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Hot Country Songs is hardly a minor chart, and the song's at #48 not #59. The CMT and The Boot articles seem like reliable third party coverage to me. Also, the COI editor has stopped editing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep-Definitely not my cup-o-tea musically, but per his otterness reasons above, seems to pass WP:NOTABLE. He iro 18:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - passes WP:BAND. Methinks the Kite's band-o-meter needs retuning! ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - per WP:BAND. Criteria for musicians and ensembles states on #2: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". And since having charted on the Country Songs chart, it passes. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 20:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per all the above rationales. CloversMallRat (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note to admins - User:CloversMallRat is the creator of the article. Nowyouseeme talk2me 21:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep agree with all above, meets criteria Infinitely Humble (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep As per TenPoundHammer. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I don't think this meets the notability criteria for musicians/ensembles - they haven't charted on any country's main chart, just once on a genre chart (not even reaching top 40). The article only has 3 sources, one of which is of the bands website, which I don't find sufficient. CMT and The Boot will write about any and every country music song, whether notable or not. Nowyouseeme talk2me 21:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is a genre chart insufficient? I'm not seeing it. If it were only at, say, #29 on Hot AC, would you say no? Also, I wouldn't say that The Boot or CMT write about "every country music band". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I meant to say 'band' instead of song, and if they charted at #29 on AC I would still say delete. Nowyouseeme talk2me 21:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I see a flaw in your argument "CMT/The Boot writes about every country music band whether notable or not". But CMT and The Boot are reliable third party sources, so if they write about the act, it's notable per WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So right now if I picked up a guitar and started humming a tune, and The Boot, and CMT wrote an article about it, according to you I would be notable enough to have my own Wikipedia article? Nowyouseeme talk2me 21:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're taking this a little too far. They probably wouldn't do that. But even so, those sites are very reliable, reputable, whatever you wanna call it, and if they wrote whole articles on you, that would be at least a start in the "reliable third party sources" required by WP:GNG. (Also, why does it matter that they're "only" on the country charts? It's certainly more major than, say, "#3 on the charts for West Podunk, #2 in East Podunk".) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless CMT is sitting in your driveway right now, your arguemnt kinda falls on its face. If CMT is showing up to write an article on you, your prolly notable enough to have an article. He iro 21:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those websites certainly could do that if they wanted to. Using your words, if they wrote about me strumming my guitar I would be notable, which is ludicrous. "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" - I just don't see this as pertaining to genre charts, it sounds to me like it means the country's main chart. Nowyouseeme talk2me 21:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearly I don't understand WP:MUSIC, but someone's still going to have to explain to me how a band with a single that was the 48th most popular, in a niche market, for one week, is notable. Blimey - if that's the bar for notability, my old band who once made #37 in the British indie charts in 1987 (for one week) is notable (and I'll give you a clue - we weren't). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not like the song's hit #48 and it's done. You don't know that it won't climb higher. What if it gets to, say, #33? Would it still be "non notable" then? How about #29? #17? #5? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is done. The song is currently at No. 59 on the country chart after weeks of falling backwards. Nowyouseeme talk2me 04:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Delete A genre chart is not particularly notable, certainly not at #49, this means perhaps just one or two plays on a few country music stations in one given week. Almost any band that's ever been played on radio could qualify under this sort of standard. No evidence of significant sales or popularity.Sumbuddi (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, why is a genre chart "not particularly notable"? Do you just not like county music? And how are the Boot and CMT sources not enough for notability? All I'm hearing so far from anyone saying delete is "well, it's just not notable, that's how I feel, it's just not notable just not notable just not notable" Don't you know that's an argument to avoid? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I loooooooovee country music actually.

I am entitled to my opinion, which is backed up by more argument than most of the KEEPs here, not sure what the relevance of the 'just not notable' schtick you've got going there is. I read the sources, my assessment of them was 'this band is unsignificant and has done nothing, but now they have a hot(ish) new manager who, if they are lucky, might bring them some success in the future.' When that happens, I'll be sure to vote KEEP. In the mean time, you can find plenty of sources about all kinds of pop culture crap (reality TV stars for instance), but it's well-established that doesn't automatically make them notable, in fact they generally aren't. Feel free to tell me I don't like country music and my reasoning is faulty, I'll really enjoy it if you tell me that. But seriously, just not at all noteworthy right now. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep for all the reasons EnDaLeCoMpLeX and Ten Pound Hammer have so clearly stated above. They have charted on the country music charts. Ejgreen77 (contributions) 23:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep charted on a major chart, nothing more to say. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Have half of you keeps even looked at the article? It's nothing. It hardly has any substantial information at all. If all of you want it to be kept so badly then I certainly hope you all are willing to devote time to expand the article.. because as I said.. it's nothing. Nowyouseeme talk2me 03:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm completely astonished, I must admit. Yes, if there was evidence they passed any other of the tenets of WP:BAND this would be irrelevant, but #48 on a genre chart is enough for notability now? Seriously? How is that the USA's national music chart (which is clearly the intention of the policy)?. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly. I think they need to look closer at "any country's national music chart". Note that it says chart singular, as in 1 chart, as in the main chart, as in the Hot 100. By no stretch of the imagination is Hot Country Songs the United States' national music chart. What if it charted at No. 48 on Billboards Tropical Songs chart? Country and Tropical are both genre charts aren't they, equal? Would they still be "notable" then? Nowyouseeme talk2me 06:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - The argument over whether the chart is notable is going nowhere slowly and was resolved way up above. Also, for those criticizing the article for being thin, if you put the same amount of effort into improving the article as you have here about deleting it, most of this discussion wouldn't be necessary. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why the hell would I put in effort to improving an article that I think isn't notable and should be deleted? Nowyouseeme talk2me 14:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By my count, since the nomination yesterday, 6 editors have made 14 contributions to the article to at least get it to viable stub form. Meanwhile, you have commented in this debate 9 times, with many more levels of effort than that expended by the folks who are doing what is supposed to be done with a weak article - improve it. Oh, and take a look at the "Co-operation and civility" section of WP:CIVIL which can be read in less time than it took me to type this.--DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll be sure to read it as soon as you read WP:Piss off (WP:NOTCENSORED). Nowyouseeme talk2me 15:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED is trumped by WP:CIVIL. He iro 16:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment They also received a full page article in a recent Country Weekly which I just added to the article. Surely that says something about notability per WP:GNG? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment If you all that are saying that having charted a minor single on the Hot Country Songs chart isn't enough to be notable, then Mica Roberts should be up for deletion again as well. She failed to chart within the Top 50 of the charts. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dude, don't tempt them. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

keep seems notable Aisha9152 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Eric444 (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep for same reasons Aisha9152 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't !vote more than once. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Good, The Bad, And The Munchkin[edit]

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

No sources cited or other evidence of notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Munchkin assuming reviews aren't found in RSes. Hobit (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I was in a bit of a hurry this morning and should have taken more time before nomming this, it is in fact already covered at Munchkin (card game)#Expansions, I only checked the link actually in this article, which leads to content about the munchkins from the Wizard of Oz. If there are no objections to just redirecting it and pulling any merge-worthy content from the page history the nomination can be considered withdrawn. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other than that small fish you are due for not checking for sources first, I think you're fine with the redirect. I can't find any RSes with reviews, though I suspect they exist. And even if they do, a redirect in this case isn't unreasonable. Hobit (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Close We're done here. Hobit (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jônatas[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of names. Only one notable person with this name listed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Just one name is not good enough. Derild 49 21 ☼ 22:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I agree with Derild 49 21 ☼.. one name does not meet notability criterion. Limongi (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was speedy delete as a recreation of deleted material that did not address the problems that led to the first deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nette Framework[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources or other evidence that this software is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of every piece of software ever produced. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Per the first AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I missed that, this can safely be speedy deleted then, never mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. –MuZemike 23:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Riefkohl[edit]

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

Individual doesn't seem to quite rise above the notability threshold. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:PROF, and WP:BIO in general. SnottyWong ^comment 17:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Delete' - per nom; seemingly fails WP:NOTABLE NickCT (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - the man is notable and is in the Puertorican newspapers in an almost weekly basis. El Johnson (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I believe that the awards that the subject has received, plus the fact that the media considers him to be sufficient notable as to merit coverage is more then enough reason to keep this article. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - search did provide reliable media coverage in newspapers such as Chicago Tribune and Sun Times. Infinitely Humble (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Puerto Rican who has been prominent in the private sector (top leader of the PR Manufacturers Association) and public sector (former president of Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company) alike. Pr4ever (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. I wasn't too impressed with some of the arguments on either side but at this time I don't see a consensus to delete this article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2010 Ryder Cup photograph[edit]

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

Non-notable internet meme. Famous for a day, but has no long-lasting significance. _wjemather ^bigissue 16:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Actually, it is quite notable due to the rapidity of its spread (as well as its extent). In any event, establishing a permanent entry of a cultural event such as this (i.e. a new and significant internet meme), especially with the degree of press it has garnered, is hardly unjustified. Gaussgauss (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soft Keep I knew when I created this article that it would likely go to AfD. I understand the reasoning behind the deletion proposal. I agree somewhat that the notability of the photograph is borderline at best although it has definetly garnered widespread news coverage. Plenty of source material is available. I think it just meets the notability guideline, and the article has lots of potential. With further work, it can become an engaging, objective, an informative article on a unique cultural phenomenon. Burningview ✉ 02:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Also, have a look at similar internet meme articles with borderline notability such as 300-page iPhone bill Burningview ✉ 03:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced that a single amusing photograph, however much short-term attention it garners, is deserving of a Wikipedia article. The iphone bill meme does, at least, have some notability in the way it comments on a widespread issue with iphone billing. In any case, other stuff exists is not usually a strong argument. --Korruski^Talk 10:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is an essay. Hundreds of news outlets find it notable to write about, and some anonymous volunteer doesn't? Who has more credibility? Adamtheclown (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Didn't even know about this until I just saw a feature about "cigar guy" on CNN international just a few minutes ago. I'm guessing notable enough for CNN, good enough for us. Shrumster (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not at all. Wikipedia places a much greater premium on lasting notability and avoiding 'light news' than most news sources, CNN included, do. --Korruski^Talk 15:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'light news' is WP:SENSATION:

"Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting. Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting. Some editors may take into account perceived media bias, such as Missing white woman syndrome, when assessing notability."

This is not "tabloid journalism", "sensationalist" and "scandal mongering". If you are going to support deleting other editors work, at least quote a policy which backs up your personal opinion. Adamtheclown (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My opinion is that the story about this image is 'tabloid journalism', 'gossip' and 'frivolous', so WP:SENSATION does back up my opinion. Thanks though. --Korruski^Talk 08:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I also agree that this article has lots of potential. I've first saw the story of Cigar Guy on yahoo news, then later on CNN, and finally I decided to look to wikipedia (like I always do) for additional information, and surely enough, here it is. Lets also not forget the connection this "historical" photo now has with a celebrity, Tiger Woods. mz (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We all know that the internet spawns all kinds of crap, some of which makes the wider news media, however briefly. This is one such occasion. However there is nothing here to indicate why this meets WikiPedia's notability standards.
The photograph is the subject of the article and it is only in the news because of the 'cigar guy' thing, which will be long forgotten soon enough. _wjemather ^bigissue 18:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would appreciate it if you refrain from calling other editors contributions "crap". It is inflammatory and doesn't help civil discourse.

Daily Mail and MSNBC are not notable news oranizations? How many hundreds of news organizations would you need references for?

Again, please note that notability does not expire: "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." WP:NTEMP Adamtheclown (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Knock it off. Clearly I, and others your are similarly accusing, are not commenting on other editors, we are stating our thoughts on this kind of internet-related trivial nonsense. I also think you should definitely read the policies again. News stories (which this obviously is) absolutely do need ongoing coverage or evidence of long term impact. See (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENT, and even WP:ONEEVENT). _wjemather ^bigissue 08:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - must we really sully the article space with this kind of crap just because there was a slow news day out there somewhere? _{Óðinn ☭☆ᛟ talk} 21:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- You do know you are insulting editors contributions? Adamtheclown (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They made the choice to spend time on building an entirely unencyclopedic article out of their own free will. _{Óðinn ☭☆ᛟ talk} 01:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep this picture is the very essence of the reason wikipedia was created. It is pointless and more famous than 99.9 percent of all the greatest works of art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.234.194 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep massive amounts of references for this article. WP:NTEMP Notability never expires, so if Cigar guy is notable today, just because time passes and he is not talked about later, doesn't mean he should not be on wikipedia. Adamtheclown (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He is not notable today, nor will he be tomorrow. He may be newsworthy on a quiet day, but that is a totally different thing. Same goes for the photograph (which is the subject of this article). _wjemather ^bigissue 08:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I just googled this after seeing it mentioned on a blog. But perhaps Cigar Man should be listed under List of Internet phenomena rather than a whole article about this photo. It is being mentioned in the British press , see Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph. Jezzerk (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep for now which is my normal opinion for brand new items that definitely have "temporary notability" in the common-English-language sense of the word but which may or may not survive the test of time. Give it 3 months minimum before sending it back to AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That position has no basis in policy. _wjemather ^bigissue 12:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has a good commonn sense basis in reality, however, and is the de facto result in many of these AfDs.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as subject is widely covered in UK, US, and global press, and with this breaking news the article can be improved with a confirmed identity for the mysterious Cigar Guy. Notability is not temporary. - Dravecky (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still not notable in the first place though. _wjemather ^bigissue 12:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The general notability policy is pretty clear on this: "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." The coverage has been significant, reliable, independent, and ongoing over a period of time, not merely "a day" as asserted in the nomination. Also, Notability is not temporary, to wit: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage" so even if/when coverage eventually tapers off, that's not a factor here. - Dravecky (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GNG is quite obviously a guideline not a policy, and the key word is presumed, i.e not guaranteed. Yes notability is not temporary, but this has not been notable at any time. Newsworthy apparently, but not notable. This has been nothing more than a news story about some internet nonsense. Therefore WP:NOTNEWS applies, and until it can be demonstrated that this has some long lasting impact or significance that will remain the case. Also, the Daily Mail is not an independent source. _wjemather ^bigissue 14:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP. The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if he were called for a commercial about cigars or the like. His image sells ! Krenakarore (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep if an image can be provided. A visual is absolutely essential for this article. Without one, the text is unaccompanied and thus incomplete. Haljackey (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The photograph is not available under any free license and would not qualify for fair use. Derivatives that have appeared elsewhere would similarly fall foul of the same laws. _wjemather ^bigissue 07:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question. Would anyone asserting WP:NTEMP please provide a rationale for why this passes WP:NOT and is even notable in the first place. _wjemather^bigissue 07:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reply: Do you mean WP:NOTE? I've quoted the relevant text in my initial comment. It's clear you don't like the article but it's also clear that consensus and the notability guidelines lean strongly the other direction. - Dravecky (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Comment - Worth noting, for people who are asserting WP:NTEMP in favour of keeping this article, that WP:NTEMP also states 'Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage.' I think this is a perfect example of where a topic garners a lot of news attention, including from respectable sources, because it is funny, but still fails to achieve notability. --Korruski^Talk 09:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Reply Except, in this case, there is significant coverage that does provide critical analysis, including CBS News, Yahoo Sports, Daily Mail, and Know Your Meme among many others. - Dravecky (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Again, please explain how this passes WP:NOT (yes, that is what I meant), specifically WP:INDISCRIMINATE. _wjemather ^bigissue 17:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        The article at hand is not a plot-only description of a fictional work, not a lyrics database, not an excessive listing of statistics, not simply "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" or breaking news, not a who's who, and not an FAQ. Perhaps you could elaborate on how you think it does run afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. All of your statements so far fall more closely under WP:ITBOTHERSME. - Dravecky (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        It concerns me that you seem to have read the policy (WP:NOT), and chosen to select everything that does not apply. This statement from the policy however does apply: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". This is nothing more than a short-lived light-hearted news story about an unremarkable internet occurrence. Again, please let us know why this goes beyond that? _wjemather ^bigissue 19:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- (de-indent) You fired a shotgun blast and asked me to track the pellets—so I did. I listed all six of the points at WP:INDISCRIMINATE as this article does not fall afoul of any of them. The coverage goes beyond the "routine news reporting" outlined in that clause as it's sustained coverage of not merely the publication of the photo but of reaction to the photo itself, the spread of an altered version of the photo and elements thereof as an internet meme, and further coverage of the meme itself. Simply repeating your belief that the article violates policy does not make it so, no matter how many times you post it on this page. - Dravecky (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - You did no such thing. You initially asserted that notability is not temporary, without demonstrating notability. I asked you to demonstrate why it passes policy and you sidestepped the issue. Now you have finally decided to answer the question, I will respond.
    The photograph itself is absolutely not notable since all the coverage is of the meme and mention of the original photo is incidental. Coverage of the meme has been widespread but it lacks depth and does not go beyond routine, with the Daily Mail fuelling the ongoing stories because it was their photographer who took the original (free advertising). What we need to see is coverage that indicates why this meme is any more special than the last, or the one before that. As someone above said, as it stands an entry in a list of internet stuff will more than suffice. _wjemather^bigissue 07:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - The standard is notability, not "more special", but thank you for clarifying your view. - Dravecky (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Stop playing with words. As you well know, stuff like this needs something special to make it notable and being in the news for a few days just doesn't do it. Show us the evidence that makes this notable. _wjemather ^bigissue 20:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Even if this photo is notable right now, which is seriously debatable given a non-lawyerish and more commonsense view of what being notable actually means, the GNG is a presumption, and in this case, the coverage does not outweigh the obvious caveat to that - that this is an article whose sole claim to lasting notability and significance is temporary news coverage. And the coverage of this meme is not exceptional or significant for the general topic of internet memes that make the news, and per NOT#INFO aswell as NOT#NEWS, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to document every meme that simply makes the mainstream news, no matter how international that is. As somebody above said, there is no critical or in depth coverage here, it is all just basic news reporting, and in many of these, the whole follow up reporting to find out who the person is is perfectly normal and expected, for news reporting. But Wikipedia articles use different values than news outlets for determining what is and isn't worthy of note. There is also the BLP factor, given the actual bloke is a very reluctant celebrity it seems, and would not relish the unwarranted coverage an article on Wikipedia would bring for all time, on the basis of brief news exposure. If further coverage down the line proves this is not just one of many such run of the mill flash in the pan internet meme news stories that occur several times a year, and this image/meme is actually proven by RS to have been remembered as significant and historically relevant, then the article can be recreated. But looking at it this soon, this is obviously not going to be present yet. But if nothing is ever said about this again for the rest of time, then the world is losing nothing by deleting what is already here, which is not much. And after all, deleting this article does not mean information about this dissapears, there is List of internet phenomena for stuff like this (but this is categorically not an endorsement of a merge outcome, it can be deleted and redirects created. Several of the keep votes are pretty basic poor or invalid votes, and people who are trying to invoke NTEMP have not exactly proven this is notable beyond a WP:VAGUEWAVE, which can be applied to any old trivia on Google News on any given day. While space is not an issue, Wikipedia's funding drives most certainly will never cover such an approach to encyclopoedic worth. MickMacNee (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete this article, change redirects of Cigar guy and Cigar Guy to point to List of Internet phenomena instead, and summarize this article into an item for that list. I don't think this article title is a likely search term, so no need to keep 2010 Ryder Cup photograph as a redirect. I am unconvinced that this topic has lasting encyclopedic value, and therefore, anything more than a bullet item (with a couple of references) in the List of Internet phenomena article is undue weight. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to List of Internet phenomena as suggested by Andrwsc. Hellbus (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: There is no question that this photo/event has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Sure its silly fluff, but so is 90% all of news content, including, say, all the sports content we slavishly add to the project every day. But its really of no measurable benefit to the project to make value judgments to delete things like this that have received significant coverage (and do not disparage living persons). Thus, we have had an article on Tourist guy for almost six years, and it has withstood two deletion attempts in 2008-09. And there's also Crasher Squirrel, Bert is Evil, etc., all similar articles that have withstood deletion based on meeting WP:N (note, this is a valid OTHERSTUFF point, btw).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this coverage is an example of significant coverage, then what is insignificant coverage? Or are you just saying Wikipedia should keep all articles about any internet meme that simply makes the news (and citing those particular three articles is hardly proof of that, they are all very different to this). MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should keep articles that meet WP:N. I think we waste too much time arguing what meets that standard in an article like this because we find it unseemly, and the outcome is subjectively-based in middle-of-the-road cases. I shant endeavor to cite every internet meme article and say where this falls on the continuum. Easy cases of insignificant coverage abound, but we forget them because they are insignificant, i.e., something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haggard's Law which gets cited maybe once or twice and dies out instead of steamrolling for days in international press.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm, keep in order to avoid wasting time deciding whether it is notable or not based on said policy? Sorry, but no. You really are going to have to provide some evidence that this goes beyond a news story and has some lasting legacy that warrants anything more than a mention in a list. _wjemather ^bigissue 21:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The coverage meets WP:N, we have 1000s of articles just like this. End of story. If you want to waste your time trying to get it deleted, fine. It does not improve the project to remove this article, in my opinion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, feel free to explain why this goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS (a policy). Evidence not assertions required. _wjemather ^bigissue 06:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is pretty straightforward on this. "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The example provided by WP:NOTNEWS of what is not appropriate is regular news reporting, e.g., separate articles on every round of golf Tiger Woods plays, or every football match or every U.S. baseball game. That is most of what is "news" in our newspapers. This event, however, is outside the realm of ordinary news humdrum coverage. Out of everything that was in the news on the day this photo was published, this is one of the very very few stories that day that grew a life of its own, and sufficient coverage, to merit inclusion. A big cricket game in New Dehli[4] would not.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I am still waiting for your explanation as to whether this means that Wikipedia's purpose is to give an article to every meme that makes the newspapers, or if not, how the coverage of this particular meme goes beyond what can be considered 'routine' news reporting of memes that make the news. (I could not find even a single news source that mentions Haggard's Law, so it's not particularly relevant to this issue as I see it.) And btw, we do write articles on routine sports matches, at the appropriate level of abstraction - not individual matches, but test series - see Australian cricket team in India in 2010–11. Giving a Wikipedia article to every meme that makes the news, with no consideration of anything else, is not even close to how we apply an encyclopoedic level of historical abstraction to such coverage, which is a concept which is made pretty clear in every essay and guidline that extends and inteprets NOT#NEWS w.r.t. notability. MickMacNee (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Ask someone 5 years from now: "Hey, remember that 2010 Ryder Cup photograph with Tiger Woods?" The blank stare on their face will demonstrate how this fails WP:NTEMP. SnottyWong ^verbalize 23:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am glad you can predict the future. In actuality, however, social science research has shown that your proposition is wrong. People do remember or hear these things and search for information on them, 5, 10, 20, 100 years into the future.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fantasy research aside, you'll probably find that if you asked most people today you'd get a lot of blank looks, but that is irrelevant. No-one has been able to provide any evidence to suggest why it may be mentioned by reliable sources at any time in the future. So for now we delete it and add a one-liner to the list of internet stuff. Should it turn out that it does in fact have lasting impact, then we will recreate it. _wjemather ^bigissue 06:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In 1835, some guy wrote a few fake articles about finding life on the moon. The Great Moon Hoax is still remembered today. In 1860, Grace Bedell convinced Abraham Lincoln to grow a beard; no doubt this was Lincoln "fancruft" at the time. I doubt you would have conceived that any reliable sources would mention these silly events in the future--but they did and still do. Just because the internet has been invented, human nature has not radically changed, these silly things are not forgotten. I don't see how compressing the information into one line will be helpful to humans in 2010 or 2160.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I do not own a crystal ball and thus cannot "provide any evidence" from the future, based on the spread and duration of the coverage this photo and meme are sure to make several "best of 2010" and "year in review" retrospectives in a few months time. It's certainly more prudent to keep the article then, perhaps, when we've reached some future point we can look back and see if coverage was sufficient. - Dravecky (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, we delete now and recreate later, if and when such evidence materialises. Per WP:CRYSTAL, that is the way it works. _wjemather ^bigissue

Keep It gets ample coverage. [5] Daily Mail says "None could have realised just how Pain's photo would soon take the online world by storm". They go into detail about the photograph, it not just a brief passing mention. Dream Focus 14:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The implication of which is that we write articles for every subject that.....is written about by newspapers. This is hardly a persuasive rebuttal to the argument that this is a very basic and very obvious NOT#NEWS violation. MickMacNee (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I stated before, the Daily Mail is not an independent source in this instance, being the employers of the photographer and presumably the rights holders of the photograph. As such they can well be expected to go overboard in their analysis – it is in their interest to do so. _wjemather ^bigissue 16:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question - all of the "ample coverage" says essentially the same thing. So how does it justify an entire article on the topic? Per my !vote above, it seems like WP:UNDUE weight to me. I would like to see some discussion on this aspect of the topic; why does this meme warrant an entire article instead of a bullet point paragraph in the List of Internet phenomena article? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beyond what I've already said above, the photo is being called by some as perhaps the greatest ever sports photo.[6] That goes beyond normal grandiose claims for memes.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a tongue-in-cheek comment in a blog posting. The #1 reason (claimed by the writer) is because the photographer's name is Mark Pain. Hardly an encyclopedic analysis of the photograph. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[7] ("Tiger Woods gives us the greatest golf photo you'll ever see").--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another ultra reliable tongue-in-cheek blog. By the way, plastering double and triple citations all over the article is doing nothing to demonstrate why this is notable. If anything it only shows that there is nothing to see here but a short-lived media storm over a minor internet event. _wjemather ^bigissue 19:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A typical deletion rationale in these discussions is "it really didn't get any coverage". I didn't endeavor to add 100 citations, just a few more to make it clear it wasn't just covered in The Mail.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong delete as per nom. Just short-term media sensationalism. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 05:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. –MuZemike 23:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spinfizz[edit]

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

Seems to be redundant to Zorbing, borderline advertising and as a product itself may be non-notable. Acather96 (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - per nom; seemingly fails WP:NOTABLE NickCT (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete It is just a non-notable Zorbing-device. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. –MuZemike 22:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Omniprovement[edit]

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

Made-up word, or rarely used neologism at best, without any reliable sources showing usage. Creator removed prod tag. This is arguably worthy of speedy deletion. First Light (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - per nom; awkward neologism. Plus WP is not a dictionary. NickCT (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This is a dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. I could find only one source: Urban Dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Urban Dictionary is user edited. Joe Chill (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was Keep: nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grizzly Bear (dance)[edit]

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

Not enough information available to write a decent article. A Google search shows there was a dance called the "grizzly bear" about 100 years ago. However the information given in the article is uncited and seems a little suspect. Why would a dance invented in San Francisco be danced on the Staten Island ferry? And why would a dance described as "decidedly ungraceful and undignified" be introduced on Broadway by the Ziegfeld Follies? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination withdrawn since it is now clear that the topic is notable and a good article is possible. Sorry that I didn't check Google books as well as a general web search. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - for failing to meet general notability guidelines. I was pretty sure this was a hoax, but I see that the current article is more or less the same as the original stub article put up in 2005 — so if it's a hoax, it's a particularly long-surviving one. Absolutely no sources showing and I agree with the nominator that there is a dubious and illogical specificity to the article which indicates to me that it should NOT be given the benefit of the doubt. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.

I note that the original creator of the article still contributes to Wikipedia with some frequency five years later, greatly reducing the likelihood that this is an outright hoax. Regardless, the absolutely unsourced nature of the article combined with its lack of internal logic makes it a fine candidate for the axe, in my opinion. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.

Now nicely sourced, objection withdrawn. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.

Strong Keep, speedy close. A simple Google Books search [8] shows that the article is reasonably accurate and there is more than enough information online to demonstrate notability. The article seems to be a knockoff of this page [9], which may or may not itself qualify as an RS. Associated with Irving Berlin as well. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Keep I've expanded the article and added some references. It seems to have been a fair important and popular dance back in the early 1900's, considering the amount of ruckus that was raised over it because people considered it to be risque. Silver seren^C 17:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Keep Running my eye over the article it seems like this subject gets some mention in a variety of reliable sources. Seems WP:NOTABLE. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep No argument for delete has been sustained. Article now claims notability and references reliable sources. Thincat (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snow/Speedy Keep. We all agree, including the nom (kudos to him). Time for someone to roll this up.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was Userfy because the article creator has agreed that Wikisource is an appropriate location for this information, and has requested that it be userfied as a convenience; no !votes appear to conflict with this course of action (early closure, non-admin closure). VQuakr (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

T.O. 21M-LGM25C-1[edit]

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

This article is simply a text copy of a manual bought in a museum shop. It is not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Perhaps it would be appropriate for Wikibooks? Peacock (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Peacock (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.
Transwiki to Wikisource and delete. I assume that as an official work of the US government, apparently the manual for a missile, this doesn't pose a copyright issue. I have removed what appeared to be a copyrighted introduction from a museum curator. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Transwiki to WikiSource. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a reference for manuals or how-tos. If this is a genuine military manual, it will be public domain as a work of the US Government. While it might be a good source for LGM-25C Titan II, it shouldn't be an independant article. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: It seems that the original author is amenable to an alternative to keeping the article as seen at User talk:VQuakr#Welcome message. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a wikisourcer, this sounds like a good candidate for WS. We'll want page scans to be uploaded to Commons, if possible. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 19:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author's notes[edit]

Thank you for your ideas regarding this "non-article"; I accept that we all may have different ideas about what is relevant to Wikipedia. Boldly Go, as has been said, by Jimmy Wales no less. Now can I request that you don't delete sections of my work without prior notification? If I move the whole work to my user page, then it cannot violate any copyright can it? And can someone tell me (a Wiki newbie) about Wikibooks? It was suggested to me that WikiLeaks might be suitable, but they seem to have gone underground of late. Dwarner30uk (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't get the wrong idea. Your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia are appreciated. Starting the article as you did is completely within the spirit of Wikipedia, even if the community decides here that it is not quite right for the type of encyclopedia we are building. To answer your questions, if text is copyrighted, it doesn't matter what type of page it appears on, it is still not permitted on Wikipedia (with a few exceptions outlined at Wikipedia:Non-free content). You can read our articles on Wikibooks and Wikisource to learn a bit more about those websites. For specific help about whether the information at T.O. 21M-LGM25C-1 would be appropriate for either of those sites, you'll probably have to ask there. Peacock (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was speedy delete, vandalism (hoax) and no showing of minimal importance in reliable sources; think we've seen enough here. Will check to see if this has been remade on any other language's Wikipedias as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hill Philipp & Associates Corp.[edit]

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

Article appears to fail to meet the guidelines of WP:ORG. I find nothing in GNews apart from press releases and their derivatives. There is nothing in the article itself to suspect significant impact in order to meet the notability requirements. As prior speedy delete, notability improvement templates and a PROD have been removed without any improvement in sources or rationale (apart from the number of employees being added) I have raised the article for discussion. Fæ (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete. The only reference here is to an alleged website. Google News has never heard of this. Since even non-notable businesses usually have press release and routine announcement stuff turning up in Google News, I am wondering if this might be a hoax. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Agreed, for a company where the article claims they have 1600 employees they are suspiciously invisible. The Wikipedia article is now the top match in Google and unfortunately their domain name is registered anonymously (most real companies would be obliged to make the registration public). If this is a real company they should get a new PR manager as their invisibility makes them look like a scam. Fæ (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Comment. This business is invisible on Google News Archive, Books, and Scholar; all of the general Google results are from blogspot.com sites or online distributions of press releases, all within the month as noted. This article apparently also exists on German Wikipedia, de:Hill Philipp & Associates Corp., the gist of the text looks the same there. Someone who speaks the language might want to call their attention to this discussion. The Engelhard Chemical Company mentioned in this article is apparently real; they were acquired by BASF.[10] Nothing suggests that they ever were involved in finance or banking in Asia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - The page on :de has been deleted; citing this discussion. JohnCD (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Gee, those guys don't hang about. Fæ (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as hoax. According to the article, Hill, Philipp Associates Corp. is based in Hong Kong, and the official web site lists branches in Singapore, the UK and the USA. But I can't find a company of that name registered with the appropriate agencies in any of those places, all of which have databases that can be searched online (Companies Registry, ACRA, Companies House, SEC). EALacey (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Also not found under the names "Philip Hill", "Philipp Hill" and "HP Bank". EALacey (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I will add that although the company has supposedly existed since 1972, the press releases turned up by Google go back no further than late September of this year. EALacey (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Comment. I can think of no good reasons why an apparently serious looking hoax article about an alleged financial institution that can't even get a newspaper to pick up its press releases should be here, and I can think of several bad reasons. Unless some kind of evidence of legitimacy is forthcoming in the near future, this should be speedily deleted as vandalism. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy / Snow Delete - With the above independent investigations I am concerned that the existence of a Wikipedia article may be actively used for a fake bank/financial institution scam. I recommend speedy deletion, the article creator is free to apply the WP:DRV process if they have a case and can supply independent sources at a later date. Fæ (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - ~~given the checking necessary, this doesn't in my opinion qualify for WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax (though I won't quarrel with any admin who disagrees with me and zaps it).~~ (Changed my mind - see below). As long as the article carries a "hoax" tag and a link to this discussion, it won't be of much use in supporting a scam. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as hoax (changed to spedy - se below). What's on the web is all press releases, and the fact that none is dated earlier than last month is damning. To add to the evidence above: searches for the chairman and the CEO don't find anything relevant: the article says the HQ is Hong Kong, but the website gives contact addresses only in Singapore, London and Chicago; RDNS for the website returns 207.182.135.3, which is xlhost.com and geolocates to Columbus, Ohio. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I've just visited 30 St Mary Axe, which the HPAC website claims is the address of its European headquarters. The reception staff there were unaware of the institution's existence and agreed to bring the website to the attention of building management. EALacey (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax. Thanks, EALacey; if the company is not known at its supposed London HQ, that is enough to change my mind about this being a blatant enough hoax for speedy deletion. I have tagged it db-hoax to get another pair of eyes. JohnCD (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. –MuZemike 22:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dodgy Holiday Tour[edit]

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

Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG as a non-notable tour. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Found no sources in Google to show any sign of notability. Derild 49 21 ☼ 22:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete , not much in the way of independent sourcing demonstrating more than existence out there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imaginarium Tour[edit]

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

Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC Nouse4aname (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG, non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otago University Hockey Club[edit]

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

I've declined a speedy deletion of this article on the grounds that it is, technically, sourced - however I still have doubts as to whether or not the club is notable, especially considering the likely conflict of interest editing occurring. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - University club, no indication of any form of significant coverage, fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG, just plain not notable. Codf1977 (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as there is no independent coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As creator of the page, I acknowledge my involvement in the club in question as a member and an officer of the executive next year. However, I respectfully disagree with Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry that this constitutes a conflict of interest, as it is still from a neutral point of view. I however, must concede that the club is not especially notable, and that my main motivation for the creation of the page was that pages for several other University of Otago clubs had Wiki pages. I note that since the beginning of this discusion, and my use of the existence of those pages as support for my advocacy against speedy deletion, two of those pages seem to have been deleted, and another has been nominated. While I consider this a small loss to Wikipedia, if the policy is being implemented consistently, I will not oppose deletion. I direct administrator Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry towards the remaining clubs in the University of Otago navbox, namely Otago University AFC and Otago University Rowing Club which should also probably be deleted. - GintyFrench^(talk!) 11:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Smerge this and the other recent club and society articles into Clubs and societies of the University of Otago Grutness...wha? 00:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete nothing in gnews [11]. looking forward to someone vaguely arguing we should keep on the basis of WP:PRESERVE. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - per WP:Org and WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Kudpung (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was KEEP. Those making the keep argument have presented a necessary minimum of reliable source material to craft a quality encyclopedia article about the subject. Clearly meets the basic requirements of notability guidelines. Steven Walling 21:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sons of Haiti[edit]

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

No notability asserted in article, and Google brings up very little information not associated with Washington Hall (Seattle, Washington). SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and improve The article, just recently started as a stub, does not yet meet standards for a good article, but its improvement can be covered by normal editing processes. Tag it "refimprove" and "expand" maybe. Or just develop it, using Google-accessible sources to start. The topic of the article is a black Masonic organization, and it has received snide comments from Masonic wikipedians at a couple Talk pages already. I gather that Masonites are snobby and have insular language ("bogus" and other terms) to deprecate fraternal organizations that represent schisms or differences of belief about their "craft". I think that the Sons of Haiti subgroup or separate fraternal organization group is probably as worthy, certainly to have one Wikipedia article. There are, I think, hundreds of Wikipedia articles about Masonite lore and groupings, worded often mysteriously to put a good face forward and to avoid revealing precious secrets.

The coverage available relating to the organization in Seattle, Washington is valid coverage, not yet developed in this article. However browsing shows the organization exists in Georgia and various places besides Seattle as well. It is a widespread organization and I believe coverage does support its topic as a valid Wikipedia subject. --doncram (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd love to keep and improve it -- I'm just questioning whether it's possible to demonstrate WP:N using WP:RS. Existence isn't really enough to justify an article, and the none of the sources I found when I checked before filing this demonstrated anything but existence.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't necessarily have time or interest to develop this a lot myself, but here are some pieces of information:

Sons of Haiti is a black fraternal organization that operates in U.S. states of Washington, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. (Bessel webpage has 3 separate mentions, in these three states)
It is a black Masonic order^[1]
It is a subgroup of Freemasonry, a subdivision of the Prince Hall (black) freemasonry.^[2]
The Sons of Haiti in Seattle Washington operated at [Washington Hall (Seattle, Washington)|Washington Hall]] from 1973 to 2009. (various sources)
There is a Sons of Haiti Lodge in Renton, Washington. The City of Renton City Council "recognized August 11, 2010 as Sons of Haiti Supreme Council Day".^[3]

^ Nancy Bartley (2008). "Washington Hall, where Fats Domino and other black performers played, is for sale". Seattle Times.
^ "All Masonic Grand Lodges in the United States". Bessel.
^ "Renton".

I believe that some of the numerous Masonic editors in wikipedia may have books about Prince Hall freemasonry and other sources that would speak to the history of this organization, or access to libraries that have such. --doncram (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure SoH is a "subgroup" of Masonry, but the Bessel ref definitely doesn't support that they're associated with Prince Hall Masonry.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Renton lodge is the same as the Seattle one ... it is their new location after they sold Washington Hall. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, i had misinterpreted the 3 columns in the Bessel tabulation of Masonic organizations. It in fact gives 1) "Mainstream" or "AF&AM" or "generally-recognized" Grand Lodges, 2) "Official" Prince Hall Grand Lodges, and 3) Other Grand Lodges. Out of sight of the headers, down in the table, I had misinterpreted the 3rd column entries in each state as being components of the 2nd column entries. Anyhow, there are apparently differences amongst types of Masonic organizations that may mean a lot to some members, may mean nothing to others, and which don't seem terribly important to explain in Wikipedia. Or, perhaps the contention among them is worthy of discussion. I don't want to give airplay to the bogus-looking blog-like websites about which are "bogus" or not. It hardly seems right for several self-acknowledged Masonic members here, i presume of column type 1, to be deleting all mention of the type 2 and type 3 organizations from Wikipedia, if that is what is going on. I suspect that there are few or no persons of column type 2 or type 3 who are editor-members of WikiProject Freemasonry, which may choose to itself cover only type 1. But, this is an organization that exists and it should not be for WikiProject Freemasonry or one or a few Masonic members to erase mention of the other types. --doncram (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know for sure of any PHA members of WPFreemasonry, but they'd certainly be welcomed there. My GL officially recognizes the PH GLs in CT and MA, and the MA GL actually has a lodge in Bangor, near where I live. I could visit them, if I knew where and when they met... After column 2, though, things get fuzzy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete organisation with no notability stated in the article. If they're notable, then prove it. There certainly isn't anything saying so in the article whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I too have tried to find sources on this organization with no results. There is no indication that they can meet the standards set out at WP:ORG. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep the article barely 24 hours old at this point, and I'm appauled that it's tagged for deletion so quickly as it does not run foul of Wikipedia:Deletion policy except for perhaps Wikipedia:Notability, though it does (now) have the required two links. Markvs88 (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I mentioned the Washington Hall coverage in my nomination. Can you find anything notable about the organization, rather than the building? If so, I'd love to have it added. I'm generally an inclusionist, and will withdraw my noms given sufficient incentive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - The article is now up to 4 citations so it meets notability standards. As for building vs. group, that they were the owners is in itself notable. As you might be aware, Masonic coverage is usually pretty scarce in the media other than the occasional picture of Shriners in a parade. :-| I'm also not from the area, so it's not like I'm doing anything other than using search engines. However, I *did* find something on the Oregon chapter and have added it to the article. Markvs88 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, the Portland MLK source does not indicate that there is an "Oregon chapter"... note the commas... this could be the Washington group traveling down to Portland. The citations is trivial... listing the Sons of Haiti among the many groups that were volunteers at the event. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The number of citations is not the standard by which we judge notability. WP:ORG says: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. I would say that the citations that have been added since this AfD started fall into the "Trivial or incidental coverage" category. What is needed is a source that actually discusses the organization in some depth. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm confused then -- a citation from a Masonic group saying another group is bogus is most certainly notable and verifiable, as is a citation from the City of Portland. Yes, I agree such a document would seriously help the article, but that's not the point -- it is verifiable (though a stub) and should not be deleted. Markvs88 (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(ec) Blueboar, you have previously mentioned going to a New York Masonic Grand Lodge library occasionally to do research. Could you possibly go again soon, or check on your next trip, for books discussing these organizations. Also, can you tell remotely using any online index, if there are books there which would seem likely to cover the column 2 and column 3 type Masonic organizations, and/or disagreements among them?

And, I guess i agree with Markvs88, that reliable discussion of which organizations are regarded as "bogus" by others might well be appropriate and used in the article. As well as city of Portland and other sources being reliable about the notability of the organization, whether they go into the internecine warfare or not. --doncram (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A valid point... we have not checked "dead tree" sources. I am actually going in to the Livingston Library this afternoon to look up something else... so I will be happy to see if there is anything on the Sons of Haiti.

As for the Phylaxis web page... The coverage is trivial... the reference is simply the inclusion of the Sons of Haiti name in a list of many organizations that Phylaxis considers "bogus Masonry". There is no significant discussion of why they list the Sons, or of the organization itself.

Notability isn't based on the number of citations that mention an org, its based on the quality and depth of coverage within those citations. A plethora of trivial passing references and incidental coverage does not demonstrate notability. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Searching in Google books, there's a Langston Hughes poem with "Sons of Hait" being a line.

115 page book about Sons and Daughters of Haiti Supreme Council, souvenir journal
Son's and Daughters of Haiti June Secession 1983, published by the Seattle Washington lodge, 1983.
Philip W. Scher 2009 book covering Haitians abroad as one topic, not necessarily specifically this Masonic group, but providing background.
Multiple hits on "Sons of Haiti" or "Sons and Daughters of Haiti" which seem to suggest the phrases have significant meaning, like "The Diaspora" being of great significance as a term for other peoples. I wonder if the Langston Hughes usage was an early use of this term or whether it echoed other usage. --doncram (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blueboar: true, except that this subject per WP:NRVE has "reputable media sources and other reliable sources generally". The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. Maintaining an historic building, working a local governmental affair and being blacklisted by another group are all verifiable and all noteworthy. That there is no single source stating details on the group is hardly surprising -- even the New York City Police Department lacks that. Having a FAQ like Historic Seattle does is not a requirement for an article, either. Markvs88 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other than passing references in a few articles that are primarily about a historical building, what "reputable media sources and other reliable sources generally" discuss this organization? Seriously, I think you are trying to build a house of cards on very flimsy foundation here. But we can let other editors look at the sources and decide. (side question... do we have a source for the "Sons of Haiti" and the "Sons and Daughters of Haiti" being the same org? or are people simply assuming that they are because the names are similar). Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I count 3 out of 7 about the building and it's purchase/sale by the group. 1 listing by the City of Portland as being/working a notable event. 1 by Prince Hall Freemasonry claiming they're not a legitimate masonic group. 1 listing by Bessel listing them as a masonic group and 1 by the City of Renton giving them their own day. Even if you (unjustly) ignore the building references, the other four conform to The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. That the four sources don't reveal the secret handshake and name of the Tyler is moot... this page is better referenced than Grand Lodge of Connecticut! Side question: I have none, that was in the article before I got involved. Markvs88 (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Userfy to wait for more content, unless new sources are found before this AfD expires. Delete. I sympathize with Doncram's reasons for starting this article, but there's not enough WP:RS substance to form the basis of an article (or establish notability, for that matter). However, I did find a website for this organization at http://sohscusa.com/haitiusa/Home.html -- with an interesting story at http://sohscusa.com/haitiusa/AboutUs.html (click on the first button; the second button doesn't work). It seems that this is an African American Masonic organization that was formed in Seattle after a legal squabble with the Prince Hall Masons. I expect that Blueboar and other Freemasons will weigh in on how "Masonic" they are. Regardless of the verdict on that topic, the organization's own website plus a bunch of articles about the group's ownership of that Seattle building aren't enough of a basis for an article, however. --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification: My "userfy" recommendation is essentially a "Delete" !vote, but I was suggesting that the article could be moved to Doncram's user space so he can expand it if and when he finds some solid content. In my interactions with Doncram, I have seen that he often is eager to start stub articles about new-found topics before he has assembled the necessary content or sources, or before he has written up the content he has found. If he were to keep this content in user space until it is properly developed, AfDs such as this one could be avoided. In this particular case, the best result might be the development of a broader-topic article that includes information about the Sons of Haiti, such as the "African American Freemasonry" article I suggested below. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gee thanks. I don't think userifying is appropriate, especially now that multiple people have been editing in the article and its Talk page. It's not my article, and I would prefer for Sons of Haiti members and other prospective future editors to be able to find it, in mainspace. Also, I gotta admire how you can stick with your persistent jabbing at me, through time. If another editor hides up your sarcasm directed at me in a closed box "Discussion not directly relevant to this AfD", you trot out additional personally directed stuff elsewhere. I've seen you do this before in other discussions, refining your jabs at me up and down, to get a good effect but not be too clearly over the wp:NPA threshold. It would be just terrible if our sometimes cooperation were to be misinterpreted by others; better make sure the dislike is more apparent! Thanks, actually, for finding the SoH webpage with its history, anyhow. --doncram (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, if you aren't interested in the userfy option (which I thought would be less disruptive than deletion), I'll just change my !vote to delete. (I made the change above.) --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, as long as your Delete vote isn't personal. :) I am in fact proud that i have identified numerous topics worthy of Wikipedia articles, and have often started stub articles. Often, as for the Danish Brotherhood in America, the other fraternal association that owned Washington Hall in Seattle, the topic develops nicely sooner (in that case) or later. What's different here seems to be the Masonic-focused editors and long-running contention involving them, me, Orlady, others. Too bad for all of us. --doncram (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doncram, I'd really suggest cutting out the personal insinuations. The lede of Danish Brotherhood says 'A period report said of the Danish Brotherhood, "This is by far the strongest and most influential secular organization about the Danes in America."' Where's the comparable cite for Sons of Haiti? If this article had a similar statement, this never would have gone to AfD. Believe me, I looked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I am pleased that you found their website, as it indicates that they are not a complete "two guys with a website calling themselves a Grand Lodge" type scam (I didn't think they were, but this is always an issue that has to be considered). Freemasonry (and especially African-American Freemasonry) is full of splinter groups and schisms... Wikipedia does not care which of them are considered Masonicly "legitimate" or not... but it does care which of them can be considered notable... and that is demonstrated by whether they are discussed in any depth by reliable third-party sources. In this case, that does not seem to be the case. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what is the bar for depth? It's not like Lodge Minutes is a column in the local newspaper. Markvs88 (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion not directly relevant to this AfD
Comment about related Masonic organization articles It seems relevant to note the complete lack of sourcing, or poor and inadquate sourcing, in other Masonic organization articles. The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania article has one source, dated 1961. There is no source whatsoever in Grand Lodge of Kansas, which was tagged by me on September 2 for sources and notability. I am wondering about opening an AFD there. Surely those calling for deletion of this Sons of Haiti article, 1 day old, would agree that a long-unsourced, completely unsourced article like that should be speedily deleted, right? I think the AFD opening here was unnecessarily aggressive, when tagging for addition of sources would have been more appropriate. --doncram (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply] Yup... I knew someone would argue that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is an important difference, however... A quick Google search shows that reliable and independent sources do exist to support an article on those organizations, while an exhaustive search is turning up almost nothing on the Sons of Haiti. Blueboar (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply] By the way... Per your request, I went to the Livingston Masonic Library here in NY... nothing found. Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply] The reason it isn't (usually) acceptable to just tag an article for sources is that editors tend to just ignore those tags. We still have articles sitting around that have been tagged as unreferenced for more than four years! We're among the top five websites and we have the eyes of the world upon us, so it's grossly irresponsible to just sweep it under the rug by adding tags and hope somebody else fixes it someday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply] FYI, I have opened AFDs for two column 1 Masonic suborganization articles, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Idaho (whose only reference is Bessel), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Kansas (no sources whatsoever). I am aware that "Other Stuff Exists" arguments are insufficient. It seems relevant, anyhow, to point out that Other Stuff does exist, and I guess worser stuff should be deleted. The Sons of Haiti organization seems relatively more important, as an example of a column 3 Masonic organization. --doncram (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply] How thoughtful/pointy of you, Doncram. :-) --Orlady (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion not directly relevant to this AfD

Comment about related Masonic organization articles It seems relevant to note the complete lack of sourcing, or poor and inadquate sourcing, in other Masonic organization articles. The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania article has one source, dated 1961. There is no source whatsoever in Grand Lodge of Kansas, which was tagged by me on September 2 for sources and notability. I am wondering about opening an AFD there. Surely those calling for deletion of this Sons of Haiti article, 1 day old, would agree that a long-unsourced, completely unsourced article like that should be speedily deleted, right? I think the AFD opening here was unnecessarily aggressive, when tagging for addition of sources would have been more appropriate. --doncram (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup... I knew someone would argue that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is an important difference, however... A quick Google search shows that reliable and independent sources do exist to support an article on those organizations, while an exhaustive search is turning up almost nothing on the Sons of Haiti. Blueboar (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way... Per your request, I went to the Livingston Masonic Library here in NY... nothing found. Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason it isn't (usually) acceptable to just tag an article for sources is that editors tend to just ignore those tags. We still have articles sitting around that have been tagged as unreferenced for more than four years! We're among the top five websites and we have the eyes of the world upon us, so it's grossly irresponsible to just sweep it under the rug by adding tags and hope somebody else fixes it someday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, I have opened AFDs for two column 1 Masonic suborganization articles, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Idaho (whose only reference is Bessel), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Kansas (no sources whatsoever). I am aware that "Other Stuff Exists" arguments are insufficient. It seems relevant, anyhow, to point out that Other Stuff does exist, and I guess worser stuff should be deleted. The Sons of Haiti organization seems relatively more important, as an example of a column 3 Masonic organization. --doncram (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How thoughtful/pointy of you, Doncram. :-) --Orlady (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - It occurs to me that the topic of African American Freemasonry (which includes, but is not limited to, Prince Hall Freemasonry) is a notable topic that could be addressed in an article. Even if there isn't enough info about the Sons of Haiti to form a separate article, there's enough info about it to include in an African American Freemasonry article. --Orlady (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few sources on African American Freemasonry, apparently not limited to Prince Hall:

Cincinnati Museum Center page,
Corey D. B. Walker. A Noble Fight: African American Freemasonry and the Struggle for Democracy in America, University of Illinois Press. 2008. (Google Books link)
New York Masonic Library page about the papers of an author of many articles on the subject.

--Orlady (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could see a brief mention in such an article, sure. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That could indeed be an interesting article. Let's make sure we have the sources lined up in advance, rather than just cherry-picking here and there...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Washington Hall (Seattle, Washington). Delete I did find one article that describes the group in more detail than the other articles covering the sale of the building (noting the group's founding--a different year than the article states-- and noting community events they threw, not just events that happened to be at the building) but this added to the more trivial mentions falls short of WP:GNG (or WP:ORG), I think. ~~But since~~ the group has been covered entirely for the activities at and related to the building, ~~that would seem an appropriate redirect target as a related term or subtopic per WP:REDIRECT. The building was, after all, the lodge's lodge.~~ Novaseminary (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...the key word there being "was". Since they still exist, and apparently have lodges in other states, that would definitely be the wrong location for a redirect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I'm changing my !vote to delete. Though we don't know it from RSs, having multiple chapters, etc., would make this redirect misleading. If more coverage comes along in the future (or we missed some past), it can always be recreated with the sources added. Novaseminary (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 1962 founding date currently in the article can be correct and still consistent with the comment in the SeattlePI.Com article, that "The Sons of Haiti formed in the 1950s. Most fraternal organizations wouldn't admit African Americans, Adams said, so the group -- which did charitable deeds such as feeding and housing the poor -- joined an organization based in Haiti, he said." As explained in the source giving 1962 as the formal founding date, the group was for some previous years involved in lawsuits and eventually splitting/replacing other groups. I think i read that the formal charter from Haiti and i think France were in 1962, another charter from Mexico in the U.S. in 1964. I happen to think there is enough substance here to make it clear that this is a notable multi-state organization, though I agree more/better sources could/should be found. The way forward is to leave this as an article, attracting editors eventually who have particular information. For example there is some 1961 encyclopedia of Freemasonry which is primary source of another article, whose later edition may well cover it. I do expect there exist good sources on African-Americans in freemasonry, which would cover it. --doncram (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't keep articles based on the assumption (or a hope) that sources might exist. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not just the founding dates that are iffy. The different sources about Washington Hall give different dates for its sale from the Denmark group to the Sons of Haiti (I think the sale dates that I've seen range from 1958 to 1973). At least with Washington Hall it ought to be possible to figure out which sources are most reliable. --Orlady (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to uncollapse, just hiding until confusion is clarified
Update Some of the adamant opposition seemed to be about concern that this organization might be a fraud in some way, somehow taking advantage of donors or some vague threat. Some concern was also that this was regarded as "bogus", for not yet being recognized by "mainstream" Masonic bodies. Note all black Masonic bodies were once not recognized; now some but not all mainstream ones recognize Prince Hall black Masonic groups. There remains significant evidence of long-standing racism in Masonic organizations. And, the source used within this article to lambast this organization as being "bogus", seems at the moment to me to have been entirely unfair (and i just removed it). The statement was that "the "Bogus Masonry" project of Prince Hall Freemasonry's Phylaxis Society describes the Sons of Haiti as "bogus" for not having descended from African Lodge Number 459 or the United Grand Lodges of England, Ireland, or Scotland.^[1] ^ http://www.thephylaxis.org/bogus/bogus_wa.php I wonder if i am making a mistake, but that source does not appear to deprecate or mention the Sons of Haiti at all(!) So some anti- type sentiment seems to have been misinformed. Also, though i am confused by Blueboar's continued opposition to this article, in contrast to his apparent wishes to improve the article by many edits there and at its Talk page, I appreciate Blueboar's acknowledgement at Talk:Sons of Haiti that: ::To try to make this clear... African American Freemasonry has had a long history of schism and re-schism... recognition issues aside, it consists of three broad groups: a) Prince Hall Grand lodges that can show a direct descent from Africa Lodge ... b) Grand Lodges that have splintered off from these "direct descent" Grand Lodges (some use the name Prince Hall... others have dropped the name) ... c) numerous Grand Lodges that have splintered off from these splinters (or are the splinters of splinters, etc), or were self-created out of whole cloth. There is also a fourth group to be aware of... scams artists who use the good name of Freemasonry to rip off the gullible. The Sons of Haiti seem to fall into the third class. They are a splinter group created when another Prince Hall splinter group had a legal dispute. Hope this helps clarify the situation a bit. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Whatever the weird fears of fraud are, here we have an acknowledgment this group is legit, and I believe it is important to show in Wikipedia that black groups within Masonry exist, including Prince Hall ones and also other splinters. B has reiterated at the Talk page that he opposes the article's existence, but the back-and-forth in the article and in its Talk page belies that. This is a legitimate topic in Wikipedia, IMO. --doncram (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply] Ummm... I'm looking right at it. M.W. SONS OF HAITI GRAND LODGE NO. 1, OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Date of Incorporation 12/21/1962 Address JOHN R BULLOCK 2015 E YESLER WAY City SEATTLE State WA Zip 98122 So, not sure why you think the page doesn't mention it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply] Sarek is correct... the Sons of Haiti are the second body listed in the cited source. Its there. As for the rest... I will just let my comments here and on the talk page speak for themselves and not rise to the attempt to bait me into argument. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to uncollapse, just hiding until confusion is clarified

Update Some of the adamant opposition seemed to be about concern that this organization might be a fraud in some way, somehow taking advantage of donors or some vague threat. Some concern was also that this was regarded as "bogus", for not yet being recognized by "mainstream" Masonic bodies. Note all black Masonic bodies were once not recognized; now some but not all mainstream ones recognize Prince Hall black Masonic groups. There remains significant evidence of long-standing racism in Masonic organizations. And, the source used within this article to lambast this organization as being "bogus", seems at the moment to me to have been entirely unfair (and i just removed it). The statement was that "the "Bogus Masonry" project of Prince Hall Freemasonry's Phylaxis Society describes the Sons of Haiti as "bogus" for not having descended from African Lodge Number 459 or the United Grand Lodges of England, Ireland, or Scotland.^[1]

^ http://www.thephylaxis.org/bogus/bogus_wa.php

I wonder if i am making a mistake, but that source does not appear to deprecate or mention the Sons of Haiti at all(!) So some anti- type sentiment seems to have been misinformed. Also, though i am confused by Blueboar's continued opposition to this article, in contrast to his apparent wishes to improve the article by many edits there and at its Talk page, I appreciate Blueboar's acknowledgement at Talk:Sons of Haiti that:

::To try to make this clear... African American Freemasonry has had a long history of schism and re-schism... recognition issues aside, it consists of three broad groups: a) Prince Hall Grand lodges that can show a direct descent from Africa Lodge ... b) Grand Lodges that have splintered off from these "direct descent" Grand Lodges (some use the name Prince Hall... others have dropped the name) ... c) numerous Grand Lodges that have splintered off from these splinters (or are the splinters of splinters, etc), or were self-created out of whole cloth. There is also a fourth group to be aware of... scams artists who use the good name of Freemasonry to rip off the gullible. The Sons of Haiti seem to fall into the third class. They are a splinter group created when another Prince Hall splinter group had a legal dispute. Hope this helps clarify the situation a bit. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the weird fears of fraud are, here we have an acknowledgment this group is legit, and I believe it is important to show in Wikipedia that black groups within Masonry exist, including Prince Hall ones and also other splinters. B has reiterated at the Talk page that he opposes the article's existence, but the back-and-forth in the article and in its Talk page belies that. This is a legitimate topic in Wikipedia, IMO. --doncram (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ummm... I'm looking right at it.

M.W. SONS OF HAITI GRAND LODGE NO. 1, OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Date of Incorporation 12/21/1962

Address JOHN R BULLOCK

2015 E YESLER WAY

City SEATTLE

State WA

Zip 98122

So, not sure why you think the page doesn't mention it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sarek is correct... the Sons of Haiti are the second body listed in the cited source. Its there.

As for the rest... I will just let my comments here and on the talk page speak for themselves and not rise to the attempt to bait me into argument. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep A small but well attested group with some historical importance in Prince Hall freemasonry. JASpencer (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Actually, it's not a part of Prince Hall Freemasonry -- see the above debate about the Phylaxis Society. Some historical importance within African-American Freemasonry -- that's possible, but I don't see that it's been demonstrated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I wouldn't assess the coverage in the sources as significant enough to demonstrate notability. Most of the treatments are incidental. fwiw I really don't see business directory listings as adequate sources, personally I'd remove them but I'm conscious that would be reverted without any adequate inclusion rationale, so it's not worth it. There is a reasonable amount of synthesis in the article in an effort to bulk it out and retain under the never mind the quality, look at the width criterion. ALR (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Followup comment (i voted Keep above): The four "Keep" votes at parallel AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Idaho seem to me to be consistent with Keeping here too. One vote there is "Keep: The sheer size and history of state level grand lodges make them notable. Sources are difficult to find because they are often in these old things we used to call books but with a little work they can be easily found. PeRshGo (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)". ALR just comments without voting, there, too, and states "That said, PershGo makes a valid point that the indiscriminate inclusion of individual GLs reinforces the message that Freemasonry is not some monolithic worldwide entity but is instead a collection of mutually engaged bodies. Whilst it's an interesting argument that message itself is already communicated in other articles and I'm not sure that sheer volume of articles really contributes to it." I think that Pershgo's message recognized by ALR is an appropriate one for the collection of wikipedia articles to convey, and it is done well by including articles on the less-mutually-recognized bodies such as the Sons of Haiti one.

AFAIK from the outside, the Sons of Haiti is a Grand Lodge type organization that seems equivalent to other Grand Lodges, but this one is one that is not yet recognized by predominantly white grand lodges. Note also some/all of the black Prince Hall grand lodges are not recognized by the all-white (per 2008 sources) grand lodge of West Virginia and 9-10 other predominantly white U.S. state lodges, according to Bessell, the recognized as good source relied upon in other Grand Lodge articles. I think articles on non-"mainstream", i.e. non-all-white / non-predominantly-white Masonic organizations are needed to provide balance. There do exist self-published sources by all of these organizations, including Sons of Haiti, that are accepted for the other ones, the white ones. --doncram (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Individual AfD discussions are independent of one another and I would suggest that it's wholly inappropriate to try to export an individuals comments from one discussion to another. Your understanding of my position with respect to these articles is somewhat flawed.

ALR (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. (Or no consensus if one also considers the comments prior to the relisting.) Sandstein 06:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Untitled 2011 AMC television series[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Should probably be userfied and recreated when there's a name and a more definite premiere date. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Not only does it fail Wp:CRYSTAL, it's also probably the first example of a TV series that fails Wp:HAMMER (which shouldn't be a surprise, since it's "scheduled to premier… in 2011"). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as it is pure speculation and because it does not have a title it fails TenPoundHammer's Law also. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. WP:CRYSTAL says:

"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."

Nothing in the article is unverifiable. None of it is speculation. It's all sourced, verifiable, and notable, so it meets WP:CRYSTAL. If you still think it violates the policy, you need to actually explain. You can't just link to the page. TenPoundHammer's law only refers to articles that are made up of speculation and rumors, and this isn't. —Gendralman (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge this article and The Killing (TV series), which is about the original Danish show. (Its article needs sources but that should not be a problem.) When the new show airs and is reviewed then write an article on it. Right now there is not enough information for an article on the new show alone, even if there are sources giving the little there is. Borock (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete A rare non-album example of WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC) I take that back; I didn't analyze the sources far enough. Keep decently enough sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, but it seems that the guideline needs to be rewritten along the lines of WP:NFF to make it more explicit that mere verifiability of the existence of projects is not sufficient for an article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisting comment. Relisting so that new sources can be considered as suggested at deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Perhaps I'm missing something, but this looks notable under WP:GNG. There are three sources listed, all of which are reliable and offer fairly significant coverage. The other argument is WP:CRYSTAL, but it seems to meet that as well. The criteria that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." seems to be met by the sources already included. I can't see a convincing policy-based reason to delete this. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Given reliable sources for the signing up of actors/producers etc it does not fall under either "Crystal" or "Hammer", despite the lack as yet of title Hugo999 (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Yes there are reliable sources that discuss it, but we really have to have a bit of editorial discretion here regarding what "it" actually is; it is a show that they have discussed making, with no title and scant details. If all you can say is that someone is talking about it at such a premature stage, then it is worth a line at AMC (TV channel)#Upcoming series at most. Tarc (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- They haven't discussed making it, they are making it. The pilot's been produced, the season's been ordered, the contracts have been signed and the press has gone out. It's happening, and we have a cast, plot, channel and number of episodes. Putting this whole article into AMC (TV channel) would be WP:Undue weight, like putting three paragraphs about the 2012 presidential election into United States would be. —Gendralman (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep. It's odd that they haven't chosen a name for this yet but it's going to happen so WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trilegal[edit]

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

After numerous battles with the editor in trying to establish notability and reliable references, I do not believe that this company is worth inclusion in this encyclopedia. Most of the references provided are about a person who is associated with the company, and not the company itself; or, the articles are about Allen & Overy, apparently in some attempt to inherit notability from that company. Basically, the article does not establish why the company is notable; it simply states that the company exists, and that it entered into an agreement with another company. Why is this significant? Reference #5 may indicate mild importance, but overall this appears to be just another law firm, as lots of firms win little awards here and there. — Timneu22 · talk 10:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination. Article is about a law firm. Claims to notability all come through inclusion in Top 500 lists and the like, which serve only promotional purposes and do not confer notability on each business listed. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Article is about a law firm" - you speak as if that in itself warrants deletion. :) There are other sources apart from the Legal500 link. Telco (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article I am opposed to the deletion of the page. There are multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources available for the article including the Economic Times, LiveMint, OneIndia News, Moneycontrol among others including Legal 500, which for some reason the nominator does not consider to be a reliable source of information (Alexa rankings). The firm has been ranked as one of the top 10 firms of the Asia-Pacific by Mergermarket which is a part of the Financial Times Group. I would also like to point out that the Bar Council of India prohibits firms from soliciting clients in any manner and therefore most law firms based in India are media-shy and do not have functional websites, and I believe that this augments the systemic bias that already exists on this project. If this encyclopedia can accept pokemon cruft, I think Indian law firms pass the threshold for inclusion. Please note that if you check the Economic Times and Livemint articles you will find that it is "Trilegal", the Indian law firm, as the subject of discussion and not Allen & Overy. Telco (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest, I am quite tired of Timneu's belligerant behaviour since the beginning. He has been quite persistent in trying to get this article deleted and in the course of his operation he has constantly reverted my edits without discussion. For those who are interested in reviewing the matter, are welcome to view my talk page, Timneu22's talk page and the talk page of the article. Telco (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that this user has few or no other edits outside this one article. — Timneu22 · talk 19:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Timneu. I hope you understand that my being a SPA does not really concern the notability of the subject. Telco (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not the forum for such a discussion. And as anyone can see, I tried to help you from the first moments, advising that you USERFY the page and get other editors. You did not, and you just posted it, despite my numerous requests to get other people to review it. Now other people are reviewing it, and it seems they also think the article should be deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 19:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Notability has been demonstrate in the article in the standard way, by means of references to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Can you explain which coverage, exactly, was written about the company itself? — Timneu22 · talk 14:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - [12][13][14][15] Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Maybe 1 and 2, not so much 3 and 4. — Timneu22 · talk 14:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The sources provided seem quite adequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: While this may just seem like an article I don't like, can someone please explain to me why this isn't just another law firm? There's nothing significant here, period. — Timneu22 · talk 12:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 22:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alcorconazo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

like page deleted Boqueronazo. El Unique (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong oppose, wanting a page deleted because you "want it deleted" is not a grounds for deletion here on wikipedia. Routerone (See here!) 10:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- What exactly are you opposing here, the nomination itself? Yoenit (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Term seems to have become a synonym for an unexpected victory of a weak team over a much stronger team in the spanish media, as you can see from articles like [16] and [17]. Definitely more than routine sports news and worthy of it's own article. Yoenit (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- As like reasons used to delete Alcorconazo page.--El Unique (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - The difference should be obvious if you compare the gnews hitcount of both terms: 328 [18] for "Alcorconazo", 2 [19] for "Boqueronazo". Yoenit (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. There's some evidence that the term was notable beyond just the game, as Yoenit indicates. Gnews hits are worthless for determining notability, but the fact that there are articles several months after the game that still use the term indicates some moderate notability. I also think the rationale here for deletion is flawed - that article and this one are different, and one deletion does not precedent make. This article should be evaluated on the merits, not because another one was deleted. I will say, though, that we need a bit of a rewrite here. But that's an editing issue, as indicated. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Just another football game. So the underdog won... like that's never happened before. Smacks of recentism, and there seems to be a lot of discussion on keeping because it has become synonomous with the underdog winning. The article is written only about this game, not about the synonym, which would fail as a neologism anyway. Coverage of this game is no more or less than any coverage expected of a football game where a bit of an upset has occurred making it sports coverage of a general nature, nothing notable. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia that covers notable subjects. --ClubOranje^T 00:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per ClubOranje, fails WP:NTEMP. GiantSnowman 14:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- How does this fail WP:NTEMP when it is still discussed in the media? For example: [20] and [21], both results from the last two weeks. Seems like WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE to me. Yoenit (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – For us to have an article on an individual soccer match (assuming it's not a final of some sort), there should be some sort of persistent coverage that goes a step beyond brief mentions. I see no evidence of that here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - this article seems to indicate that the term "Alcorconazo" is being used as a footballing term, perhaps the Spanish equivalent of "giant-killing". Other GNews hits show the same. This article should be expanded to emphasise this. Bettia (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep the term alcorconazo alone received sustained coverage as demonstrated in last AfD. Ipso facto the match itself has received more than sustained coverage. Sandman888 (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep appears to meet GNG, event has received media coverage some time after the actual match. Eldumpo (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - I completely disagree with the intent to delete articles because some users will angry others or want to keep a page to harass opponents. This page should not be deleted because of Boqueronazo was eliminated in retaliation, this should be a serious encyclopedia and not motivated to feelings of some editors. It should restore Boqueronazo page and people which dislike it not visit. I am fan of Real Madrid but I don't like that people edit in this wiki by fanaticism, one must be as objective, not create articles to harass, nor to compensate or deleted as retaliation, I like the serious things and I always try to edit objectivity and not get carried away by my sympathy to certain clubs Raul-Reus (talk) 2:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC+1)

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toshiaki Shibata[edit]

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

I can't see any indication that this artist meets the basic criteria for notability. Only relevant Ghits are from his own website, directories like LinkedIn and commercial sites. Shirt58 (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Failed to find enough coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete There's not enough significant coverage, too non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any third-party coverage here to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently establish WP:GNG. Unsourced BLP for nearly three years. J04n(talk page) 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete under both the English name and the Japanese versions (courtesy of Google Translate, and added to the Find sources above), I can find no coverage of this artist, only of a chemist (and even that coverage wouldn't be sufficient for an article from what I can see, even if it was the same person) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yaakov Teitel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is a case of WP:BLP1E. The subject was the subject of news coverage for crimes but is not inherently notable. Joe407 (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a deletion review (WP:DRV) ~~here~~ I correct: here, 2009 November 13. -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The question re BLP1E is: if there is a one-event, what is that one event? -DePiep (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep largely per DePiep's question. As I said in the previous AFD, Teital's name has been tied not to just one event, but to several very notable events including the 2009 Tel Aviv gay centre shooting, the attack against prof. Zeev Sternhell and the booby-trap against the Messianic Jewish family (not as notable as the other two, but still notable[22][23][24]). Rami R 12:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. How can we have such an article? The criminality of this person is why he notable, but he has not been convicted!? Chesdovi (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not his criminality, it's the accusations and indictment which have achieved broad coverage. These are notable by themselves, even without a guilty verdict. Rami R 14:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But should allegations and suspicsions be documented on wiki if that is the only claim to notability? Chesdovi (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Clearly not a BLP1E case, as Rami R makes clear, and no NOTNEWS argument is laid out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The article is backed by reliable and verifiable sources about the individual covering a broad time period beyond any single incident, establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, quite famous in Israel and a bit famous outside Israel. Enough sources available, and there are sure to be more as the case develops. Zero^talk 07:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: from WP:PERP, Note: Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Jalapenos has a good point although it's not a blanket prohibition and the article doesn't speak to his guilt. The variety and severity of the charges might have made him notable to the press even if he turns out to be innocent. The trial should be wrapping up soon and we can go from there. Sol (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Having reread the article, the AfD, and the DRV, I see no new argument here. There's a string of events, a confession, an arrest, accusations of terrorism: on and on. And still no killer argument for deletion. So please answer: what is that one event, you are talking about? -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I see no relevant connection to a failure of WP:BLP1E,WP:BIO or WP:NOTNEWS here. Notability is from continuing and persistent coverage, and a sequence of major acts spanning several years is not a one-event case. Even if this were a one-event case, the level of persistent coverage pushes it into historical notability anyhow. Ray^Talk 20:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. –MuZemike 22:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two Solitudes (Canadian society)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since January 2010. Appears to be a turn of phrase rather than a socio-political analysis; as well, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of Social Sciences. Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to the article on the person who said it. It should also be mentioned in the article on the issue. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started the article when I heard on the radio that Michaëlle Jean had used the term in her first address as Governor General of Canada. I can't find the transcript for this, unfortunately. The refs, such as they are, would point to an earlier origin of the term, one that she mentioned, and it would seem that a merge to her article would not appear to be the preferable result for this AfD.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The person that coined the term is whom I believe Steve Dufour is refering to ...Hugh MacLennan. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and expand - clearly notable per substantial media references -- hundreds of mentions over the years.[25][26]--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment a more truthful search would be [27] with 1/10 of the WP:GNUM Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some comments on Google searches:

Your Google.ca search is a general web search for "Two Solitudes" Anglophone OR Francophone. Arguably, some non-Canadian media might not use "-phone" terms; while valid words, they are not as widely used outside Canada. An American or Australian newspaper might use "English-speaking" and "French-speaking" instead.
My Google.com search was for "Two Solitudes" only in Google News (both current and archives); this is a better source of references that meet our reliable sources requirements than a general web search. Even if only 1/10 of these hits refer to the concept of this article and not the book or some other usage of the phrase, that still leaves us with dozens of news articles citing this idea. That's a lot and certainly much more than enough to meet our notability requirements.
Google Scholar, another source of authoritative references, turns up hundreds of hits in the 2 languages when I search for "Two Solitudes" Canada on Google.ca's Google Scholar site.
"Two Solitudes" is a very distinctive phrase; I don't think I've ever heard it in anything other than a Canadian context.
In looking at Google search results, it's important to look at the quality of the results. 2 authoritative sources meeting our reliable sources requirements trump 1000 blog references. I encourage folks to sample some of the individual hits in the Google.com results I've provided here and in my earlier comments.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I agree, people should evaluate every Source for relevance rather than rely on WP:GHITS. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge&Redir to Criticism of multiculturalism. Same concept, different words. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would argue that a better merge/redirect candidate might be Multiculturalism_in_Canada#Biculturalism, eh?--Shirt58 (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I personaly do not believe so. 2 Solitudes inherently refers to a criticism of how it is... but ... we will let consensus decide. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no not merge into Criticism of multiculturalism or Multiculturalism_in_Canada since this goes to the fundamental basis of the Canadian identity, it's bicultural basis, rather than the policy of multicultrualism in modern Canada. Keep since this political concept is frequently in the news and in research, as well as in Canadian popular culture, per the many RSes that various people have previously indicated in this AFD. It is not criticism of multiculturalism since it is a term used to indicate the lack of cross-cultural communication between the two founding groups of European colonists who founded Canada, which predate the policies of multiculturalism. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "political concept" is a criticism of Multiculturalism. This was a simplified way of defining a complex political concept in terms the masses could understand. Would this article not be violating NotInherited since it was coined from a Novel, and again later, from a Film Title? What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reality described by the term "two solitudes" existed before the policies of multiculturalism were enacted. The novel the term derives from only labels a reality that existed before the novel's creation. The novel, created in 1945, predates multiculturalism policies by three decades. Your statement that it is a criticism of multiculturalism seems faulty. The "two solitudes" have existed since Wolfe defeated Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham, in the 1750s. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simply because this term predated the current "political concept" does not change the fact that they are still talking about the same "political concept". Who cares if the novel predates the concept. That only signifies the incubation period for the concept to crystallize and become properly named. The term Black hole went through the same process (originally called a Dark Star), but it was still the same thing. What are people describing when they use this term?

No, a black hole is not a dark star (Newtonian mechanics). Did you know what you were using as an analogy before using them? A dark star is an object with a definite surface, which is still a star, but whose escape velocity is greater than light speed, a black hole is a singularity, a totally different concept.

We know that now, yes... but in 1796 they were all 1 thing. Names may change, but the concept is the same. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, actually it isn't. There are many concepts that are similar to black holes, some of which have solid surfaces, a black hole is not one of them, a dark star is. They only way they could be said to be the same concept is if you ignore all the properties of these two classes of objects and only focus on the escape velocity being greater than lightspeed. Are you doing that with "multiculturalism" and "two solitudes"? Only focusing on a single aspect, without looking at any other aspect? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If your actually going to continue this point, I will refine it then. In 1796, the only concept they had to describe a class of objects was as "a gravity well so strong light could not escape". They did not have the science to distinguish the differences your argument assumes that they did. With "multiculturalism" and "two solitudes" I am wanting to find a policy based reason to keep the Article after finding "What are people describing when they use this term??". Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 09:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the policy of multiculturalism was created by the Trudeau government. Trudeau was not Prime Minister in the 1940's, he became PM in the 1970's. The term "two solitudes" was applied to an existing political reality, the two non-interacting communities of francophones and anglophones, that inhabitted Upper Canada and Lower Canada. There was no real "multiculturalism" in the environment prior to the 1960's. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A policy with that name was created then yes. But it was not created because of a sudden, new problem. The situation had been in existance long before the policy gave it an official name. Just because they gave it a official name does not mean they were talking about something different, or else the Policy would have been called 2Solitudes. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Considering what "multiculturalism" and "two solitudes" signifies, are you being facetious? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep..dont think it should be merged...So i guess a stand alone article it is in my opinion. Article needs lots of work as its just a baby stub..but i think its notable as per news.google.com "Two Solitudes" specifically the amount of time that is covered by this topic over 300 years and what i find with -->Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.....Moxy (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I tried to point out earlier, A Google search for something like this term is very difficult. The search you have just provided does not focus on this term's meaning. It is also bringing in every person that has ever used the term in another context[28][29], Photograph title/caption[30], 2 sides of something/anything[31], every review of the Book and/or Film and every bibliography of Mr. MacLennan, whom was a Cultural icon of Canadian history, and widely discussed in a variety of forums and contexts. In my view, just pointing to a WP:Bignumber in Google on this topic runs deeply afoul of WP:GYNOT & WP:COMMONPHRASE. What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neat to see someone comment on everyone comments...The problem i have is that Redirects do not show-up in Internet search (they are not categorized) ....So unless we have that article title ..noone will ever come to Wikipidia to find out about the topic..So in the interests of the encyclopedia and the fact that are main principle is to spread knowledge...I say keep it as per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules because what is being proposed here will not help our readers and in fact will make sure they dont come to wiki to find knowledge on this topic. In the old days of Wiki this would have been filled under common sense....There are rules for everything that must be implemented in a way to help our readers not drive them away. Moxy (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exit2DOS2000, we did read your comments about Google searches earlier -- "As I tried to point out earlier…", "a more truthful search would be…" (personally, as the person posting the presumably "less truthful" search, that comment kind of stung). I posted those Google searches primarily for their content -- their lists of potentially useful links -- not for their numbers. And yes, the majority of these links such as your picture caption are not relevant but 1/10 of a large number still yields a rich list. Skimming that remaining tenth indicates there are many articles and scholarly papers that specifically look at the Two Solitudes concept, usually for English/French Canadian societies but sometimes extending it to the Anglo/First Nations divide. While the article is just a stub, Two Solitudes is a concept, not just a definition, which needs expansion, not elimination. This article needs similar treatment to that of the US' "Melting pot" and other, analogous concepts covered in substantive articles such as "Hyphenated American", "More Irish than the Irish themselves","Bangsa Malaysia", "Generation gap", etc. -- that is, unless we want to do away with those articles, too. There's a reason the Governor-General's use of that phrase and concept was instantly resonant for millions of Canadians. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But that is what I do not believe others understand. Various !votes opine "Two Solitudes is a concept", it is not the concept. Multiculturalism is the concept. "Two Solitudes" was the term a man unwittingly coined in his criticism of the situation as he saw it. Just because the term Multiculturalism was not in use at that time makes no difference. What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, multiculturalism is a different concept. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then please, explain the differences in such terms that make one independantly notable and distinct from the other. So far, nobody has put forth a definition that is distinct from Multiculturalism, and I do not believe it can, thus my merge. Not every term smart people coin, deserves its own Article. What are people describing when they use this term? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you been reading what people have been writing here? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup and so far their has been "fundamental basis of the Canadian identity, it's bicultural basis", "its notable as per news.google.com", "Redirects do not show-up in Internet search", "referred to in the analysis of the Quebec-Rest of Canada relationship", "iconic in Canadian political culture as a phrase" and "multiculturalism is a different concept", but not a single explanation of what it's distinction from Multiculteralism is, nor even a policy/essay amongst the lot. (exept WP:IAR). Nobody has given a basic awnser to the one question I have asked all along, What are people describing when they use this term? All pretty good reasons in my mind to now lable it WP:Fancruft of Hugh MacLennan. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SO we have all given a reason Y it should not be deleted (you simply ignore them or find ways to dismiss them) you keep saying again and again and again the same thing..You seem to think that your view is more important then all the others here and now if things dont go your way you plan to subvert this community decision by tagging the article. So realy your main goal is to delete articles from Wikipidia in any way possible regardless of what this community decision is? You my friend need to read Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule#So how does the reasonability rule apply to Wikipedia?. Multiculturalism deals with all the ethnic groups as a whole and the policies.... Two Solitudes is a term for just what has been happing between the English and French for centuries and would be the opposite of multiculturalism in its affect on Canadian culture. Moxy (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would not be repeating myself if someone would give a clear, concise, explanation of What are people describing when they use this term? that stands up to scrutiny. I do not think my view is more important, I simply will not be browbeaten into accepting arguments that have no merit or contradict one another. What have I tagged? I voted for Merge, not delete or did you just not care to notice that fact. What in Reasonability Rules do you believe I have contraviened? Did you mean "it would be unreasonable for an apparent consensus to form that would be contrary to Wikipedia policies" (AHEM... WP:NPA Comment on the content, not on the contributor) Your last sentence contradicts itself. Clarify the thought, find a Cite, and put it in the Article, something anyone here has yet to do. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even if we show you a link or two or three we will not agree on this as you have invested so much time and effort into your point. I should have jumped out of this long ago as the others did and should have let the votes speak for the majority view. BTW heres a copy of the book Two Solitudes its a good read a will help clarify the situation alot. This book and its topic we studied at the High school level in Canada during the 1980's and it looks like its still a part of the curriculum in some schools. Moxy (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep This could easily develop into a solid article. It's frequently referred to in the analysis of the Quebec-Rest of Canada relationship and it's been the basis of much scholarly work. This has nothing to do with multiculturalism and merging is even worse than deletion. Pichpich (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep. I can't see any good reason why this was even proposed for deletion....now axiomatic and iconic in Canadian political culture as a phrase and as an idea.Skookum1 (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was Redirect and merge as determined by further discussion. Consensus is that this should not be an article, but more discussion may be needed to decide what to do witht he content. I'm going to editorially redirect it to List of Star Trek characters: A-F#D. This can be changed if needed per any discussion, and any useful content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 06:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

House of Duras[edit]

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

Article has never had references. It is written entirely in-universe and demonstrates zero real-world notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete This belongs in a star trek specific wiki. Has been tagged as unsourced for over two years and it seems unlikely it will ever be sourced. Delete per WP:PLOT and WP:GNG. Yoenit (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per Fayenatic below Yoenit (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Agree with Yoenit, this belongs in Memory Alpha, not here. Not even an assertion of real-world notability as far as I can discern. 28bytes (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Transwiki to Memory Alpha, and selectively merge to lists of Star Trek characters. It is partly sourced and the tag should have been changed to refimprove. I've done some work on this article myself in the past but, sadly (for both the article and the audience), the greatest real-world notability is probably the sisters' cleavages; not sufficient for Wikipedia. Limited content should be copied to the alphabetic lists of Star Trek characters, as several redirects currently point to this page. I'm prepared to do the work. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Sounds like a good idea, moving to merge. I was first wondering why there is a fair use picture of the sisters in the article, but now I see some true star trek fan applied WP:HOTTIE. Yoenit (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Checking the Google Books and News links above, we have several trivial mentions outside of fiction itself: ST encyclopedia entry, guide plot summaries, and one piece that may actually be more substantial. As is, the fictional element crosses different shows in the fictional franchise: it's not like we can just merge this to the Enterpise show. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, the "House of Duras" reference from the Tampa Tribune in 1996 that Google News shows as Pay-Per-View is just a passing reference in the lead of a puff piece on a ST convention: "If you know the difference between a phaser and a photon torpedo, if you know what the Prime Directive is, if you equate pointed ears with logical thinking, and if you're still scandalized by the behavior of the house of Duras in the Khitomer Massacre, then polish those officer collar studs, gas up the car and set your coordinates for Huntsville, Ala. Star Trek 30: One Weekend on Earth is where you ought to be." This is pretty vexing, actually. I've never heard of this house, but such an offhanded reference in popular press suggests that there's something more to this. If we have 3-4 such mentions for such a fictional element, I would really prefer to keep the article intact, even if we merge it into a "Notable Klingons" or "Families spanning Star Trek franchises" sort of list or multi-focal summary article. Jclemens (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- But...where is the substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? A passing mention does not notability make. That's about as passing as it gets. Plus, the article is an in-universe pile of crap with an unnecessary fair use image. There really isn't much to merge, except for brief descriptions of the characters in the character lists. The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I didn't say it met notability criteria on the basis of what I've found so far. I'm saying that there's no good place to merge the content, since it's about a family that spans shows. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - But your vote is to keep, not merge. That implies that you think the artiicle is notable enough to exist independently. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DELETE non notable. He iro 03:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to List of Star Trek characters. They were prominent in the TNG series and major baddies in a feature-length film. Surely they deserve to be mentioned. JIP | Talk 07:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Zero real world notability, unreferenced, only a few external links as sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Selective, minimal merge to appropriate entries at alpha lists, mostly at List_of_Star_Trek_characters:_A-F. --EEMIV (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Smerge or redirect due to absence of third-party sources that can WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition to my selective merger proposal above, redirect to Klingon, adding a section there on notable Klingons. As this family featured in multiple series, it will be useful to retain the family tree in Wikipedia, linked to entries in the alphabetic lists of characters, with a very brief text about them. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was no consensus. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edward Drobyshevski[edit]

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

Article gives no 3rd party references. List of publications do not determine notability for the purposes of wikipedia and google searches provide little information other than the publication references. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the article is duplicated at Daemon (astrophysics), which was created by the same author. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note, I nominated the article for PROD previously, and the PROD was contested by User:Phil Bridger. I welcome more input into this discussion. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Strong~~ Delete as nomintator. My impression from reading the publishing history of this gentleman is that he was once a decent researcher, but has since gone off into fringe land. He now self-publishes a lot of papers on astro-ph, which is not peer reviewed. Many of his recent papers are only cited by himself (e.g. [32][33]). Similarly, he seems to have self published his own biography here and there are no mentions of him other in reliable sources than his authorship of various scientific papers which may not be themselves notable. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question: The article seems to say he has a planet (albeit a minor one) named after him 4009_Drobyshevskij - if this is true is that not enough for notability? (Msrasnw (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Keep: Notability due to having a planet named after him. (Is this a reasonable criteria?) "Minor Planet (4009) Drobyshevskij 1977 EN1. Discovered 1977 March 13 by N. S. Chernykh at Nauchnyj. Named in honor of Ehduard Mikhajlovich Drobyshevskij, physicist and astrophysicist at the Ioffe Physical and Technical Institute in St. Petersburg, author of some original cosmological ideas and theories of the origin of the planets and the minor bodies of the solar system, also known for his research on the magnetic fields of the sun and other stars. (M 19694) - Dictionary of Minor Planet Names - Fringe nature of current views/publications does not invalidate earlier notability - and seems to me to add its own form of notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Comment The complete minor planet list is here [34]. Many of the names are not in wikipedia. Of course that's a case of Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. However, adding the minor planet bio to the article would give infinitely more reliable sources than are currently present in the article, which may save it from deletion. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ec There are thousands of such named planetesimals, so having one named after an astronomer is not an indicator of notability. It's an indicator that your colleagues know you. Abductive (reasoning) 18:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete. The googlescholar results[35] are fairly modest for someone with such a long research career. There are no significant awards, journal editorships, etc to indicate passing WP:PROF. Having a minor planet named after him is certainly interesting, but, in the absence of stronger evidence, is not quite sufficient, IMO, to establish academic notability. The nominator is correct that this also appears to be, at least in part, a WP:FRINGE case, which I think should raise the inclusion bar a little higher. Nsk92 (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extra sources: Looking round the web for Edward Drobyshevski - it seems to me his work on the Tunguska event seems to have got the most notice. The article doesn't really seem to mention this. I think Popular Mechanics referece for this is indicative of this stuff.

and Ria Novosti

* http://www.rian.ru/science/20090330/166427555.html

The same in Google translate.

* Ria Novosti: Scientist: Tunguska catastrophe associated with the explosion of a hydrogen nucleus of comet

And his work on Giant pieces of Jupiter could kill all life on earth documented in Pravda

* http://www.pravda.ru/news/science/27-06-2008/273686-vzryv-0/

Are these the fringe things being refered too? They do seem to have attracted some notice - but don't seem too off the wall. Would adding comments on these and the references to the article help? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Added popular media refs: I have added these refs to the article in case it might help(Msrasnw (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Delete. GS cites are 10, 10, 6, 1. Mainstream work insufficient for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Possible problem with GS cites count: I think there may be a possible problem with the GS cites reported just above as being 10, 10, 6, 1. If one looks here: "EM Drobyshevski" - Google Scholar seems to be reporting 43 , 21, 16, 16 etc. Also not so sure whether GS is so good on Russian scholastic output, Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Thanks for this useful research. Unfortunately h index still only comes to 11 which is not really enough. GS should be excellent on mainstream publications in astronomy. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Question: This looks to me like on the basis of arguments here - might be going to fail WP:Prof - but seems to me having the mini-planent named after him (with the note about why) and the references to his "original" ideas discussed in Pravda and Popular Mechanics are "significant coverage" and are more than a trivial mentions in reliable sources and should be sufficient for general notability. Is the planet too trivial and Pravda and Pop mechanics not reliable or the articles not so important? (Msrasnw (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

The articles are not about Drobyshevski. Secondary sources, by definition, analyze the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 08:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Little comment: The articles in Pravda, Ria Novosti and Popular Mechanics are about some of Drobyshevski's work and one's work can make one notable. This is our usual logic I think. If you were to read those kind of articles - you might want to look him up and I think that is where our encyclopedia is sometimes really useful. Best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

You will note I haven't notvoted, I am just saying that having an asteroid named after you (if you are an astronomer) doesn't mean anything, and that the articles aren't about him. Abductive (reasoning) 13:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep He seems to be notable given the sources. The article could and should be improved. Even if his theories are wrong he still seems to be notable. I hope that there is not a prejudice against his article because he worked in the USSR. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have done a little copy editting and the like in an attempt to help. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Keep - I don't know whether he is regarded as orthodox or fringe in the field of astrophysics, that's not where I live. But if you search for Eduard Drobyshevsky you will come up with articles such as THIS 2008 PIECE IN THE ENGLISH EDITION OF PRAVDA citing him as an expert. I would be very, very, very hesitant to remove this one. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.

Comment There's an issue here that has come up in other areas of wikipedia for which there is no easy answer. The views expressed in the linked article are clearly fringe. But they are cited in a "reliable" (I hold a low opinion on the reliability of pravda, but let's leave aside that argument for the time being) source. The mainstream and slightly out of mainstream media are happy to report fringe scientific theories. Since they are obscure theories however, there are no rebuttals published in reliable sources. WP:FRINGE states that fringe views should not be given undue weight. How can we avoid giving undue weight to a fringe theory covered in reliable sources, but for which a rebuttal is not available? In my mind, the solution is to delete such articles, especially when the fringe view itself is thinly sourced. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, more specific to this article, is someone being quoted in an article sufficient to establish notability? My impression based on WP:GNG is that it is not. There must be a reliable source that is substantially about the individual, not just their views. The asteroid citation is the only source that remotely qualifies, and I don't feel that it is adequate. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep , first by precedent as namesake of a minor planet, second because of notable fringe scientific theorist. If someone's distinctive views are notable, they are notable. With the exception of media personalities, what is important about a person is the work or accomplishments that they are known for. If we have significant coverage of that, it's sufficient--people are not generally notable for the miscellaneous facts of his biography. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is clear from this discussion that there is no consensus that having a minor planet named after a person confers notability on that person. Your use of the word "precedent" is troubling. Abductive (reasoning) 06:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was no consensus. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dan Smith Will Teach You Guitar[edit]

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

I do not feel that this an ad campaign local to New York City has garnered enough significant third-party coverage to warrant inclusion here. The coverage is mostly local, and the 2nd reference is a dead link, the 4th reference is to Amazon link to a song parody, which doesn't qualify as a source, and the 5th link only mentions Dan Smith briefly and doesn't offer significant coverage. Whose Your Guy (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Whose Your Guy (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been moved to the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions, because the article is about an advertising campaign, not a musician. --Chris Quackenbush (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Of the present references, #2 and #5 are broken, #1 is a NY Times naval-gazing self-centered piece more about the writer than about Smith, but still of some value, #3 is good coverage, but is "AOL Small Business" an independent and reliable source? #4 is not impressive, being an Amazon page seeking to sell a download of a song someone did which mentions Smith. Refs 1 and 3 are not quite enough to support a biographical article. Edison (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what's wrong with link #5. If you google for dan smith mike myers, it works, but accessing it through wikipedia doesn't. any ideas? Tduk (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I wasn't sure if WP:BIO was what applied here, since the article is more about his marketing campaign, and the coverage/success of it, as well as satires of it (such as on the Daily Show, which is what made me realize enough people knew about this campagin to create an article for it). I don't think Dan Smith is notable at all, but his guitar teaching campaign is. That's why I named it the way I did. I don't know if that changes your opinion or not, but I'm not actually sure which WP: section would apply to it in that case. Tduk (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The only objection seems to be that it covers a regional ad campaign as opposed to a national one. I don't think there is a Wikipedia guideline against articles on topics of only regional notoriety. Furthermore, the New York metropolitan area is a region with a population greater than all but 58 countries (List of countries by population), so even that excuse seems thin. Chris Quackenbush (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Running a TV ad in New York City is insufficient to gain a permanent encyclopedia article. It is far less sufficient to Xerox a flyer and stick it to lamp posts in New York City. We are not here to aid someone's low budget advertising campaign by pretending that their appeal is of encyclopedic notability, just because folks in the one city have seen the flyers. Edison (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

As stated above, this article is not about the fact that he posted fliers. It is about the fact that his fliers were impressively successful, according to two independant news articles I found easily on google, spanning a period of 5 years. It is also about the fact that two clearly notable individuals have thought this individual noteworthy enough to reference in (1) an advertising campaign and (2) on television referencing the upcoming rally in Washington, DC. I am not creating articles for every individual who posts fliers in cities - but I will create one for someone who has been in print and online news articles, and referenced on national television. Tduk (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep As stated above, this isn't about someone being notable for being a musician, this is an article about a notable and successful ad campaign that has been covered in print, online, and television media, and which even a very lazy google will give you lots of hits about. Smith's campaigns, as well as his teaching method and biographical info, are particularly covered in depth in the New York Times article and AOL Small Business article. This is a brand new article - under a month - and I think that with time people will contribute even more references to it - but as it stands it does indeed pass notability requirements. Tduk (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - It is a new article that needs work, further, I'm not sure it's properly named (perhaps it should be a biography?). In any case, the New York Times is a pretty hefty source, even if it is not a 'hard news' article. It is still independent and heavily devoted to him. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[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, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic. Just because something is parodied doesn't make it notable for an encyclopedia. Also, as much notability can be claimed for this ad it's still very limited geographically to be notable to people from all over the world. man with one red shoe 18:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Per Tduk - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete this is puffery piece masquerading as an article. A single human interest story in 2005 and a single interview in 2010 does not pass threshold for notability. Notability for an the Ad campaigned i would expect substantial coverage from at least a dozen stories over these "many years" he has been doing this or at least a Marketing Journal article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Rather than stating "this is puffery piece", could you explain why it is puffery? There is very little praise about Smith himself (some has recently been added, but you could simply remove that and make it a neutral POV). Your harsh language and harsh, inappropriate tagging of the article make me wonder about COI, which is frustrating as the nominator also seemed to show a vendetta against me, as this seems to have been nominated because of an argument I had with the nominator over speedy deletion policy. I have been trying to WP:AGF, and thank everyone who has made keep votes, but it is hard to keep a clear head with such accusatory tones and gratuitous mistagging (with errors) of the article. I have addressed the typos and left in the tags that were appropriate. Tduk (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I've added a lot more references, including a link to the Jon Stewart video clip on the official Comedy Central site. Tduk (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All most of which I just Ripped out becuase they were all blogs by non-notables. which Leaves us With, One AOL News, One NY mag, and One NYT article. You have a single mention on the daily show. Two primary sources claiming a song was written by some one that again is doubtful in notability and a cite from Dan Smiths website. I am becoming extremely doubtful of your ability to evaluate sources as one reference i removed was simply a link to another site with a picture of his poster. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"cite from Dan Smiths website" -- that's not even allowed to be used to establish notability, we need secondary sources, per WP:N. man with one red shoe 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

upon closer examination its not even his site but some random site where people are poking fun at him, and accusing him of beating up jews beacuase they are "homo". which is probably a BLP violation just linking to with out trying to use it as source! The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I don't understand policy, but isn't it a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to rip out a lot of references you don't agree without even putting them on the discussion page? I'm still not clear on your interpretation of the policy, but none of the sources presented controversial material - in fact, you left IN the material and simply removed the sources, which does not make sense with regards to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies. I know we are supposed to Wikipedia:Be bold, but doesn't it look a bit odd for you to be behaving in this way? If this is not the place for this discussion, please respond on the Talk page for the article. Tduk (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conflict of interest would be if User:ResidentAnthropologist were Dan Smiths, or somebody connected to him, just having a different opinion doesn't make a "conflict of interest". This is indeed not a place to dispute references, if you think some were good and removed for no good reason you can discuss in the talk page of the article. man with one red shoe 17:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I didn't state my question clearly enough. If someone votes delete on an article and then removes content from it, is there a relevant policy for that? Tduk (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think there is, nor should it be, that would also mean that everybody who contributed to an article would not be able to vote against deletion either. man with one red shoe 17:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually that's not quite true. A person could vote "delete" and then remove valid references - and it's possible no one would notice, and then that would influence the final decision. This would be an action in bad faith. There isn't really a similar action someone could perform for _adding_ references - it is much easier for someone to evaluate references that are there than to evaluate things that have been removed... but this isn't the place to discuss that. Tduk (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's very similar to somebody adding unreliable references and wikilawering about them just to prove that the article is referenced. man with one red shoe 14:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It actually isn't. If someone adds 'unreliable' references, this would be obvious to anyone who looked at the article and then looked at the references section. If someone removed decent references, this would only be obvious to anyone who looked at the history of the page and checked everything that had been (added and) removed since the AfD was begun, two weeks ago. There _is_ a difference. Tduk (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blogs and forums are not "decent references" no matter how much you debate it. man with one red shoe 15:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is no way addresses what I actually just stated. Can you please address what I stated? Tduk (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to put out that at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion it states that Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones). So, one is not supposed to be making significant, let alone controversial edits, to the article without noting so here. Tduk (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY - new sources, including the New York Times have shown notability. Past precedent here has kept such advertising campaigns. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Given the valid opposing viewpoints mentioned post and before the first relisting, I still do not perceive clear consensus here. Hence this second relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Can anybody argue that this will be in any way relevant and notable in one or two years? Notability if very shaky even for present (it's supported by blogs and forum references) and obviously this is unknown for anybody outside NY, but can anybody claim this will be notable for years to come? This seems to me like useless trivia, very localized, which lacks importance and notability. man with one red shoe 15:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are many keep votes who seem to have argued exactly that. I don't think they're watching this, though, so if I wanted their opinion on the matter I'd read what they posted as the explanation of the keep votes. Saying "notability is very shaky" seems to be misleading, as there are two actual biographical articles from print notable sources, and a few other mentions as well. He has also had an effect on advertising campaigns for notable media. Tduk (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, is what you are asking people to argue (relevance in the future?) in any way related to notability requirements? Tduk (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm mostly talking about Wikipedia:BLP1E#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event this seems to be the case here. "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article" man with one red shoe 15:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure how that applies at all. WP:ONEVENT states that Definitionally, an event is an "occurrence of social or personal importance". That is, a single specific act that has taken place with a defined beginning and end, which may last for a second or two, or multiple days.. There is an important distinction between being known for one event, and one thing. Tduk (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue here is not so much 1 event coverage but lack of coverage at all. We have two sources that cover the subject once with five years in between 5 years apart. Then we have one source thats literally a short paragraph which only got covered because john mayer was not really offering Guitar lessons. Nor am i convinced that daily show is a good source either as they make a jokes about all different topics daily and one trivial mention does not seem to establish notability. Nor does citing a Track in an album as a reference as that WP:OR The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the very fact that we have sources from 2005 and 2010 demonstrates that's it's not something that it's not a case of WP:BLP1E. So we have a subject that's been covered by reliable sources, over the span of 5 years and who was parodied by multiple other notable subjects, amongst them a movie that will surely still exist a couple of years. I think those are enough reasons to keep the article. Sourcing problems can be solved by editing. Regards So Why 20:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AB Tech[edit]

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

Non-notable student group at a university. No third party sources to establish notability. Article is just a 1 sentence stub w/o any real information. GrapedApe (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, nothing to indicate notability. Likely a speedy A7, as there is no assertion of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge into Carnegie Mellon University. -- BenTels (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge into Carnegie Mellon University. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: could those editors suggesting a merge be more specific? That is, what sourced content should be merged, and where in the main Carnegie Mellon article would be an appropriate location? --Kinu ^t/_c 18:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[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, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete This seems a valid A7, tagged it for speedy. If the speedy is declined, delete it as there is nothing worth merging. Yoenit (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete A7, org with no notability present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Simply very non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was no consensus. Although at an editorial level, I would agree with Mkativerata and would have ivoted similarly, while closing this AfD, I do not see consensus being clear. At the same time, should this decision be perceived to be wrong, kindly do contact me on my talk page. There is no prejudice against opening up an early AfD on this article in the near future in case the article is not improved. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 11:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revolutionary Socialist Party (Australia)[edit]

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

A never-registered ultra-minor splinter of a very minor party. Gained some limited coverage because of Rudd's nephew standing, but the entire reference list is composed of party press releases and one article in an Indian magazine. Frickeg (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Frickeg (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - The lowest of all possible bars should be placed for political parties, leaders of political parties, and their youth sections. If it exists, it should be covered in Wikipedia on the basis of per se notability, in my estimation. Not all political parties run candidates for office, I add. Carrite (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources of the party, as opposed to V Rudd. I appreciate Carrite's argument but it just isn't accepted by the community. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Per Carrite, and as a matter of historical record. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge into Van Thanh Rudd, or delete. Mr. Rudd is the only reason this splinter of a splinter group is in any way notable. It's not even clear that the external sources are really independent of the group, though further digging by someone with more stomach for petty Trotskyist sectarianism may prove otherwise. Argyriou (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Carrite's argument. Article is sourced and covers more than just V. Rudd.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. While I respect Carrite's argument, it is in complete contravention of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This party has zero coverage in reliable, independent sources that is not directly related to V. Rudd. Carrite's argument is one to be raised in relation to changing the guidelines, but can hardly be used in an AfD that is supposed to be decided based on the guidelines. Frickeg (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, my understanding of Wikipedia's theoretical construct is that guidelines change in accordance with the evolution of practice. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.

Anticipating objections, this is what I'm on about: An accepted policy or guideline may become obsolete because of changes in editorial practice or community standards, may become redundant because of improvements to other pages, or may represent unwarranted instruction creep. * * * Policies and guidelines aim to describe community norms. When a norm changes there is usually a specific discussion. However when the way it works in practice as seen by experienced users is poorly described, the policy is often updated to reflect it better. (from Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. —Carrite, Oct. 7, 2010.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion as the current discussions do not seem to have reached a consensus stage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to the artist Rudd's article. The sources I looked at are either self-published, or legally obliged to take notice of the party's existence, or sources that are only tangentially related to the subject (a story about X that mentions the name of the party in passing). Wikipedia is not here to "document history", and I'm very nervous about basing an article about a political party on sources that do nothing more than name the organization. For example, I saw nothing in the sources that indicated that anything in the ==Campaigns== section was an official action of the organization, rather than a private action that happened to involve two members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was redirect to The Marcy Brothers. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kendal Marcy[edit]

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

Super-thin notability. No non-trivial mentions found. Only sources are some sort of Freemasonry site and IMDb. Notability is not inherited from Brad Paisley. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete and redirect to The Marcy Brothers per notability criteria for musicians. Not notable outside of the band and does not inherit the notability of Brad Paisley. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MJ94 (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to The Marcy Brothers fails WP:GNG. Yoenit (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disco Mix Club[edit]

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

Very low on sources, minimal notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Since the early 1980's the Disco Mix Club (DMC) and it's many offshoots, eg DMC World DJ Championships, DMC Publishing (Mixmag) etc, has been instrumental in the development of DJ culture. There is a huge amount of scope to expand this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LePett (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. TPH is correct that there's not many sources in the article, but as the founders of both Mixmag and the DMC World DJ Championships, the assertion of minimal notability is off the mark. Massive scope for improvement here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD. [36] The articles require payment to view, but you can easily spot major newspapers mentioning this thing. Dream Focus 22:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Notable & his article has been nominated for rescue. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation, I do not see silent consensus here for any particular close. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someplace Closer to Here[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related album article:

This band achieved some notability, but they also have articles for two albums that do not meet notability requirements. No reliable third-party sources or reviews can be found for the albums, just the usual lyric, download, and social network sites. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge: with Lapush. As said in WP:NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 08:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Playlist (album series)[edit]

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

Questionable notability. No sources, just a directory. Very few of the albums have proven notable enough for their own articles. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/16_Biggest_Hits and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Super_Hits. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - These are all official releases by notable artists, and hence appropriate for a list. While it is true that Wikipedia is not a directory, neither is this list. Rlendog (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as the series as a whole is not notable and create the disambiguation page, Playlist (disambiguation), to include these albums as well as other articles using the name (playlist.com for example). Also redirect Playlist (album) to the dab page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was merge to University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Penn Medicine[edit]

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

Governing board of University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. No sources to show notability. Not notable. GrapedApe (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Keep Just click on the news link above for evidence of notability. --Kvng (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Those appear to be all just mere mentions of the board, or mentions of the Pen medical school, not substantial sources about the board, as required by WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That doesn't appear to be the case to me. I'm a long way from Penn though. But if you are right, then why not just do a merge into University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine? --Kvng (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be OK with that as a result.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge - It makes sense for information about the governing board of the school of medicine to be in the article aboutt he school of medicine. -- Whpq (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge. I completely agree with Whpq's analysis. (The next thing you know, we'll have separate articles for Coca-Cola, Inc and its board.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dowden Health Media[edit]

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

NN org. Only primary sources. No doubt that it exists, but no evidence of 3rd party in-depth coverage MrCleanOut (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Dowden publishes notable academic journals. --Crusio (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a valid argument, per WP:NOTINHERITED, where is the independent coverage? MrCleanOut (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment If you click on the "find sources" link above (something you usually do before going to AfD), you find within 30 sec: [37] and [38] in the first 5 results. If you click on "news", you'll find even more stuff. --Crusio (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To the article creator: Your links appear to be extended business directory listings, info that is copied more or less uncritically from company documents, or superficial info on an acquisition. Searching more, this [39] comes up, but it's basically a press release, full of puff. Where is the independent significant coverage that's required for a stand-alone article? The article contents could merged to some target, not necessarily having its own article. MrCleanOut (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first link most certainly is not a business directory but a newspaper article. This doesn't seem to be "just a press release" either. btobonline.com has multiple articles on Dowden. And this is just the first page of the results of a "news" search. There's more, of course. --Crusio (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Per Crusio. -Ret.Prof (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was Snow Keep/Withdrawn by nominator.. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alex Lambert[edit]

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Person was on American Idol, so notablity is fleeting on this one. Almost all of the references on the article go to blogs of some sort, so none of it is verifiable. Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even though we have a slew of SPAs (single-purpose accounts) doing work here, I am satisfied with the work that has been done and the page is now to the bare limits of notability and verifiability. I suggest all people with SPAs to not use them for that purpose again. I withdraw my nomination for deletion and ask this be closed by an admin or non-SPA user as "keep". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep:Person was on American Idol and is NOW on a completely different show which is notable as well as being an artist under the 19 Entertainment label with a future album and career, he IS notable. But, I suppose you should go around and delete every other American Idol contestant because they're not on the show anymore. If you want different sources we can give them to you even though the sources are not all "blogs", but forgive us if Harvard scholars don't report American Idol news. And you're nominating an article for deletion which was highly edited (blanked in areas) minutes before your nomination. So I'm wondering here why the solution isn't editing to fix instead of deleting major portions then nominating for deletion. The person who made all the major edits is also apparently well known for doing these major edits and then putting warnings all over the page for things he has done himself. So if you're nominating the page for deletion after his edits which makes the article incomplete and poorly worded then I object. Also, calling me a sock/meat puppet just because this is my 1st article doesn't mean my opinion doesn't matter. But, thanks for tagging me as such. Forgive me if I haven't gotten around to editing other articles. Gollymolly1010 (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC) — Gollymolly1010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
You weren't tagged as a sock/meatpuppet; you were marked as a single-purpose account. The other marked SPAs who have contributed to this discussion are the suspected sock/meatpuppets. If you make a strong, policy-based argument, it's irrelevant whether your account has been marked as being a SPA or not (though obvious sock/meatpuppets will still be disregarded). So far you haven't provided any convincing argument either, however; "he was on american idol" doesn't itself meet our general notability guideline, "you should go around and delete every other American Idol contestant..." is not a valid argument because we don't keep/delete articles because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and the fact that the main contributor is an editor in good standing is irrelevant. Take a look at some of the policies regarding notability and decide for yourself whether the article meets our policies, and then base your argument on our policy. If you simply argue to keep something because WP:ILIKEIT, your argument will be diregarded because wikipedia is not a ballot. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well they are not MY "sock/meat puppets" I have no idea who any of these people are, so sorry if you feel that way. Like I said this is my FIRST article, so that should not limit my opinion or be put against me. Anyways, according to the general notability guideline he HAS significant coverage, by reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. The person who reported the article for deletion did so minutes after the original article was highly edited by someone else. I've fixed said persons major edits, added more reputable sources, and even included all suggestions for sources posted below me. So, despite yours and my sarcastically witty conversation, the person is still notable. If you read the article, you'll notice he WAS on American Idol, is NOW on a completely different show, WROTE AND PERFORMS THEME SONG for said show, IS CURRENTLY a 19 entertainment recording artist.Gollymolly1010 (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not expressing any opinion one way or another on this AfD as I haven't done any research into the article at this point, I'm simply pointing out that if you can make a policy-based argument, that's what your argument should be based on. I'd also recommend reading the concerns of the delete !vote(s) and directly addressing those concerns. Obviously I can't speak for you, but on my part at least, my advice was not sarcastic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry you responded to me before I edited my comment to provide examples of policy and explanation on how I fixed the "delete" person's worries. Like I said the person reported the article AFTER someone majorly edited it in the middle of my editing.Gollymolly1010 (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Notability fleeting? No more so than any of the other ex-American Idols. In fact, less so than of other Idols, as person is currently on a new legitimate show (which has an approved Wikipedia entry), and has received a great deal of attention from numerous press sites. It should be possible to find valid references where missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.82.61 (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC) — 62.1.82.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Keep seems to be a bit of a BLP2E, but notable enough. A Google News archives search for "Alex Lambert" +Idol shows that reliable sources do exist, such as this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Suggest also searching news archives for "Alex Lambert" +"If I Can Dream" for more current reliable sources regarding notability, such as this and this. Also would like to point out that references for other ex-American Idols also often mostly consist of blogs or entertainment "news" sites, thus do not see why they would not be allowed or adequate in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.165.0 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC) — 88.218.165.0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

Keep The following is a list of some of Alex Lambert’s credits in 2010. Every item on this list is notable and can be easily verified by an independent source. Contestant on American Idol – top 16, Cast of If I Can Dream, guest on the Ellen Degeneres Show, Celebrity contestant on Don’t Forget The Lyrics, Musical performer at the Sunset Strip Music Festival, Celebrity presenter at the Young Hollywood Awards, Professional music video I Didn’t Know (produced by Clear Channel Radio and featured on their IHEARTRADIO music platform), Songwriting and performance credits for Dream With My Eyes Open (theme song on If I Can Dream) Although Mr. Lambert started out on American Idol, it is obvious that he is not just a former American Idol contestant.--AlexL fan (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC) — AlexL fan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Redirect to the season of American Idol which he appeared in. seems non-notable outside of Primary sourcesThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Per Starblind. Look, I think the fact that American culture drools over such vapid entertainers is stupid, too, but the sources exist to meet the GNG, and there's no NOT reason to not give him a separate article. Yes, there are a large number of poor sources included, but there are definitely REAL sources which can be used. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, regrettably, per Jclemens and Starblind... Drmies (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Although the provided references are all junk. Hulu and blogs are not reliable sources. The article needs a lot of work and it needs reliable sources. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep AlexL fan makes a good case. Dream Focus 19:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep like above Aisha9152 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep If I'm not mistaken, this article has now been correctly and adequately referenced, thus the bare URL and additional citations warnings can be removed. I also believe that this establishes notability. Kaneek (contribs) 02:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn as heading to WP:SNOW LibStar (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of PDF software[edit]

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

there already exists this template Template:PDF_readers or would be better served by a new category. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The template contains a fraction of the info within the list, and the list's presence does not prevent a series of categories being created. I'm not seeing any reason to delete this. Someone another 18:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep templates and categories include only a tiny bit of the information of a list. --Bothary (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Reasonable list of software. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 00:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep No more list vs. category wars please. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete As useful as this information is, policy consensus is that mere lists of links do not belong in an encyclopedia. WP:NOTLINK There are few facts in the article, and the links do not serve as verifying sources. --UncommonID (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

— UncommonID (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. This is not a mere list of links. It is organized, contains information on license and platform, and a description. It is an aid to navihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Formatgation for the articles that make up the list in a way that categories cannot be & is consistent with both our written policy & our history of keeping software comparisons/lists when they've been brought up to AfD. --Karnesky (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I came across this article this evening and found it quite useful, so perhaps this is something of an WP:ILIKEIT comment. However, while it certainly isn't a perfect article, it does provide more information than would a category or template in terms of descriptions of what software does and sub-categorisation by operating system. --Kateshortforbob _talk 19:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I think of this as information that really belongs in the Portable Document Format article but has been moved into a separate subarticle because of size and weight concerns. I don't know if that's how it was created, but it would make sense. More than just a list of links, and definitely worth keeping. I am not sure what the formal criteria are, but if they allow all the crap that has been featured but not this, they are badly broken. Hans Adler 18:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Travis Cherry[edit]

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

Vanity piece by a sound engineer who appears not to satisfy WP:GNG. Article is full of name-dropping and other unverified credits, and is cites 3 sources, none of which demonstrate his notability Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete- no references unless you count the self published links in the external links and the myspace listed as his website. He iro 04:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - unfortunately for Mr. Cherry, association with a bunch of notable people is not notability in itself. He'll have to be noticed by third party sources on his own. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The articles for those albums list him. I'm sure someone there checked the label of the product they bought. Primary sources are fine for this sort of thing. A music producer is notable if the works he produces are notable, which in this case has happened multiple times. There is a link in the article already to a magazine which interviewed him. [40] You have to pay to see the article, but it does list in the contents that he was interviewed in that issue. Dream Focus 08:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^communicate 14:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Non-notable biography. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Only 2 of the 11 references actually mention "Travis Cherry", and those sources mention him in a very trivial way. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage". At this point, the sources only prove that Travis Cherry exists, not that he is notable. SnottyWong ^chatter 23:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I was considering Keep based on the Grammy nominations, but engineers/producers are only included in the nominations for the really big "Record of the Year" type Grammys, the lesser Grammys don't include them in the nominations. Exxolon (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -Just an unbiased correction, they are listed on TV for the bigger records but on the smaller ones, just the album itself. The reason is that on the bigger ones, the producers and engineers receive an actual Grammy if it wins, while on the smaller ones, they are given a plaque for nominations or for a win.Superkat2 (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joey Yap[edit]

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

Non-notable, advertising, ((tone)) issues. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. should have been speedied as WP:SPAM. Plenty of WP:SPS, and only one WP:RS, merely reporting on an event – insufficient to demonstrate notability. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Heavily promotional and lacks reliable independent sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nina Halim[edit]

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

Nominated based on notability per this edit on Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Notability issue; notability is not inherited --ZhongHan (Email) 06:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete not much there in the article; not much there on GSearch – most of it's personal: Twitter, LinkedIn... Photo gallery also looks distinctly personal and not 'celebrity'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - There's not really anything to establish notability for this person. The only sources I could find were mentions of her as a mother, rather than an entrepreneur. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete self-promotion. not notable. --Car Tick 00:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eddie Chin[edit]

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

Nominated based on notability per this edit on Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Notability issue --ZhongHan (Email) 06:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Keep - He's been in two notable ensembles (one of which charted at number 72, but still charted!) and he's mentioned in a lot of coverage, even though it's not exclusively about him. I say weak keep for now. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep wp:music 6 `Aisha9152 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: He is notable and he is charted. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of PowerVR products[edit]

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

~~Delete~~ company already has an article with all the same information, albeit in less detail. this product list has been copied and pasted to this website as well, which is even using the same image hosted on wikimedia servers (click the image on enotes.com and it takes you to the wiki file); seems someone is on a promotional bender. the text from the main article about the company also can be found on that website. not sure if this is a copy vio as it may be the user who posted that info there also made the two articles here. regardless, this article is unsourced and, i believe, unnecessary considering the redundancy. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

actually i am not completely sure, what is the wiki policy in this area. are other companies allowed to maintain unsourced lists of their products on wikipedia? WookieInHeat (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

after reading this talk page, maybe that user is right, this type of comparison of their products could be appropriate. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abstain - I shunted this list to a separate page rather than deleting it because I thought it had the potential to become useful (with a lot of work by a helpful editor). But I would not oppose a consensus to delete. - Frankie1969 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral maybe you're right, don't want to be the deletion nazi going around destroying information with potential. so, unless another editor points out a reason to delete i will change to neutral. really only nominated this because of the seemingly promotional nature, but also just wanted to bring attention to it because i was unsure if the copy and paste editing violated any copyright policy. WookieInHeat (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted as G3, no proof it exists Versa geek 13:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daigle Me[edit]

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

No coverage anywhere that I can find. Does not meet WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 04:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete. - Non notable film. Absolutely no sources. No proof that it even exists. --Kudpung (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as a not notable film. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No sources, no notability, very short article anyway. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I can find no proof that this film exists. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as a probable hoax since no sources can be found. He iro 04:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:HOAX. Mike Allen 05:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete If actually shot in September (ahem), and with no coverage, the kindest thing that might be said is this article is too soon... but with complete lack of verifiability, WP:HOAX looks to apply. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment since User:Versageek deleted the article[41] while its AFD was still in process,[42] I have asked that he also consider closing this AFD as now moot.[43] I do not think anyone will question either his good faith deletion or an early close to this open AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mary nissenson[edit]

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

Promotional unsourced BLP full of dubious claims and promotional language. Orange Mike | Talk 00:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, unsourced biospam. Hairhorn (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and clean up. There are plenty of solid references out there, including a Time magazine article. Many deal with her job/awards as a reporter or her botched plastic surgery.[44][45][46][47] (p. 2) [48] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only cleanup possible is a complete re-write, that's why I voted delete rather than keep. Spam is spam even if it's about a notable topic. Hairhorn (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep, but as a stub. I agree that the current article is unacceptable. I think the Peabody Award plus the assorted publicity over various aspects of her career do satisfy GNG. So I guess the right answer is to stub it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Clarityfiend has shown plenty of sourcing is available. Edward321 (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as mentioned, sources are available. AlgebraT (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. A Peabody Award establishes notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was no consensus. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Brittas[edit]

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

Appears to fail the WP:BIO guidelines. Being a managing director is not, of itself, notable for an encyclopaedia entry. Since creation in 2007, the article has been tagged for improvement with no signs of any improvement apart from the tags being removed. The award mentioned appears to be a scholarship scheme and is unlikely to be sufficient to address notability. Fæ (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ the Ramnath Goenka Awards appear to be fairly prestigious, (speeches thereon by India's chief justice of the supreme court), but it's hard to find out much about it. That said, if this award is Brittas's only claim to notability then the article stands or falls on the award's status. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment The Ramnath Goenka Award may be prestigious; but can anyone verify whether it was awarded to John Brittas? Do they (the trust) have a website. Is this (the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism award to Brittas) covered in any mainstream newspaper; at least in Indian Express which is associated with this trust. Did anyone get anything other than this Wikipedia article for a Google search of this "Journalism Educational Award".180.149.48.245 (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - The guidelines are that if a BLP depends on an award, that the award should be "well known". I would interpret this a needing to be internationally recognized. If basic searches reveal so little information that we are not sure exactly what the significance of the award is and there is no Wikipedia article for Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award, then it must be considered not notable enough by itself to justify the existence of BLPs for awards winners. The award was created in 2006 by the Express Group for Indian journalists. Fæ (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - "we don't have an article, therefore it's not notable" isn't much of an argument. Wikipedia's coverage of India isn't as good as it should be, perhaps we missed something somewhere? Incidentally, googling Ramnath Goenka Awards turns up quite a few hits, although they seem to be mostly Indian news outlets trumpeting winners from their own staff. The award is seemingly well-known within Indian journalism (and worth an article here?), but I'm starting to doubt whether simply winning one makes Mr Brittas notable enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - You seem to have missed the word "and" in my statement and inadvertently misrepresented my comment. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        aaargh. Thanks for pointing out my phail. I shouldn't be doing this on a Sunday morning! Totnesmartin (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Not a single reliable source has been produced so far to establish that John Brittas is a recipient of the Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism.180.149.48.245 (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There is a mention of the award here. Salih (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Thanks, however the keral.com profile appears to support the facts of his BLP but does little more to establish the award itself as sufficient to justify notability. Fæ (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - He appears to be notable even without the Ramnath Goenka Award. See the list of celebrities mentioned here. The article says that "We are presenting the profiles of prominent Malayalees living today." Salih (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keral.com is not a reliable source, by any standards. The simple fact that emerges is that we have not found any reliable source to establish the notability of this person. 180.149.48.245 (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - as the nominator my opinion should not be seen as a consensus, however it is clear that after reasonable discussion with several people looking for sources that none has been found to support a claim of notability in the sense of WP:BIO. For a deletion it is not required to demonstrate non-notability, only to show that notability is unlikely to demonstrated in the near future. Fæ (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete I've come round to the delete side of this discussion. There really doesn't seem to be a source to establish his notability. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep if kerla.com, the website that published the subject's detailed profile, can be considered as a reliable source, otherwise delete. Salih (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Non-notable people can be listed and profiled on notable websites, for example not everyone with profiles on myspace, IMDB or bwfc.co.uk is automatically notable even if the organizations running those websites are. Fæ (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I think it's not fair to equate keral.com with myspace, IMDB etc. where a registered user can add their own profile. Salih (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The Managing director or dceo of a notable company is notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Sorry, that statement is not supported by the notability guidelines. A MD or DCEO or any other executive has to be notable in their own right. Fæ (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete per WP:BLP. Besides David Dinkins, there are several other unsourced statements in this article about living people. If someone wants to source this article I will be glad to userfy or incubate it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joseph Corrao[edit]

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

No sourcing whatsoever, and contains defamatory claims about living individuals and corporations. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep - I believe that undoubtedly good sources do exist to corroborate this. This so-called "crime family" has been written on and reported on extensively, and in great depth. Also, almost all of the people who were directly associated with the Gambino's during the events leading up to John Gotti's arrest have their own pages. And since this isn't a BLP, I think it should just be tagged for needing references...and perhaps trimmed down on some of the more critical aspects until the refs are provided. This could be a really interesting and highly content-debated article. The Eskimo (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a BLP, but there are references to living people supposedly linked to him and to two cafes and a fuel company he supposedly part-owned, all with zero sourcing. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fix it or delete it - One can say of a dead person that they exhumed the body of Chester A. Arthur and used it as a coffee table or collected the heads of housecats in pickle jars, but if one makes an assertion about a living person being a member of an organized crime family, one had damned well better have that documented. All potentially defamatory material about living people needs to be footnoted or removed pronto, or this article should be deleted. —Carrite, Sept. 29, 2010.
Keep Just which living people are they about whom negative information is given. Dinkins is mentioned, but not negatively, & there should be a newspaper source for his involvement in canceling the city contract with him In any case, the basic material in the article is clearly about other deceased individuals, so if there is such material about living people and it cannot be sourced , it can be removed without needing to delete the article.. DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD, per WP:V. Unsourced contested articles must be deleted. Sandstein 06:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World's first pine tree farm[edit]

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

At the moment, this is little more than an essay (WP:NOTESSAY) about the "first" timber plantation. I can only see one mention in a search, and that mention is not from a reliable source. ~~This may warrant a sentence or two at Plantation#Forestry but nothing more.~~ (Struck because it is clear that this is not true) It also seems as if the text has been copied from somewhere, but I don't know exactly where. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, this is an essay, not an article. JIP | Talk 07:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, as above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Reads more like vanity press than even an essay. Was this someone's grandfather? No refs, no evident notability, if it's in the 1920s it's certainly not "the first". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as there is no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. There are no reliable sources to support notability. Limongi (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per all of the above. He iro 04:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, essay; also contradicted by Christmas tree cultivation. Hairhorn (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, essay, obvious fabrication > Minnecologies^Talk 14:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. The arugments for deletion seem to significantly outweigh the sole reason for retention here. –MuZemike 22:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Janet Scott-Batchler[edit]

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

IMdB verifies the career. amazon & worldcat verify the book. But the book is self-published, and the material at IMdB is not sufficient to show notability either. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I agree with DGG. Doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BASIC. A related AfD for her husband is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Batchler. I also removed much of the unsourced material. In case anyone wants to see it, here is the version before I did so. Novaseminary (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." -- according to Batman Forever, the film had at least 54 reviews. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I always thought of that as referring to a novelist who had a book turned into a movie, or more on point, a film director who created the film. In this case, this writer was one of three writers of a screenplay. They (obviously) were not the ones who created the character or anything. Novaseminary (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment A related AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Batchler, has now been closed as delete. The only potential notability-related difference I see between the two is that she has written a self-published book that, per WorldCat, is held in four libraries. But I cannot imagine that would come close to meeting notability. Novaseminary (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. Jummy Pit's keep vote notwithstanding, I see consensus here for delete Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lee Batchler[edit]

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

Imdb verifies the career, but I do not think the career notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I agree with DGG. Doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BASIC. A related AfD for his wife is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Scott-Batchler. I also removed much of the unsourced material. In case anyone wants to see it, here is the version before I did so. Novaseminary (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." -- according to Batman Forever, the film had at least 54 reviews. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I always thought of that as referring to a novelist who had a book turned into a movie, or more on point, a film director who created the film. In this case, this writer was one of three writers of a screenplay. They (obviously) were not the ones who created the character or anything. Novaseminary (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tangential comment I do not believe WP:AUTHOR makes any requirements on how much of a creative work must be purely from the creator's mind rather than incorporated/adapted/portrayed/borrowed from elsewhere. There were plenty of cypresses and sunflowers in Arles before Van Gogh arrived and tried representing them on canvas; history writers get historical information from other sources, rather than directly participating in major world events; and Eddie Adams merely handled a camera, he didn't execute anyone :-) bobrayner (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I can't find any significant media notice of him, only mentions as a screenwriter for Batman Forever. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charlotte Research Institute[edit]

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

NN organization. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Totally unreferenced. Nothing to merge. Prod was contested by an anon IP. GrapedApe (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - The news link above lists 158 news articles about this organization over the last 8 years. - Hydroxonium (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep article needs definite improvement but sufficient coverage [49]. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Koprol[edit]

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

Non notable local social networking site. Promotional tone. Does not appear to be onnected with Yahoo as may seem to be suggested on its site graphics. Kudpung (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, needs editing, but id.yahoo.com does appear to link to this as "Korpol [Baru]" (I presume that means "Beta") News sources seem to confirm that Yahoo acquired them, and there are recent results on a gnews search for them. (They aren't in English so I have no idea what they say.) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 21:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Reading this thing more, it's like it was auto translated or something. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Executed some heavy cleanup. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep sufficient coverage in WP:RS to pass WP:N (e.g. the Tempo articles I just added). As for the nominator's statement that it "Does not appear to be onnected with Yahoo", I can only assume he did not follow WP:BEFORE whatsoever: the very first item in Google News Archive is about its acquisition by Yahoo. cab (call) 05:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Metis TransPacific Airlines[edit]

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

This article is largely a fluff piece as well as furthering what has long been suspected to be a hoax airline. I do not believe that this article or even "organization" meets our notability requirements. Furthermore, the sourcing quality is largely lacking and what is provided is either too promotional or not reliable per our established standards. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I believe it's notable. It's a notable hoax. If multiple sources suggest that an organisation may be fictional (and is controversial as a result), that means we should pay extra scrutiny to sources, not that we must delete it - wikipedia has lots of fine articles on hoaxes. In this case we have some good sources to establish notability. I have added an extra ref on the hoax; a Macau Daily Times article. If some content in the article appears to take the airline too seriously, we should correct that content; but the lede currently says "Metis TransPacific Charter Airlines is an airline that claimed to be based in Macau, People's Republic of China; the actual existence of the airline has been disputed. Its website is no longer online" so, as it stands, I doubt the article is furthering a hoax; I think it mostly takes the right stance. bobrayner (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Looking at the article history, I suspect there may have been one or two COI editors involved in the past. I'll watchlist it. bobrayner (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per bobrayner--enough sources to suggest this is a notable hoax.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sultan Geliskhanov[edit]

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

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

no extensive coverage in gnews [50]. will reconsider if someone can provide substantial coverage in Russian. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want someone who speaks Russian, then use the deletion sorting mechanism or ask at WP:RUSSIA, don't just express a vague desire in your summary for someone who speaks Russian to appear out of thin air. Or you could try using the Google Transliteration tool yourself. cab (call) 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge somewhere? I added the ((Find sources)) template above for the Cyrillic spelling. But even with the greater volume of Russian coverage, it's pretty clear this is a WP:BLP1E. The only non-trivial articles about the man were within a few days of his surrender. Everything before or after that consists merely of passing mentions in books and articles about other subjects. His surrender doesn't seem to have been a particularly important event of the Second Chechen War so I'm not sure that's an appropriate merge target. Aside from that one event, it's also verifiable that he was the head of the department of state security ([51]) under Dzhokhar Dudayev in the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria back in 1994, but I'm not sure that qualifies him as passing WP:POLITICIAN. Maybe a mention of him in a list of governmental officials of Ichkeria would be appropriate. cab (call) 09:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Sourcing is terrible here, but based on the Kommersant article cited in the footnotes (in English), we know the person exists and that the general description of him as a top leader of the Chechen nationalist movement is accurate. Notability seems assured, the question being whether there are any BLP issues to be addressed. Here you will see Султан Гелисханов as the subject of coverage in the online version of Vremia. There are many other hits. Pretty clearly clears the notability bar as a top leader of the Chechen movement, poor sourcing of this article notwithstanding. —Carrite, Sept. 30, 2010.

For those of you not versed in Russian history or current events, the Chechens are a Muslim nationality within the old Russian empire, severely repressed under Stalin, who have been using terrorist methods in an attempt to achieve national sovereignty. Gelishkhanov would be regarded a "top terrorist" or a "hero of the Chechen national movement" depending on one's POV. He's notable in Wikipedia terms either way one feels. —Carrite, Sept. 30, 2010.

Keep - perhaps need some re-writing etc .. but notable. yes it is.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. your argument fails to address how the article meets WP:N or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep notable top terrorist/freedom fighter. Even if the article is a stub, it will grow from translations and additions from reliable sources over time. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was redirect to Punggol New Town. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edgefield Primary School[edit]

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

Non notable primary school. Delete and/or merge to school district or locality page as per standard procedure. Kudpung (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I should have preferably put a PROD on this, it would have been procedurally deleted by now, but I wanted to keep the option open to merge it, rather than WP:BOLD and unilaterally do the merge. . If there are no new comments, I'll leave it to the closing admin's discretion. Generally if consensus is not reached, articles will generally be closed as default to 'keep'. But if there have been no comments at all, there is no consensus to measure, therefore in the case of all primary schools, the usual procedure is to merge to the school district article and redirect..--Kudpung (talk)
- WP:DEADLINE?
Redirect to Punggol New Town per standard practice, without proper sourcing there is nothing worth merging. Yoenit (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per usual practice. No need for an AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ronnie Rucker[edit]

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

A radio show host and "co-creator" of a magazine. Despite a handful of references, there is no evidence of notability. Most refs are blogs or not independent. Searching for subject's name brings up a lot of Twitter, blogs etc. Two appearances on non-notable shows, neither of which are mentioned anywhere outside the Youtube, Twitter, Myspace universe. The magazine is unheard of, with only one non-Wikipedia mention on Google. Recently announced a run for politics, but we don't keep candidates on Wikipedia until they win at state level. PROD added twice, and removed by two contributors whose only edits concern this article. Potentially libelous statements about drinking problems made without refs. Dmol (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep

I'm not the original author but am one of the users mentioned as trying to edit the article in question. I'm new and added my reason why I disagree with the arguments to delete this article in the Talk Page. If I was wrong to do it that way I apologize. RR4PREZ (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC) — RR4PREZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
I Added more to Pendejo Magazine Section. Found review of magazine with mention of articles subject as it's Publisher. Added Category Zines. As a Zine it inherently shouldn't be easily found on Google, shouldn't be cause for deletion. Found mention of Shaka Talk in an article in the Honolulu Weekly, publication outside of the Youtube, Twitter, MySpace universe. Removed potentially libelous statement, not needed & a distraction from the article. Removed contended statement about running for office, seemed out of place anyways. RR4PREZ (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. His radio show doesn't seem to be notable, and neither does his zine. (Zines don't get special treatment because they're obscure; it's assumed that any Zine that has achieved notability will have risen out of obscurity in the process.) —Paul A (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I agree it being a Zine shouldn't qualify it for special treatment but because it's a Zine, inherently not notable, one shouldn't be able to assume because said Zine isn't popular, or "risen out of obscurity," it should be used as a cause to delete an article as it was in the Original AfD and once again above. (note: if memory serves me correctly, zine was not an issue in the original two PROD's) The edits, including the fact that it was a Zine, since the Original AfD were made to address the reasons that provoked this discussion. I think I addressed them well as one could infer by the article being Relisted due to lack of consensus, or what would seem to be the case, no definitive reason for deletion was apparent. If there were I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be having to write this. From the beginning of this process, with the exception of one other user, I haven't seen one editor attempt to improve this article, for example the potentially libelous statements, they were used as a cause for delete as first resort in the original PROD's and once again in the AfD rather than being deleted from the article. Another example is the notion that the subject of this article announced a run for political office. Instead of deleting the statement, trying to get clarification, adding citation needed tags, or any other of the myriad of options available to users, straight to AfD, supported by evidence that one would have to read the original statement with a very crooked eye to reach that conclusion (see discussion page). Instead of looking past the first page of a Google search it's claimed that there are zero mentions of subject outside of a particular universe, straight to PROD. Instead of researching and making an attempt to understand something more, things get labeled "unheard of" and straight to PROD. With that said, there is no way that this article or any article for that matter, can defend it's self against vague causes for deletion like "doesn't seem notable," lazy research, or outright untruths like "no mentions outside of the Youtube, Twitter, or the MySpace universe" as addressed (see edit history). I'm at loss. Is there a process? Is it taken seriously? RR4PREZ (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reply, (As the person who listed it for AFD). Despite all the several pages of commentry you have added here and on other talk pages, you still have not done what needs to be done and that is to prove that Ronnie Rucker is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Nothing you have added or removed from the article has changed that.--Dmol (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I'm not even sure his 'radio' show is even broadcast anywhere, it appears to be a self-produced web-only thing. And zines can rarely be notable, but the people who make them aren't. The obvious self-promotion/WP:COI/Spam issues aren't helping any either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - None of the sources provided in the article meet WP:RS, and I can't find anything to establish general notability. Delete I'm afraid! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

King Lizzard[edit]

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

I stumbled upon this when I found a "self" image of the subject - it said "I Randall Colmus created this work entirely by myself", when you look at the King Lizzard article, also created by the same user, the first thing it says is King Lizzard (born Randall James Colmus)... From the overall looks of things this user was/is here only to promote themselves via this article. This appears to be a self promotional piece edited mostly by the subject via their user accounts and I.Ps There are no real sources and only links to various "official" websites. The article "asserts notability" but unless sources can back this up I don't see how it meets policy and related guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I don't comment on notability challenges of entertainers very often. I will mention that while this bio may well be self-produced per nom, as these things go it is written in a dispassionate and informative encyclopedic manner. It's not sourced, and that's a big problem, nor do I have opinion about the notability of its subject one way or another — but it is well done, for what it's worth. —Carrite, Sept. 30, 2010.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Agree that the issue for me is whether there are RS sources reflecting notability. Sound -- have you done a wp:before search? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DELETE, unsourced, self promotion, non notable, He iro 03:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Can't find any coverage of him besides social media. Yoenit (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete the 20-year period he calls his "famous" years consisted of being in a band that never made a record, getting married, switching religions, and working as an extra. Is that really what this guy considers 'famous'?! Come on, seriously, this article is a joke, right? Right?? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pulp.Net[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources (only ones that existed were trivial, giving quotes with promotional text) establishing notability. Tagged as advertising for years without improvement. DreamGuy (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, and I agree this is likely an advertising attempt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Veronika Zemanová[edit]

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

Little indication of notability; a google search indicates a couple of sources, but they appear to be exclusively forums or blogs, sites which present wikipedia's own material, and social networking sites. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment yes, little chance of scholarly articles on this subject. Establishing notability in the normal way will be impossible or difficult. However one factor which I believe the google searches show is this nude model's fame - explain: In the UK (and possibly Europe) this nude model was in the 80s and 90s famous in her chosen career. As far as I know she did not model much for magazines in North America. Basically it is difficult to understate her fame in the area of 'mens magazines' during that time period. I think that needs to be stated for anyone who needs a cluestick on this one. See the multiple interwiki links for this title which give a clue as to the relative fame of this subject. (or turn safe search off and do an image search for "zemanova" ~699,000 images which is more than the olsen twins per twin..)

However the article is unlikely to ever amount to a good encyclopaedic article given the subject area, and there is really very little to say about the subject. Probably an odd example where fame does not confer notability. Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number of hits for a keyword search on the model's name doesn't confer notability. And with the regards to the Olsen twins, WP:OTHERSTUFF. There needs to be non-trivial coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. Do not delete. mind your own business. --Jo (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that arguments which are not based on policy or do not address the issues will be disregarded by the closing admin, and uncivil and unjustified "votes" are simply disruptive. Wikipedia is not a democracy and we don't work by counting "votes"; make a valid, policy-based argument or it'll simply be disregarded. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Veronica is indeed very famous. She has appeared for playboy and other major magazines, and has accomplished as much as any other porn model. if you delete here page, you will have to delete a lot of other pages. Personal attack removed GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC) --Jo (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, I do not see any significant coverage in the usual sources online. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO, imdb only independant source AlgebraT (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete doesn't even really claim notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete non-notable Infinitely Humble (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lloyd Memorial High School[edit]

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

While High schools are considered notable, this article is not about the high school but about the results of its football team. Not notable. Unsourced. noq (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, rewrite. The nominator is correct that the current article is uninformative. However, this can be easily fixed by recourse to the district's and school's official websites[52][53], and a Google News search turns up quite a bit about the school, including a 2001 article from the Kentucky edition of the Cincinnati Enquirer that gives a nice summary the history of the school and asserts, "In 1956, Lloyd High School made national news when it became one of the first schools in the country to desegregate. The integration went so smoothly the school was featured in a Life magazine article spotlighting its success."[54] ~~I have to run out for some errands right now, so if someone else wants to take this information and re-do the article, that's great, otherwise I'll deal with it later; but~~ there's no need to delete the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I have effected a rewrite of the article per the above, keeping the useful infobox from the existing article, adding basic information and history with a couple of sources, and deleting the excessively detailed information about the football team's recent games. I think the article now qualifies as a clear keep under our usual standards for high schools. With respect to Mandsford's comments below, I don't see how it "rubs salt in the wound" to make use of the infobox prepared by the article's creator; it seems to me that a complete deletion of all of the editor's good faith efforts--even the valid ones--would be worse. All the more so because it appears to me, from reviewing User talk:Tleejr, that this editor previously attempted to write an article that included information about the school's history, but fell afoul of WP:COPYVIO. (By the way, I am uncertain if an image of the school's logo may be used in the infobox, as it is currently; if not, of course, that logo may need to be deleted.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you're right. User:Tleejr can still read his original article by clicking upon the article's history tab, an option that wouldn't have been available with an outright delete. Mandsford 01:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, Delete Good writing, bad topic. It's the first time contribution from a new editor who may be unfamiliar with the rules concerning notability. Although I appreciate the effort that went into it, there are no high school football teams that are notable enough that their schedules and results can be hosted on Wikipedia. Granted, there are tons of fan-created articles about college teams seasons, and an occasional attempt to create a shrine to every player on a college team, but allowing an article about the Lloyd High team's season would mean that we'd have to allow pages for every other high school sports team as well. I won't rub salt in the wound by suggesting that the contribution be rewritten about something else entirely; the information is organized well, even though the topic itself wouldn't qualify for its own article, and I encourage User:Teleejr to consider that format for other articles. If someone else wants to write their own article called "Lloyd Memorial High School (Erlanger, Kentucky)" they can start from scratch. Mandsford 01:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Keep - all high schools are de facto notable, only primary schools are deleted. This school clearly asserts additional notability according to a The Enquirer article (very good source) about an extremely notable event. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education --Kudpung (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep High schools are presumed notable according to our guidelines, and Arxiloxos's rewrite should assuage any concerns about the article's contents. 28bytes (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent, although in fairness to the nominator this was a terrible article at the time it was nominated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The article makes an explicit claim of notability, above and beyond our general consensus that secondary schools are inherently notable. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep based on my standards, and on Arxiloxos's excellent job of fixing it. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep All high schools are notable. Not sure if any of the 73 Google news results mentioning this high school would provide any notable coverage, but doesn't matter, since as I said, all high schools are notable. Dream Focus 18:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^speak 23:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Keep per previous precedent regarding high schools and WP:SNOW. SnottyWong ^speak 23:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Victor C. X. Wang[edit]

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

This article, which appears to have been written by its subject and has an odd relationship to its sources (for example, it lists Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed as a source for someone who is definitely not mentioned in the book and was, indeed, four years old when it was written) is about someone who doesn't seem to meet the relevant notability guidelines. Chick Bowen 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. GS cites negligible. Too early, if ever. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Delete. Can't find any notable mentions in third party publications. Merely being a published author, even one who has written several textbooks and numerous journal articles, is insufficient to establish notability under WP:N. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment Wang has added a reference to being Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology to his page.[55] However, as the relevant section of WP:PROF states "The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area", and this journal started in 2010 and appears to have published only one quarterly issue, I'm not changing my stance. I can't imagine a journal being any less well-established and still actually existing. Perhaps in a year, though, there may be sufficient notability if the journal prospers. If the author wants to move the article to userspace until then, I'd definitely support that—although, given his behavior in editing the article so far, that may not be an option for long. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment: Suggest salting Given that even though he was cited for edit-warring on this page, Cxw888 (talk · contribs) is still editing away on his own page, has not responded to any messages left on his talk page, has blatantly ignored the notices on the article (e.g., don't delete the AfD template), and hasn't bothered responding here... I suspect that if the article is deleted, he his highly likely to try recreating it in short order. Therefore, I suggest that if the AfD outcome is "delete", the page should be salted to avoid further edit-warring. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:ACAD Vrivers (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, his academic contributions are mainly as an editor and to teaching aids rather than to quality publications. Fails WP:PROF. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question. What about all these books? Abductive (reasoning) 19:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Having a book, or many books, published doesn't establish notability under the above quoted guidelines. To be notable, other sources must talk about the subject. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - That's odd, certain frequent contributors to AfD discussions on professors point to editorship/authorship or one or two books as proof of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - I think if you look through the guidelines, you'll see that mere editorship doesn't mean much, but being Editor-in-Chief of a notable work does; being published a lot doesn't necessarily count, but publishing one particularly notable work (as backed up by citations in other sources) does, as does having a number of published journal articles that are themselves widely cited by others in their journal articles. As I've said, this fellow is on the cusp right now. It doesn't help that the current article is an autobiography; if kept, it will have to be stubbed. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SK#2. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arthur Rubin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No notable achievements B-Objective (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for raising this a 4th time but I and it appears other just don't see this as notable page for Wikipedia, much more notable pages have been deleted as far as I can see.

In simple english: 1. Winning a Math competition 4 times does not make someone notable on it's own.... 2. Filing a patent does not make someone notable. 3. Having failed to achieve a seat on the assembly does not make someone notable. 4. Being smart does not make someone notable.

And since the 80's there has be no activity whatsoever, achievements are notable and in this case I just don't see enough to make it a worthy entry. Clearly a smart guy but not a notable one... B-Objective (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC) — B-Objective (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

Keep. It doesn't matter that the last major activity was in the 80s, as notability is not temporary. If other 'more notable' pages have been deleted, it also doesn't matter, per WP:WAX. Rubin has received adequate press coverage, therefore keep. Jujutacular ^talk 11:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 11:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Jujutacular, I didn't know that press coverage was one of the criteria for academic notability, is this correct?~~

~~The academic criteria are as follows:~~

The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. - NO. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. - An undergraduate math competition, prestigious yes but "Highly Prestigious"? NO. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE) - NO. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. - NO. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. - NO. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. - NO. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. - NO. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area. - NO. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. - NO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euro-Voice (talk • contribs) 12:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Reply[reply]

From WP:PROF, the page you're quoting these criteria from: If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria. The primary criterion of Wikipedia:Notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Hut 8.5 12:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Delete, sorry forgot to give my verdict.. Euro-Voice (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)— Euro-Voice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

"Significant coverage in reliable sources" is the primary criteria for determining notability of any article, regardless of the subject. See the general notability guidelines. Jujutacular ^talk 12:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: Euro-Voice (talk · contribs) is also the nominator of this AFD. –xeno^talk 16:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG, significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Per Jujutacular and GB fan. Also, it's interesting how a new member with no previous contributions appears to know so much about the guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appreciate the feedback, but Rubin being a "Mathematician" should have notability requirements fall under the Academic category ^[1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euro-Voice (talk • contribs) 12:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that someone doesn't pass the academic notability criteria doesn't mean they don't pass the general notability criteria, a fact stated explicitly in the academic notability criteria. Hut 8.5 12:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG, therefore all the arguments made by the nominator are irrelevant. I also strongly suspect sock- or meat-puppetry here. Hut 8.5 12:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hut, specifically how does it pass WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" I see very very little coverage. Euro-Voice (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article in the LA Times specifically regarding the subject [56] is not a trivial mention. –xeno^talk 13:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Like, obvious. Pointy nomination by attack SPA. Only confirmation so far by another attack SPA. Quack quack? DNFTT--Abd (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep - clearly meets GNG. Seems to be ulterior motive to nomination; would suggest someone check the drawers. –xeno^talk 13:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already opened them, got my double barrel ready for some duck hunting. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Euro-Voice is canvassing SkipSmith, Bwithh, Nsk92, Crusio, BWH76 and Vufors ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And a good thing that is, otherwise I would not have seen this and would not have voted speedy keep, because this obviously meets GNG (even if WP:PROF is more doubtful). No idea why Euro-Voice canvassed me... --Crusio (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You wanted it deleted in 2008: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (2nd nomination). I think he went through the previous nominations and left (biased) comments for anyone who has ever argued this article should be deleted, which clearly violates WP:CANVASS. Hut 8.5 14:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, that explains it. It did look somewhat familiar, but since 2008 I have learned more about WP and have also become more inclusionist... :-) --Crusio (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy Keep - Obvious troll is obvious. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snow Keep. This is basically the same nonsense that was floated in the Reid Barton AfD, so I'll give the same argument I gave there. The Putnam carries a prestige at the national level far outdistancing other types of recognition at the undergrad level, for which most people outside the world of mathematics have no appreciation. Moreso, Rubin is one of only a handful of people (seven, actually) to have ever attained 4-time-fellow status. Separately, his "Choosability in graphs" paper seems to have >400 citations alone (GS) – an enormous number for a mathematics paper and arguably enough on its own per the impact clause of WP:PROF #1. Nom already blocked, AfD a waste of time for this one, etc. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Keep - As known and regardless subject,the primary criteria for determining notability of any article must be the existence of references. Here, they do exist! Rirunmot 17:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mohammed Sheikh Adden[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the information in the article and assess notability. Searched using the spellings 'Mohammed Sheikh Adden' and 'Mohammed Sheikh Aden'. Don't believe it would pass WP:POLITICIAN even if it were fully sourced and at present has no sources. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 00:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I had some difficulty, too, but this is what I came up with: I searched "Mohammed Adden" and found a forum posting that pointed to this Somali BBC article which has his name as "Mohamed Adan Sheikh" as does this blog. That is not enough to pass WP:V, however, a search of "Mohamed Aden Sheikh" reveals a fair number of GBook hits that appear to confirm that he held high cabinet positions in Somali. (BTW: I noticed the name is very similar to Sheikh Adan Mohamed Nuur Madobe, but they do appear to be different people). Location (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I've seen "Sheikh" placed before, in the middle, and after the rest of various individuals' names, so a page move might be necessary. I'm interested in others comments on this. Location (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep several references establish that he's a former member of parliament and government minister therefore meets both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as per discussed above Infinitely Humble (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)