Film depictions of Italian-American mafioso eating dinner – Deletion endorsed – –MuZemike 02:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Film depictions of Italian-American mafioso eating dinner (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) The discussion was trending to keep, as new sources were being added and the article's importance was shown through the addition of these sources. Sapporod1965 (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The delete voters did not impress with the quality of their argument but there were enough of them that the close seems reasonable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The discussion was most certainly not trending to keep. There was at least a rough consensus to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- rough consensus to delete, and well within administrator discretion to interpret it that way. Reyk _YO! 22:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per Mkativerata (talk · contribs) ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 19:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Film depictions of Italian-American mafioso eating dinner – Deletion endorsed – –MuZemike 02:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The discussion was trending to keep, as new sources were being added and the article's importance was shown through the addition of these sources. Sapporod1965 (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The delete voters did not impress with the quality of their argument but there were enough of them that the close seems reasonable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The discussion was most certainly not trending to keep. There was at least a rough consensus to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- rough consensus to delete, and well within administrator discretion to interpret it that way. Reyk _YO! 22:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Mkativerata (talk · contribs) ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 19:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science – Deletion endorsed per rough consensus. – –MuZemike 02:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The society in question has been established for many years and comprises many respected Academics. The reasons for deletion seem to be that some people disagree with the work and science of the society, and apparently wish to suppress it. The society is notable for its members and its somewhat controversial research topics. quota (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Well within admin discretion. Good close based on the strength of arguments. Late run of delete !votes was telling. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've looked through things like the general notability guideline and can't find any establishment of notability just merely based on a members list or controversiality of research topics (not withstanding the memebers or the research topics maybe notable in their own rights). The normal standards of coverage in reliable third party sources of course do apply and the debate highlighted those as lacking. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] At a raw minimum this should be a redirect to cold fusion, where the group is named. I'd be inclined to say that the topic is notable ([1] and the ZPenergy sources look strong enough if just. But the sources aren't so strong that the close was outside admin discretion given the discussion. weakly endorse close but redirect to cold fusion. Hobit (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science – Deletion endorsed per rough consensus. – –MuZemike 02:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The society in question has been established for many years and comprises many respected Academics. The reasons for deletion seem to be that some people disagree with the work and science of the society, and apparently wish to suppress it. The society is notable for its members and its somewhat controversial research topics. quota (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Well within admin discretion. Good close based on the strength of arguments. Late run of delete !votes was telling. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through things like the general notability guideline and can't find any establishment of notability just merely based on a members list or controversiality of research topics (not withstanding the memebers or the research topics maybe notable in their own rights). The normal standards of coverage in reliable third party sources of course do apply and the debate highlighted those as lacking. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At a raw minimum this should be a redirect to cold fusion, where the group is named. I'd be inclined to say that the topic is notable ([1] and the ZPenergy sources look strong enough if just. But the sources aren't so strong that the close was outside admin discretion given the discussion. weakly endorse close but redirect to cold fusion. Hobit (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.