< 4 December	6 December >

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

The result was redirect to Toyota Sienna. JForget 00:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Toyota Sienna[edit]

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

Unsourced, POV, speculation. Wikipedia does not need a separate article on this particular model year of this particular vehicle. Any pertinent, sourced information can be added to Toyota Sienna, which already has a section on the 2011 model. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We already have an article on Toyota Sienna. South Bay (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per South BayRedirect to parent article. Article is not WP:ADVERT and WP:CRYSTAL. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 04:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toyota Sienna, fairly plausible search term. I don't see enough in the main article to justify a split out. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toyota Siena where the info belongs until enough verifiable info is gained to have its own article. --Triadian (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toyota Sienna#Third Generation (2011-). This model has already been shown at car shows, but given that it is not yet available to the public, an independent article is premature. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect; WP:CRYSTAL, WP:POV, many issues. Redirect for now until there is more confirmed information. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NW (Talk) 02:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver[edit]

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

Just another hot news of the day, not a notable factoid after that. Wikipedia is not news, especially obscure, non-notable news. A few reports at the time but not much after that. Even Balloon Boy got more reporting. President Obama is very popular but fanmail or fan article or fancrust is not for Wikipedia, maybe myspace. If not deleted, merge a few sentences to the Barack Obama article.

Even the press says this is really a nothing incident from a history standpoint. One newspaper wrote "We can say this: we're absolutely confident there is no credible threat to the candidate, the Democratic National Convention, or the people of Colorado." So this is a non-credible threat, if non-credible threats are articles, then whenever someone writes a "i'm going to kill mr. x" on Wikipedia, an article must be written!

Even the title confirms it is not for an encyclopedia. Scare? Who is scared? Maybe 2008 Barack Obama assassination plot in Denver? Or 2008 plot by 3 stooges in Denver (ok, not really a good title)

Looking back now, we can now say that this is obscure non-notable news. In 2008, we could claim we didn't know but now it is clear. Always was non-notable, still is, always will be, forever non-notable. Head of Security for the World (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once notable, always notable. The accusations remain notable, regardless of their validity. The article could use some cutting, tho. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of good cites, so notable. If nominator has concerns over article neutrality or title then they should be raised on the talk page or addressed. These are not reasons for deletion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Subsequent to this nomination, the nominator moved the article to 2008 Barack Obama alleged assassination plot in Denver.

Keep - Plenty of coverage to demonstrate notability, both at the time and in the following months. An incident like this one tends to have long-term repercussions, even though subsequent analysis indicated the three men did not pose a credible threat. By the way, I prefer the old "scare" title to the new "alleged assassination plot" title. Not only does the new title not parse well (I think the word order implies that Obama allegedly plotted to assassinate somebody), but it appears to me that "scare" is a better description of what happened than is "alleged plot". --Orlady (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE, has received significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's please keep it at the stable title during this AFD. Cirt (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough detail and coverage to demonstrate notability. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the primary author of this article. The notability of this article has been discussed previously, and the article has gone through a GA review and been promoted to "Good Article" status. This article fits every one of the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines: it has received significant coverage, and it is well-cited by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For the record, too, the nominator of this AFD cites a "newspaper" which says "We're absolutely confident there is no credible threat." That isn't a newspaper saying that, it's an attorney involved in the case. Simply because he said it doesn't mean it's true, and even if it were true it wouldn't necessarily mean the article isn't warranted. However, the inclusion of his quote also proves the article presents both sides of this particular issue. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A presidential assassination attempt, even one unlikely to succeed, is clearly of encyclopedic merit and will continue to be in perpetuity. An extremely well-sourced, neutral article to boot. Steven Walling 01:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - pointy nomination by new user. No policy based reason given for deletion. -Atmoz (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See You Dancin'[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

one sentance does not an article make. not notable at all. Alan - talk 21:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a stub. See Wikipedia:Stub for an explanation of why stubs are useful. If this article is too short, it should be expanded rather than deleted. - Eastmain (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from WP:STUB - "Note that if a small article has little properly sourced information, or if its subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." Alan - talk 22:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Article Meets one of the criteria you listed for deleting. "or if its subject has no inherent notability". This article shows inherent notability as it is a song done by a notable artist. Needs expansion but once again, not necessarily deletion worth.--Fbifriday (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not to mention that the song charted, which also gives it some inherent notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim of notability. —D. Monack ^talk 08:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not finding any "in-depth" coverage for this song, but it has charted in at least a couple countries, Belgium and Finland. Gongshow ^Talk 19:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Incubate, as per WP:NSONGS: Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Doubt that it meets notability. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NSONGS as the song has not been covered or won awards. There have been a few comments here that the song has charted in some countries, but sources have not been provided. I spent some time looking for a single source that shows the song charted someplace, but was unable. I will gladly strike this comment if a source could be found, but what I was seeing in my search were clouded results - the artist did release this as a single, and other songs charted, so they seemed to be lumped together in the search results. The artist's article does not indicate that the song charted either. Vulture19 (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's one citation to verify the article, at least. As the album is out soon, it can be seen whether it picks up more coverage, so it is better to revisit this than to relist now. Fences&Windows 02:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Le Disko[edit]

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

WP:NALBUMS and it's a crystal ball, album isn't out yet, no referances cited in article to confirm anything. Alan - talk 21:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though remove all unreferenced statements; when the album does come out, we can easily open this page up and edit it to update the current standards. 76.226.193.156 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Album scheduled to come out soon enough after this AfD is scheduled to close. If the album is not released then, AfD should be reconsidered. Rlendog (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Pilots (v2)[edit]

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

WP:NALBUMS nothing but a track listing, where's the notability? what constitutes it's own article? Alan - talk 21:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Even though the band itself is notable, the album is not notable, as there is no coverage of it. --Fbifriday (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AEL Arena[edit]

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

Lacks Notability, only notable for the Mediterranean Games. Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 23:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stadium is under construction according to photos from the club website. Stadium will host a club that is currently in the country's top division, Larissa F.C.. Patken4 (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Patken4 (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

Keep new stadium articles are numerous on Wikipedia, and noting Patken's info on it actually being under construction. Eldumpo (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Patken4, stadium for a notable team that is confirmed as being under construction. Giant Snowman 22:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Picasso[edit]

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Enigma^msg 06:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only claim advanced for notability is an award which doesn't meet the requirements of WP:PORNBIO. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. However, the discussion focused largely on the list itself. Beside the list, the article contains some text that may be salvageable. That text will be copied to Talk:Education in Argentina so that it can be incorporated into that article (or any other article, if applicable). — Sebastian 07:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fields of doctoral studies in Argentina[edit]

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

No indication of notability of subject. Basically a list of subjects that can be used for doctoral studies -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was enhanced since the time User:Phantomsteve had proposed the article List of fields of doctoral studies in Argentina for deletion. You could note that were added multiple institutional links referencing the five core fields of doctoral studies in Argentina. Thank you, User:Carau/User Talk:Carau

Delete. Who classified the doctoral studies in Argentina into the five fields given in the article? Sources should be given.

The academic fields in the list are simply copied from List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States, and regrouped. The list seems to be an editor's own. If so, it should be removed.--Palaeovia^talk 23:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the list had been compiled by an academic institution in Argentina, as was the List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States, then it would have been of genuine value. However, it appears to be User:Carau's own list, and is copied from the List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States. If it deserves to remain, then any user can generate a List of fields of doctoral studies in X, for every country X in the world. That would be ridiculous. Deletion is the obvious choice.--Palaeovia^talk 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept there There is not only one criteria in the world to classify sciences Argentina it is just a case. User:Carau/User Talk:Carau

Of course. But who in Argentina classified it? Not you. I suppose.--Palaeovia^talk 01:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Palaevia. Not me naturally, in Argentina the organ responsible to do that task is the National Commission for University Evaluation and Accreditation^[1], which regulate all the under and graduate careers. On the matter of this discussion the doctoral fields are divided in the five mentioned categories, as you might see in the follow careers seeker engine:Doctorate Engine Seeker - CONEAU

There, are all the acredited doctorate offer in Argentina, although in Castilian it easy to distinct the five areas of studies (Areas Disciplinarias) as Ciencias Basicas, Ciencias Aplicadas, Ciencias Humanas, Ciencias Sociales and Ciencias de la Salud. User:Carau/User Talk:Carau

I had expected to find in Doctorate Engine Seeker - CONEAU some official classification of doctoral fields by the National Commission for University Evaluation and Accreditation in Argentina. I found nothing but a list in a drop-down menu on the web page. The grouping into five areas is not a national consensus, is it?

Whatever the status of the grouping, the actual list is copied from the List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States. --Palaeovia^talk 21:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All it is is a list of academic subjects without, as far as I can see, any kind of authoritative reference structure. Declan Clam (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept there there is an structure, five categories are one. ([[User:Contactcarltalk) 5:50 December 6 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 07:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC). — Contactcarl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Interesting. Your first contribution to Wikipedia is to vote here. And with a very feeble "argument". Sockpuppet?--Palaeovia^talk 09:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very intriguing. Only 11 minutes after your comment here, User:Carau altered your comment's date from 07:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC) to 07:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC) [4]. This disguised the fact that you and he appeared here 11 minutes apart.--Palaeovia^talk 16:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you use the ungrammatical "Kept there", the exact phrase used by User:Carau? Not a native English speaker?--Palaeovia^talk 23:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Kept there~~ The List of fields of doctoral studies in Argentina it is not a mere copy from List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States being perceptive you can realize the following fact:

First. The US list it is much more extensive than the Argentine one.

Second. The Argentine academic list is smaller and doesn't has enumeration as the US's does.

Third. The order that the Argentine list academic list is quite different than the US's

Fourth. The Argentine academic classification has its own normative as have been showed above.

User:Carau/User Talk:Carau 7 December 2009 Struck !vote as user has already !voted

As I said sbove, If the list had been compiled by an academic institution in Argentina, as was the List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States, then it would have been of genuine value. However, it appears to be User:Carau's own list, and is copied from the List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States. If it deserves to remain, then any user can generate a List of fields of doctoral studies in X, for every country X in the world. That would be ridiculous. Deletion is the obvious choice.

This is not an independent vote. You voted earlier.--Palaeovia^talk 09:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this makes no sense as an article. It might be worthwhile merging to Education in Agentina if there were some explanation as to why this classification is important relative to education, but I don't see it. -- Whpq (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Kept there~~ It's not a copy, but being a list, simple reason why is seen so similar, undoubtedly has its classification according to CONEAU^[2]. As you can realize in the doctorate seeker, the institution's website offers those five fields of doctoral studies classification. Furthermore, you can scrutinize all the internal resolutions of the CONEAU's higher education as follows^[3]:

CONEAU's Resolutions and Procedures

Having not the same academic structure that US should be the reason for deletion? I believe despite latter still it is a truthfully list of doctorate fields of studies. By differing opinions with Palaeovia I hope that each country can have a list of doctoral studies by itself with theirs corresponding national academic institutions, open your mind diversity is a human feature. User:Carau/User Talk:Carau

No one is saying that it is not a truthful list - just that a list you created, with no verification from a reliable source, is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you look at the American list, the list is from an annual survey that NORC have been doing for over 10 years - all the titles and codes can be found (for example) on page 177 of Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities Summary Report 2005. If we could find an equivalent list of fields (with or without codes) at CONEAU, then I would support keeping this article, but I can't find anything like that. (Incidently, the same list of fields can be found at the 1997 summary, the 1998 summary, etc up to the 2006 summary (which is the latest currently available, for some reason they are a few months' late putting up the 2007 survey) - that's 10 different years' reports showing the same fields/codes being used. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Carau and Palaeovia: To ensure that the closing admin for this discussion is not distracted, I have strucken out any !votes other than the first one by Carau, and unbold-ed any "Deletion is the obvious choice" statements at the end of comments by Palaeovia as there is already a 'Delete' !vote from you. I have also un-struck the 'Delete' put here by Whpq which was accidently (I presume) struck out by Carau - Whpq has no other !votes here, so it needs to be visible. I hope you are both OK with this. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine with me.--Palaeovia^talk 23:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me either User:Carau/User Talk:Carau 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Official references Hi guys, I've found new references to support the five doctorate type in Argentina at bottom the mentioned links^[4]^[5].

Even can be found more extensively literature on Argentine Academic Statistics at: Secretary of Academic Policies , although for that should be downloaded a zipped annual clumsy report of 30MB. I hope this could work. User:Carau/User Talk:Carau 12 December 2009 (UTC)

To save others from the wild-goose chase, let me point out that the "references" contain no list of doctoral fields, and are not, in any way, shape, or form, a credible source for the page's current content.

To repeat, ad nauseam, User:Carau generated a list, by himself, and presented it here. This is not how Wikipedia contents are produced.--Palaeovia^talk 22:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1] National Commission for University Evaluation and Accreditation
^ [2] Please select Areas Disciplinarias
^ [3] Regulatory Framework and Procedures for the Accreditation of Graduate Programs in Argentina
^ Disciplinary Election in the Argentine University System Secretary of Academic Policies
^ Postgrade Career Guide Secretary of Academic Policies

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of UNC-CH Student Body Presidents[edit]

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

List of generally non-notable people, and the subject of the list is not notable in and of itself. The fact that a handful of notable people are a part of the list does not make the list notable. The list has no historical significance, and the original author provides no information as to why it is notable. Indeed, he or she assumes that we all know what "UNC-CH" is, and fails to identify it in the article. (It's University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, by the way.) This is a contested PROD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nominator says, being a student body president is not in and of itself notable, and as such the list is unnecessary. Wizardman 00:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we do not consider someone notable for holding such a position, a list is inappropriate. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Student body presidents are arguably notable on the basis of the general notability guideline while they hold office, and once notable, always notable. Moreover, they often achieve notability later on through success in politics or some other field. A Google News archive search on the name of student body president of any reasonably large university in the past ten years will probably generate multiple hits from reliable sources, possibly including some from before or after the period the person held office. - Eastmain (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I fail to see how being a student body president meets the notability guidelines, as you assert. Please explain. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all delete recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Student body presidents are not notable by their position. It really is just the charismatic person that chose to run. I don't see any EV here. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 03:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the most part, student body presidents are notable only on their own campus, not in a general sense, thus not WP:N. If any of these individuals later become notable, they will earn their own article on their merits. I guess it's conceivable that this list might be accepted on the UNC-CH Wikipedia page, but not as its own article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duarte Design[edit]

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

A nonnotable business Laudak (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Merely making a slideshow for a documentary doesn't make a company notable. PDCook (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ah, after a second thought, it's better to close this and continue discussion elsewhere... Tone 22:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to always assume good faith when participating in this discussion. This applies to both those arguing to keep the article and those who are arguing to delete the article. Discuss the reasons why you belive the article should be deleted/kept, with particular attention to relevant Wikipedia policies. Arguments based on assuming bad faith on behalf of those that do not support your argument will not be tolerated.

Shiron.net[edit]

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

This article fails WP:WEB. There are no awards and the last ref is a blog post. The first two refs are " (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or " which is an exception to #1 for notability of WP:WEB because it does not provide an independant review but rather a summary. The refs also do not support the sentences they are inline with. Even the 2 year old Hebrew version of the page cites the actual website and the company that owns it. There arn't even independant refs there. TParis00ap (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Possibly notable, however, few neutral references, if any. IShadowed ✰ 21:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Delete. it's notable in israel and hebrew websites. Mikimik (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That notability is not properly supported by the refs. Right now your reason is WP:ILIKEIT. The creator just added some more refs though so I'll look through those as well.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well, now that notability IS properly supported by the refs. Tell me when to stop adding more of them. Thanks for caring. Eddau (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted those changes because the refs added did not even mention the subject. If you can find refs that cover the subject, please do. ~~English Wikipedia does not work the same as Herbrew Wikipedia.~~ Our articles must be verified with reliable sources that significantly cover the subject and demonstrate it's notability. Otherwise it is original research if you simply say the subject is notable. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, they do. They all do. On some of them it is even the main topic. Are you sure you read any Hebew (בְּלִי נִיקוּד)? Eddau (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense at your claim here. You know nothing of the Hebrew wikipedia and its dealings, and yet you patronize and belittle it. In reality, our notability standards are significantly stricter than the English wikipedia, and we take pride in that. okedem (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you taken a look at the Shiron.net article on the Hebrew Wikipedia? There are no sources other than primary sources.--TParis00ap (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I can find hundreds of thousands of such source-less articles here in English Wikipedia. Don't assume what you see in a single article reflects the general standards of the entire Wikipedia. okedem (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, sorry then.--TParis00ap (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. okedem (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what is the Hebrew for this website? The article claims 'שִירוֹ‏נֶ‏ט' but Eddau claims 'בְּלִי נִיקוּד' - clearly different characters. Giant Snowman 23:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
שִירוֹ‏נֶ‏ט means Shiro according to Google translate.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
בְּלִי נִיקוּד means something about Hebrew writing technique. It means that in place of שִירוֹ‏נֶ‏ט you should write שירונט. Now copy the word שירונט, get to any of the ref I put, press Ctrl+F, and look for this word.

The meaning of the word שִירוֹ‏נֶ‏ט is shiron (lyric book)+ net. It is read "shironet". Thank you. Eddau (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word ניקוד means 'Niqqud', a term in Hebrew diacritics. (The hebrew bible, for instance, is written with Niqqud. The web texts are written without one, in usual). As Eddau said, try to search the word שירונט and not שִירוֹ‏נֵ‏ט. Danny-w (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, on the ref http://www.nrg.co.il/online/10/ART1/047/978.html, the word שירונט appears on the first line of the subtitle, in double quotes. On the ref http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3256121,00.html that word is underlined on the first line of the first paragraph. I hope you find it now. Thank you. Eddau (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Shiron" is the Hebrew word for "Songs". When Google Translate sees "Shiron" in Hebrew characters, it translates it to "Songs". Hence the confusion. Both references refer to the website in question. I make no comment on relevancy, etc. at this time. Singularity42 (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a useful lesson about why computer translation programs should not be used when trying to look up proper nouns and titles (such as the name of a website). They treat all nouns as common nouns, and make a literal translation. Singularity42 (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Delete as Miki advised, one of the 1st line web sites in the Hebrew lyrics field Damzow (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Delete Important site in Israeli culture. חובבשירה (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Delete The most important website for hebrew lyrics. Was founded a long time ago (don't remember exactly when, but many years), and contains a huge list of lyrics for hebrew songs of many kinds (from the 1930s till today, various styles, holidays songs, children songs, etc.). A well known source for Hebrew lyrics, with a special method of keeping the copyrights of the lyrics. טוסברהינדי (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Delete A leading site. Deror (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The above four !votes are WP:ILIKEIT. Can you support your reasons with policy?--TParis00ap (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on! They did not say that they simply like the article. Eddau (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated it for Speedy Deletion in the first place, and I feel that it still doesn't meet the requirements for notability; specifically it fails WP:WEB whichever way you look at it. The fact that it has a page on the Hebrew-language wikipedia is irrelevant - it could be notable on he.wikipedia (debatable) without being notable here. Furthermore, it has no English language references (see Wikipedia:Foreign_sources#Non-English_sources), making it unverifiable to a non-Hebrew reader AND bringing into doubt its notability in English (see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence). Shem (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maariv and Ynet are very reliable sources. Eddau (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing their reliability - I'm disputing the fact that their reliability cannot be determined by an English-speaking editor. They would be relevant on the he.wikipedia article, but are not useful here. If you can't find English-language references at all, it is a good indication of a lack of notability on en.wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence. How would it be if I introduced a couple of Russian-language references here that stated categorically that Shiron.net was not notable? Shem (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what is on this page seems to be Wikipedia:ILIKEIT#Wikipedias_in_other_languages. I'm yet to hear any evidence that this foreign-language website is in any way notable on en.wikipedia.Shem (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on! You are also blaming all Hebrew speakers as having a conflict of interest when discussing an article about Hebrew lyric site. You did not hear any evidence because you blocked your ears.Eddau (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clearly not accusing anyone of a conflict of interest. Please assume good faith. Shem (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Delete See the following google translation of an article from haaretz, January 2008 (the Hebrew original can be seen here). on the 17th paragraph you can read the sentence "Jade turned to Idan Tal, CEO of Songs, Great music site in Israel (25 thousand songs), and asked him permission to make links from the site of his poems of Jonathan Bshiront". The proper translation should be "Paz turned to Idan Tal, CEO of Shironet, Israel's largest music site (25 thousand songs), and asked his permission to make links from his site to Jonathan's poems on Shironet". (my emphasis). Further on along the text there are more references to Shironet (in some cases mistakenly translated to "Songs" or "shiront") as a major source of Hebrew song lyrics. Please show more trust to the Hebrew speakers that responded above and their credibility. Amnon s (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about not having faith in the Hebrew speakers. It is about verifying newly created articles. Every article creator is going to claim notability in thier subject whether they speak Hebrew or any language. Once Singularity stepped in, I saw the mistake of Google translations. Also, most of the opposes have been "This is a major site" rather than "This site's notability is supported by this, that, and these things." Although it seems Eddau has done a good job finding additional sources.--TParis00ap (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This article easily meets WP:WEB. It is discussed extensively and mentioned frequently in national newspapers in Israel. [5] Shironet is also included in contemporary Hebrew nonfiction books. [6] gidonb (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Now that I have had a chance to review all the references, I believe there is enough coverage by multiple, reliable sources to say that this website appears to be notable. However, my !vote is "weak", because I would have preferred sources that were directly about the website, rather than about a subject/event that the website is involved with. I'm sure they exist, and I would ask those familiar with the website to add those references. I would like to take this opportunity to comment on some of the comments above:

The fact that it is on the Hebrew Wikipedia is indeed irrelevant to this discussion. Notablity cannot be inferred from other Wikipedias. In this case, my !vote is based on the references provided, not the Hebrew Wikipedia.
English language references are specifically not required. As per WP:NONENG: "However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available." I would note that if this article is kept, the references section be cleaned up with footnotes that translate the relevant content into English, in order to allow verifying for English-speaking readers. However, just because that has not been done yet is not a good enough reason to delete the article. I would suggest that English translations of the article titles be used in the reference section, not the original Hebrew ones.
Notability is notablity. Although this is an English Wikipedia, it has articles on subjects that are not notable in English-language cultures. It is a global encyclopedia, that happens to be in the English language. If this website is notable in Israeli culture, then it is notable. Period. Singularity42 (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking a at the greater Wikipedia picture, coverage of the Middle East suffers from a huge bias in the direction of conflict and violence. While these are part of life in the Middle East and should never be hidden, people also live in the Middle East, listen to music, read books, follow their idols, attend events, take joy in their families, in culture, and sports, to name just a few. It would be sad if our article about this website that easily meets WP:WEB and is used by so many people every day, without any connection to the conflicts and violence, gets deleted. It would only increase our bias. gidonb (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - a very well known website. The given sources in the article are sufficient to establish notability. Alexa gives good results. Broccoli (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put to much trust into the afore mentioned Alexa results. Especially when compared to lyrics.net's results. And, as you can see, there is no Article for lyrics.net. Alexa by itself is no indication of WP:Notability. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 23:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was already proven that there are references supporting the importance of the website reported in article for people who like Hebrew lyrics. So actually, if we keep on this discussion, we discuss the notability of all the articles dealing with Israeli culture.

I am not trying to tease anyone. Let’s really discuss whether a large encyclopedia, written in the international language should have articles about the culture of a state that in many other aspects is important. Should we write here only about subjects related to Israel that have a chance to help anyone, all over the world to design posters for demonstration, to plan a holiday in the Mediterranean, and to check linguistic issues in holy scripts? Or should we try to write things that that are important to those who want to know about other cultures just out of curiosity? What kind of subjects should be covered in an encyclopedia on a language that maximum 13 million out of the 7 billion people on earth speak, but should not be mentioned, even in short, on an international encyclopedia?

And how objective is it to write so many articles about some subjects related to the Middle East and delete all other articles related to it? Will it make Wikipedia a tourist souvenir shop like website?Eddau (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion might be better suited for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel. If you start it there and invite me, I'll be happy to participate.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tone had restarted it. I could do without this discussion.Eddau (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would close in favor of keeping and I agree that consensus was reached to keep. I dont see a need to relist.--v/r - T P 19:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too. That’s way when I found Tone disagrees with it, I had to start asking more fundamental questions, I’m trying to understand Tone’s point of view.Eddau (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aquative[edit]

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

No sources. Article history indicates author has " seen this word used occasionally in editorials,website forums and in at least one political debate" meaning this is more or less original research. WP:PROD was contested, and I declined to speedy delete it as nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Fractionally above vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Looks like nonsense to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it guys. I agree that it's something made up and silly that does not belong on Wikipedia, but I don't find it to be incomprehensible gibberish, which is why I already declined to speedy delete it as nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had originally PRODded the article as I thought it could possibly be a hoax and couldn't find any sources to confirm the definition. The original author has had ample time to add references in order to verify the info and has not done so. Gathering all the good faith I can, this still remains original research at best. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Nite Hawks[edit]

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

Local football team of no apparent relevance outside the small Iowa town where it played. Yes, it made the local paper once, but verifiability is not always tantamount to notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article is relevant for 2 reasons. First, Jim Foster, who started the team, later invented Arena Football. Also as the article states, the Nite Hawks and the Chicago Lions were the first professional teams to play in Europe. That in itself goes beyond just a local team and one local story. Both the "Associated Press" and "Stars and Stripes" had articles about the trip to Europe. Also the "Des Moines Register" rated the trip in their top 10 sports stories of 1977. Stan AllspachSonnyqb (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Sonnyqb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep The article is relevant for the reasons listed above. Additionally, the team was also covered by the UPI, the Armed Forces Network, and appeared in news outlets throughout the United States (IL, TX, WA, AZ, NY, GA to name a few) during the European tour in summer of 1977. As stated in the article, this was a historical event in American football. This team and the Intercontinental Football League (Al Davis and Tex Schramm headed the NFL committee to put the IFL together along with Bob Kap) was the model for NFL Europe 15 years later. A review of Wikipedia yielded over 118 other teams and leagues in the category “Semi Professional Football”. The fact that the Nite Hawks were from a small town and made such a contribution to the game is what makes this entry worthy of retention. (ORDFlyer (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- — ORDFlyer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted again so to have consensus from non-SPA accounts/users. --JForget 22:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think Sonnyqb and ORDFlyer provide more than ample explanation for why this subject is notable, and the article has reliable sources to back up its notability. And besides, I think we need more articles of local interest on Wikipedia, not less... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 08:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. The additional non-Iowa newspaper sources support the subject's originally stated claim to notability. Mandsford (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debraj Shome[edit]

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

Not a notable surgeon by any any definition Droliver (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well known in indian ophthalmology and plastic surgery circles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.61.102 (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 01:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an editorial comment...

Considering how many self-created articles there are about third-rate musicians, singers, actors, DJs etc., I don't know why a doctor was chosen for possible deletion. There is some notability here, it's just buried a bit. Rewrite/refocus and keep!WQUlrich (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. None of his qualifications, posts, publications or prizes satisfy WP:PROF in my view. Gilo ö 07:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the head of the cosmetic surgery institute of one of Asia's largest corporate hospitals is not notable, I wonder

what is? By the way, this dude has been awarded by the President of India!kabirbera ö

Weak keep While I agree with the rationale of the delete comment by (can't read the name in the sig), the sheer volume of borderline notability claims denotes some notability. However, to claim that he was awarded by the president of india, per the keep comment, is a little bit of a stretch - it appears the president presented the award (photo op), not made the award himself. Vulture19 (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crasher Squirrel[edit]

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

Article on a single event, an event that spanned barely three weeks, from 2008-08-07 to 2008-08-28. The article subject is quite simply, a WP:NOTNEWS violation. I may be wrong, but there doesn't appear to be any coverage outside of this month. Popularity does not make something notable (I have many friends in Facebook, that doesn't make me notable), and coverage in reliable sources, during the course of a single month, does not either. If say, it was still covered by news several months later, maybe even a year, it might be notable enough for inclusion, but not now. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Banff National Park. If it were one event, it would have been limited to its appearance in National Geographic. Given the meme that arose from it (and reported in major sources), it is more than a signal event and thus remains notable. If not, information should be merged to the Banff article, which already has a section under tourism that can accept the info. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single trivial event with only brief, short-term media attention. Perhaps a one-line mention could be added to the internet meme article, which seems more logical than the tourism section in the Banff article. --Crusio (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Well sourced and notable. Silly, sure, but deleting this doesn't improve the encyclopedia. It meets guidelines because of the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources it's received. If it becomes played out and doesn't maintain significant interest in society, it can always be revisited in the future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is a celebrity. Wikipedia should not discriminate against non-human celebrities. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been established. Kyle1278 21:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though most of the coverage happened during the same period as the event, I do believe that the subject is still notable due to the mass of coverage and attention this event has received, even if over a short period of time. True, popularity doesn't define notability on its own, but it does influence how notable an article's subject is in addition when there are reliable sources available. Considering that I think that the subject is notable, I also do not believe that this is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS, as this is a unique instance of a rare event that happened to receive a lot of news attention, which spread as a meme across the 'net. If not keep, I also like the idea of merging much of the info into Banff National Park. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of major news coverage at the time, and it appears the Banff park board has given the story immortality by making the squirrel their "mascot". Not to mention the web application that allows people to insert the "crasher squirrel" into their own photos. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Melanie[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Ga[edit]

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

Non-notable photographer. Many Google hits, but most don't seem to be the same Ellie. No references cited, etc. etc. Pboyd04 (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this photographer. Joe Chill (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One minor book, one artist-in-residence shot. Maybe she will become more notable in the future, but she does not appear to meet guidelines now. --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was rename to adult non-pornographic website and cleanup.

In this case, consensus can be better assessed by examining individual points. The following have not been refuted:

The term “adult documentary” is a neologism.
The term “documentary” is not usually used for websites.
The article is insufficiently sourced.
The main author caused some problems by copying and pasting, but apologized for them and is obviously well intended.

Merge to sex education was briefly mentioned, but didn't find support.

Some editors wrote “Delete, original research and not encyclopedic.” This is a valid concern, and I considered the following pertinent points:

The article contains some original research.
Its references are not primary sources.
There are some links to this article from other articles that add value to those articles.
The problems can be fixed.
The text itself is not controversial. Most of it, especially the lead, is obvious or common sense.
There seems to be no harm in keeping this article until the problems have been addressed.

After weighing these points, I felt the way to address as many concerns as possible was to

Give the article some time so that the reference issues can be addressed. If the problems persist 3 months from now, we can reconsider deletion.
Rename the article. The only alternative offered, “adult non-pornographic websites”, while not perfect, addresses at least concern #2. However, we need to use the singular form per WP:NAME#Article title format. — Sebastian 06:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adult documentary[edit]

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

Procedural nom. This was previously deleted via WP:PROD. This version is identical in every important respect to the previously deleted version. It seems a full debate is in order. PROD reasoning was: "Not notable. No secondary sources, "adult documentary" + website produces no relevant hits on google news archive or google books." Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PROD reasoning. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV 13 ^{other crap} 00:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit and Keep One of the main points in the article discusses how categorization is difficult in mainstream areas. In other words, it would not be expected to be found in google news or google books. Nevertheless, Adult Documentaries are part of many people's Internet experience. They may not be a part of your Internet experience, but they are relevant to millions of other people in the world. Also, the number of these types of sites is increasing. An interesting example is http://www.caitlainscorner.com/ (Please see the list of most popular articles on right hand side of the home page.) The problem, as described in the Adult Documentary article, is that so many people would see it's about sex/masturbation and consider it "Adult". Meanwhile, so many others claim it is a "Documentary" format. Some say reading the pages on this type of site will eventually cause sexual arousal, but others claim it also provides serious information. This is the reality of the "Adult Documentary". I agree that the article needs work and maybe needs more verifiable research, but it is definitely encyclopedia-worthy. 173.17.150.77 (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)— 173.17.150.77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Edit and Keep. Clean up of reference(s) and external links should help. Overall I find this notable. IShadowed ✰ 07:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while i agree that the subject of documentary films about mature subjects, such as sexuality, that are shot in a nonpornographic manner, possibly without nudity, is notable, i dont think the name of the article works. it doesnt seem to have that common usage. heres a film which would qualify, [7] and the category terms IMDB uses dont match (i know imdb is not a RS, but this would show common use if anything would). i would prefer to have a section in the Documentary film article that discusses this topic, and the problems associated with it, with another mention in Pornographic film, linking to the doc film section. any good references here could be moved to that article, with a few sentences added there as a start to a larger section. This article is just too horrible to try to salvage any of it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Afaik there are no secondary sources about this subject (non-pornographic websites about sex), under this name or any other. If there are, maybe add the content to Sex education. The references in the current version of the article are too garbled to tell what they are, but the references in the version that was deleted were useless. Fails WP:N.Prezbo (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is clearly a recreation of an old article via cut-and-paste. Note that that article included sources. I'd ask that A) the old article be undeleted and put in it's place for now and B) if A isn't done and this is kept, we need to do that for licensing reasons. No real opinion on the article itself. Hobit (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I was the one who did the cut and paste copy that others are talking about here. I am sorry for doing that, and I now realize how it can cause problems. I could not find the most current version of the article. It was like it just vanished. Regarding the article itself, I think we should keep it. When I was an editor for the Open Directory Project, we had a discussion just like this. The other ODP editors referred to certain types of web sites as "Adult Documentaries". Everyone knew the meaning of it, and they used the term without question. Some people who study human sexuality at a college level often use the term. (I know that from first hand experience.) I can see how it would be difficult to find places where the term is used openly on the Web, but a lot of people use the term to describe web sites which have content that falls somewhere in between porn and education. I remember one site we discussed was Raw Psych -- They use the term "Adult Documentaries" in the first paragraph on the first page. Other sites use the term also, but I can't remember them off hand. I would suspect they may not be listed in the regular Google searches. The term also might not be used in the exact form as we have it here. I am interested in human sexuality and taxonomy, which is why I have a such a strong opinion about the article. Other pages on WikiPedia have linked to the article, so it has some type of notability. The article needs work and more verifiable explanations, but I don't think the reasons for wanting to fully delete the article should be the standards we use. There were a lot of other people who contributed and edited the article, so it must have meaning to at least some people. The article has been there for a couple of years, and it is not an orphan article. It belongs in the WikiPedia encyclopedia. I realize it is controversial, but the term "Adult Documentary" should definitely not be the reason to fully delete the article. APatcher (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It makes sense to me. Thanks, AOCynstamps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.96.174 (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. why does this have links, and our article doesnt? was it cut and pasted from here? whoever did that needs to restore the links. by the way, im searching, and i cannot find, so far, more than 1 use of this term anywhere, including the external links provided. the links in this article are to sites that are of this nature, but none of them, except 1, refer to themselves as "adult documentary" and the one that does doesnt appear to be notable. i ill check the links in this mirror, to see if its mentioned.ok, 2 of these links use this phrase. that makes 3 uses out of the multiple references provided. and nothing else i can find on google. all of these uses are at purely commercial sites. no indication that this phrase is used other than as a marketing tool (not necessarily a negative, but indicative of lack of notability), and its not widespread. perhaps the people arguing that this is a notable term can provide some evidence that it is. and i apologize for misunderstanding the use in my previous post above, but my "vote" remains the same.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've fixed the violation of the license by restoring the deleted edits, and I've reverted to the wikified version. Fences&Windows 22:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 22:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting as the above discussion was somewhat sidetracked by the cut-and-paste issue. Fences&Windows 22:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but retitle I agree such sites asa class are notable , but I do not see any justification of the title used for the article. To me., a documentary is a film, and an adult documentary is a film that presents a factual or editorial view about sexuality is a way suitable for adults who wish to see sexually frank material but not pornography. There are indeed many important websites that correspond to this, but I do not see that the term is used of them. Looking even more generally, I note our disam page on Documentary (disambiguation) indicates it might also apply to the related genres of radio and photography, but it does not include websites. I see that a Gsearch on Documentary website either as a phrase or not as a phrase gives mainly articles on websites about documentary films or videos , not anything corresponding to a news or opinion or discussion or Q&A site. Unfortunately I have no idea what a proper title would be. We might have to use the clumsy "adult non-pornographic websites" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

I can see some use in a list of academic sexuality websites. good idea. i sincerely doubt we could include any commercial websites, as most would probably have banner ads even if they arent selling pornography themselves. im not a prude, but you cant call a website nonpornographic if it actually contains any pornographic images or writings. Lists of websites doesnt have much, and List of educational video websites may be a model for such a list. my vote has not changed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not even clear to me that this is an actual recognized topic, and certainly not by this particular name. I can find barely any sources that say that an "adult documentary" is a kind of web site, as opposed to a kind of documentary film. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and not encyclopedic. Someidiot (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit and Keep per above. Potentially merge somewhere if possible. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as protologism and synthesis. An article on either explicit documentaries or instructional videos about sex, or websites with explicit instruction about sex might merit creation if there are none such already, but there's no reason to start one using this title or to preserve the editing history or anything in it. Шизомби (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Dreaming[edit]

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

Declined A7 nominee. Asserted to fail general notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication or significance. I have no idea why CSD is so limited when some things seem so obvious. Reywas92 ^Talk 03:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete I can't find any 3rd party RSes. Hobit (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no delete The article is under development following a request at a Workshop held in Germany last week. John D. Croft (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, and I do not find the substantial independent comment required for notability. I also note from the solitary News hit that the article author is the inventor of this methodology, and his comment above makes this sound like an attempt to use Wikipedia to publicise it. JohnCD (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Ice Dogs men's ice hockey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Georgia Ice Dogs men's ice hockey

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

minor club sport team with no claim of notability for inclusion or third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

- Keep.' Take note of this user's recent contribs. Evidently has vendetta against UGA Hockey. Petitioned to have other Ga Hockey related article closed as well. Perhaps opposing fans shouldn't have deletion powers on wikipedia. Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.16.78 (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Unsure. This is the varsity ice hockey team of the University of Georgia. I am no sports fan, but it seems to me that any varsity team of a major university would be noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia page. Correct me if I am wrong. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Revised my comment to Unsure in light of new information provided by User:Grsz11. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment It is not a varsity team of UGA, whose teams are known as the Bulldogs. It is associated with the American Collegiate Hockey Association, which sponsors club sports which are not formally associated with the university. Grsz¹¹ 02:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It is formally associated as a student organization on campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.16.78 (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A thorough, albeit unsourced, article, but as a low-level club team this article fails WP:GNG. Grsz¹¹ 03:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that their competitor Georgia Tech has an entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Tech_Ice_Hockey Perhaps the problem is the article is poorly cited, which can be fixed, but doesn't warrant deletion. Looks like opposing team fans are wikipedia editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.16.78 (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC) — 97.81.16.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. RGTraynor 05:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Tech Ice Hockey. Grsz¹¹ 05:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in a heap of ice shavings: Sorry, no; this is a sub-varsity club team that might merit a single paragraph's inclusion in the UGA sports article, but probably not; I doubt there's much coverage of JV sports in it. Beyond that, the sanctioning organization, according to its own article, sponsors numerous club teams from universities with varsity hockey programs; its article, for instance, claims to sanction teams at Northeastern, UNH, U Vermont, Boston College, UMass, and Merrimack, all Hockey East NCAA Division I schools. It's long been held that student organizations don't get a prima facie notability pass from WP:GNG, and this shouldn't either. Finally, let's assume some good faith here - you don't have to be a fan of some other school to find that this article fails to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. RGTraynor 05:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No you don't. But when the original deletion-er is attempting to purge ONLY uga hockey related articles from the commons, his motive is rightly drawn into question. Good faith was assumed as I only encourage people to look at what this person has done recently; I did not make any firm conclusions. I merely offered my interpretation of the event. Additionally, I reject the implication that I'm only on here to comment on this article (since you included the "few edits outside this topic" tag). Look at my history and you'll see I've dabbled a short bit in wikipedia before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.16.78 (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Six edits to date before the first of these related AfDs constitute "few" edits by anyone's standards. RGTraynor 07:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I disagree. It's snarky, and a poor attempt to "pull rank". --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're certainly welcome to try to change Wikipedia consensus on our definitions. This may be a place to start; good fortune. RGTraynor 08:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Collegiate hockey is vastly different from other intercollegiate sports as far a club hockey is concerned. Because NCAA ice hockey is confined largely to the Northeast and Upper Midwest, club hockey is the highest level of intercollegiate ice hockey in much of the United States. That being said, my "keep" vote is largely dependent on someone obtaining third party sources. Here are a few possibilities- ([8], [9], [10]) Kithira (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change my vote to Delete. If there is indeed a precedent of deleting club hockey team articles, as Djsasso says, then it should be followed and the article deleted. Kithira (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Club level hockey has long been deleted as not being sufficiently notable for inclusion, just like the majority of beer league hockey in Canada which arguably has more talent than many of these university club teams. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you have any source for this rather outrageous claim that collegiate hockey's talent is lower than that of recreational hockey? Or is it just regional bias? --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not saying that collegiate hockey is lower than rec level hockey. ACHA hockey is rec level hockey. Its a club team not a NCAA team. There is a difference. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a club team . Maybe it can be merged to Georgia Bulldogs in the Other sports section. Patken4 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Patken4's idea is correct, Delete this article per reasons already stated, this is a D3 ACHA/club team and theres also some questionalbe info in the article. But some info can be condensed and merged into another aricle such as Georgia Bulldogs or a student activities section of the main university website.

- Generally ACHA Hockey articles should be merged into the school's main article under athletics or student activities or on the schools atheletics article and deleted. (It hasnt come up yet but it'd be interesting to see what would happen to an article on one of the higher level ACHA DI teams where some schools consider them varsity club sports like Iowa State, Lindenwood, etc...)--Bhockey10 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentMy merge comment is more towards simply saying the team exists and maybe say they finished second in the ACHA D-III championship. Nothing more should be said about the team as it simply isn't all that notable. Patken4 (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A case could be made for a team at a university which regards them as official varsity sports; we have articles for Tier II junior league teams, after all. That being said, Iowa State at least doesn't consider ice hockey a significant enough sport to be included on its athletics' website. RGTraynor 03:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment A good point. University of Michigan-Dearborn's team appears alongside their varsity teams on the website and is described as a "varsity club". Grsz¹¹ 03:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ACHA hockey teams are student clubs that no affiliation with the NCAA or their corresponding schools' athletic dept ( http://ramblinwreck.cstv.com/index-main.html ). ccwaters (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to satisfy our verifiability and notability inclusion criteria. ^Chillum 17:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks the weather reports indicate it's snowing. Patken4 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Wizzard[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable band, won a few non-notable awards, no references exist except those to the bands record label or to its own myspace/official website, etc. There's a little youtube video as well, but no apparent reliable sources which show this to be anything that comes close to the criteria spelled out at WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Jayron32 06:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also including:

Over the Top (White Wizzard album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a non-notable album by the above non-notable band.

White Wizzard actually does comply with the notability criteria, as stated by rule number 5:

"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)."

White Wizzard has released 2 EP's/mini-albums and has an album (which has had artwork and tracklist released) on Earache Records, which DOES have a roster of notable artists including Bolt Thrower, Evile, Entombed, Godflesh, At the Gates, Bring Me the Horizon, Morbid Angel and Napalm Death. User talk:A7xandquantumtheory 01:31, 28 November 2009

Delete Not enough reliable references to verify notability included in the article in question. IShadowed ✰ 06:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criterion 4 of WP:BAND with coverage of this national tour; plus significant coverage here and here. I will incorporate it all into the article shortly. J04n(talk page) 22:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: The above mentioned sources have been incorporated into the article. J04n(talk page) 02:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per J04n's good work. Gongshow ^Talk 18:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only way this band comes close to meeting any of the criteria in WP:BAND is through criterion 4. Even then, the tour has not yet been undertaken and a mere press release through "Hot Indie News" is arguably not non-trivial coverage. Ultimately, the satisfaction of one or more of the criteria of WP:BAND only may lead to notability. Overall, this band is not notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice work, Jo4n.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. White Wizzard are touring alongside Korpiklaani, Tyr and Swashbuckle, all of which are notable. Also, they've been included on Earache's compilation album Heavy Metal Killers (Criterion 10). They've released two albums (or EP's, depending on how long you define an EP) and have a third one coming up, all on Earache, which is definitely a notable record label (Criterion 5). --A7xandquantumtheory (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2009 (GMT)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Million Can March[edit]

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

Not notable. There are google results, but only for other events/drives. Evil saltine (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but this article is ridiculous. It basically just describes a method that a bunch of guys came up with to collect enough money to buy themselves an RV. Not even a charitable cause. A Google search reveals several OTHER Million Can March events, such as charity food drives and political demonstrations, but nothing about this deal. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- Maybe it should be rewritten as a general type of event, rather than centered around this one specific "Million Can March" event? I'm not sure, because I'm not familiar enough with the topic to determine if it's widespread or notable enough, but since you've done a bit of research maybe you could tell me? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 18:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Venderbush[edit]

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

See WP:BIO1E, one event does not an article make. Ipatrol (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even any google hits. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ifunpix[edit]

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

This article is about an application which has not been the subject of significant discussion in reliable, third-party sources: fails WP:N. Likely created as an ad. No notability asserted, yet it doesn't fall within any of the CSD A7 criteria. Them From Space 21:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, no reliable third-party coverage. Haakon (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References include download sites, indicating the article authors clearly do not understand the separation between encyclopedic topics and routine. Miami33139 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel S. Peña Sr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Attack page. Some editors are just finding as much dirt as they can on the subject. This is breaching Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. This article has a long history of NPOV issues since it began. It started as a puff piece then became a character assassination. Countless attempts have been made to make the article neutral with little success. It has been deleted before. This article is not a reliable source of material for an encyclopedia and does not reflect well on the good faith of the Wikipedia community. BLP issues. Neutral point of view (NPOV)/No original research - editors have strong coi. An active editor admitted he was a writer doing a piece on Pena. Some editors using scans which may violate copyright violations. Verifiability - poor sources. numerous citations used are not relevant to subject. Notability - weak sources to prove notability.Cablespy (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is not an attack page. When you go through the history, you will see that all facts have been properly source, at least the ones I added. It's just a sad truth that nothing of the positive claims can be proven or sourced, however a lot of shady dealings came to the light. No matter how hard you search, there is nothing positive that he didn't say or write himself to be found. I am a professional journalist, the editor who was commissioned to write a real world article for a British newspaper about Pena. However, when I started doing the research, it happened that nothing positive could be proven and a lot of dirt came up. There is nothing bad about disclosing that; and it's sure as hell not a COI - it's simply the fact that I got access to a number of sources and put them out there. However, you and your friends have constantly been deleting those properly sourced facts and never added any positive fact with source. Also some of the scans published via scribd.com come directly from the guy/you, who else would have access to those?--Esinclair52 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep there does seem be be some POV wording, and the implication should be made clearer, eg "claims" should be counteracted with claims to the opposite effect. If indeed there is too much dirt the page can be protected. However the dirt that is there now seems to be valid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree with the KEEP, if there is anything positive, put it in and source it. Neutral cannot mean to delete everything that sounds bad if the guy doesn't like it when there are proper sources.--Esinclair52 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this article is kept it would be nice to have a bunch of extra eyes on the article as it's being edited by editors from both sides, almost all of whom appear to be SPAs with a COI. I try to keep an eye on it, but I don't have as much experience with policy (especially WP:BLP) as could be, and this article is turning into a battleground (if a mostly good-natured one), pretty much. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 12:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is wrong to speak of sides here. WP has the claim to be somehow an encyclopedia. For that it is important that all published facts are sourced. If no positive sources can be found, but many negative come up, is one supposed to not mention them? All facts I put in, I have sourced perfectly. I spent hours to find sources for positive facts, but with no success. Just because I have information that is fine according to WP's standards but not liked by the subject, doesn't make me have a conflict of interest. I never deleted any positive fact. Truth is, however, that there was never an objective proof for anything the subject claims. On the contrary. There are a lot more facts that cannot even be put into WP, because they cannot be sourced, such as for example if you call the property register about "his" castle and his name is nowhere to appear (I agree, it can be held through a company) or when he claims to be member of certain clubs and restaurants (like in the original puff piece) and when you call there, they don't know him etc. - again: facts with sources should be in and not constantly deleted by subject's friends. A battleground would further more be a place where parties fight about something. Here's nothing to argue about: if there are ANY positive facts, come on forward, put them and source them and stop just deleting what you don't like.--Esinclair52 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dreaded Walrus is correct. It has turned into a battleground. The subject of the article is being attacked constantly. Every positive detail is being challenged. Disproportionate space has been given under the controversy section, particularly Canada, including every detail leading to an unencyclopedic article and violates NPOV policy.Cablespy (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see which positive details WITH SOURCES you put into the article. All your activity shows is the attempts to delete or hide or confuse the properly sourced controversial facts about him. He is making a myth out of him and a business out of that, where is little or no substance.--Esinclair52 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove comments of other users, as you did here. (Also, you forgot to add this page to the log, per WP:AFDHOWTO step three. Without adding it there, very few people are going to come across this discussion). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was an accident.Cablespy (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep there are other ways to deal with edit wars, than deletion. the "negative press" provides reliable sources for notability (doubt notable without them) Pohick2 (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You don't delete an article which can be fixed. The guy gets plenty of news coverage, so he is notable. If you believe there is a problem, discuss it on the talk page, and then look for a page where people discuss slanderous attacks on biography pages, there a discussion group dedicated to looking into that, and acting on it. Dream Focus 02:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. In particular the canada section is over-detailed, and does seem to go out of its way to find negative quotes. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a living person which may already be being subject to harm. The subject is not a public figure whose notability is produced in mainstream news. The subject may be notable enough for an entry, but not generally well known. Restraint is not being used on material irrelevant to his notability which may cause adverse effects on his reputation. There are parts which are not written conservatively which keep being reverted even after cleanup. The Canada section,as an example, which is given disproportionate space and POV wording. Ludlom (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting a page because of alleged behaviour by editors is not what Wikipedia is about. We'd have no article on Jesus, Mohammed, Israel or any religious or sex subject. I seem to remember changing my mind from delete to keep during the last AfD for this, when the article ceased to be puff and became more interesting. I agree with DGG that some fixing needs to be done. To those who see libellous material here, find something that proves it is and put it on the table. Peridon (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus and Mohammed are not living persons. It is not uncommon for high profile people to be the target of lawsuits. He already won against the GWR case and was recently cleared of the India case yet some editors keep pushing negative press as his point of notability which is not the case. A simple google search would not even pullup those negative sources in the first page (i've searched up to page 5 no results). As mentioned in the discussion, the Canada section keeps being expanded and has the longest paragraph in the whole article. Including every detail, even well sourced material, can lead to an unencyclopedic article and shows issues on WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.Cablespy (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - substitute George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden and whoever the current England Football manager is. I just picked names that were controversial subjects. Peridon (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record Cablespy and Ludlom appear to both be new SPAs - taking an article to AfD is uncommon for a new account. Esinclair52 has edited at least one other article, but has mainly focussed on this one for some time. (I edit all sorts of things....) Peridon (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject appears to be clearly notable. Agree with Peridon that we should not delete an article just because the subject is controversial, or because of an editing war. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by sources. Problem articles about notable topics should be fixed, not deleted. - Eastmain (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don 2 - The Chase Continues[edit]

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

The Film is Not yet to be conform Pyaara Dil (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Changed to Keep: I ~~found [11] and [12], but I don't think that it is enough. Joe Chill (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)~~ Per Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found more than Joe Chill and have begun improving the article. Film has received extensive coverage in sources to meet requirements of WP:GNG. IE: "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.". That the film is yet to be made does not take away from the still-growing coverage, as the subject meets the requirements of WP:CRYSTAL: "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. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on improvements, the news sources seem like legitimate coverage to me. Dream Focus 22:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing and improvements by User:MichaelQSchmidt (we perhaps need a template and shortcut for this keep reasoning :-) ). Abecedare (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Abecedare and Dream. Real upcoming film. --Ragib (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MQS which shouldn't be a redlink and also per WP:GNG. -SpacemanSpiff 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half a crown[edit]

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

We already have Half crown (British coin). BUC (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge: information into Half crown (British coin) creating Etymology sub-section? Certainly not worthy of being in a separate article. Mattg82 (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I grew up in the pre-decimalisation era, and I never heard the coin referred to as anything but a Half Crown--Brunnian (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - eh? I take it you're not from the southern half of the country, then?Tris2000 (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have heard "half a crown" used in colloquial speech, but the article Half crown (British coin) seems much more comprehensive (and with the correct title). I do not see any information in this article that would improve the Half crown (British coin) article, hence delete rather than merge. Gilo ö 07:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Half Crown per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. At the most, this warrants a phrase to the effect of (also known is Half a Crown). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - most people here in the UK (or at least in the southern part) called it "Half a crown" to be honest, so you MUST redirect it at the very least. Certainly don't delete. Tris2000 (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is about the phrase "half a crown" describing a sum of money rather than the half crown coin itself. Though the relationship between two is obvious they are different things. Brother Francis (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That still fails inclusion criteria by virtue of being dictionary definition. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICTIONARY (as stated by Chris Neville-Smith) - remove the unnecessary exposition of the article, and what you have is "A half a crown is equal to half of a crown, or two shillings and six pence". The only reference is itself to a dictionary. Vulture19 (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G11 by Nyttend. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Language Center (ILC-RMUTT)[edit]

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

Blatant advertising. -Pickbothmanlol- 19:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as blatant advertising. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to close this then. -Pickbothmanlol- 19:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allama Habibur Rahman Kandhalvi[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —LotLE×talk 09:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —LotLE×talk 09:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the ((db-a1)) tag from this article because the context is clear: this individual is a scholar.

However, I have been unable to find reliable sources about this individual. A Google News Archive search (with the search term: "Habibur Rahman Kandhalvi") returns no results. There may be sources in Urdu, so I have brought this article to AfD. If sources are found, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the books are all in Urdu makes it difficult for me, as a non-Urdu reader, to evaluate notability, or even find sources. However, even in English, some books, especially Age of Aisha, seem to appear with reasonable frequency in a Google search. The opinion of someone with relevant background (in Islamic scholarship and/or Urdu) would be really useful. LotLE×talk 08:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? per Worldcat listing which shows he passes WP:Author 4d. However, there's still nothing about him that I could find to create a stub, but that's more likely due to the multiple spelling variations and the lack of coverage in the western media. But the article ought to be moved to Ḥabīburraḥmān Ṣiddīqī Kāndhalvī or Habib-ur-Rahman Siddiqi Kandhalvi as that appears to be the name under which he's published, "Allama" is a title.-SpacemanSpiff 22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please perform the move to the title that makes most sense. That will redirect the current title. Creating a manual redirect from the other name variant should be done as well. LotLE×talk 23:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather do it after the AfD closes to avoid having to fix the AfD links etc. Besides, I'm not sure which of the two titles is preferred. -SpacemanSpiff 23:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK. I'll make manual redirects from the two spellings you suggest back to the current Anglicized version. I just don't have any insight into Urdu orthography to make a judgement myself. For now, the primary name can be the current spelling. LotLE×talk 23:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He did write the books, and we have RS for that; there seems nobody here able to give an opinion on how important they are. We thus have no clear reason to delete. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laufer Film[edit]

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

Unnotable minor production company. Article created by company itself, nad has no significant coverage in any reliable, news sources. Completely fails WP:COMPANY and WP:N -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Evil saltine (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation and allow article'e return if/when notability is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. LargoLarry (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bless (Hip hop artist)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage, even from semi-reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the users above, I could not find any coverage for this artist; does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 20:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As NN.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SCREEM[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best I could find is this, which in my view is not enough to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The software has not been taking off as I believed when I wrote the first article. Nixdorf (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This software has been dead for years. — Jeremy 05:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nixdorf's comment is why articles need to be sourced first, then written. Miami33139 (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Playing wise are we? ;-) Nixdorf (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Alandete[edit]

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

one role in one program; since then he worships jesus, plays his guitar and does a bit of the wacky baccy. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Ironholds (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no reliable sources writing about him. -- Whpq (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK National Grid Sizewell - Longannet Blackout[edit]

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

quintessential WP:NOTNEWS. A pair of power stations shut down for two hours - and we have an article on it? Were there any deaths, did it gain more attention than a couple of BBC articles going "today, the power went off"? No. Ironholds (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~but consider putting the information in the Sizewell B article~~. This certainly isn't notable enough for an article in its own right, but a failure on that scale might be significant in an article about the power station itself. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, agreed on that point; I believe it's already covered, though. Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the current debate over intermittent power this is a highly significant piece of news. It HAD long been pointed out theoretically that the biggest source of intermittency on the UK Grid was a large nuclear power station, not the thousands of wind turbines that were planned, and this amply proved the point when the prediction came true. Thus this is a highly significant fact, and is referenced in many other related articles. It would be stupid, in my opinion to remove, because people want to find out about this specific fact, therefore it needs its own article. Engineman (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent citing of policy and guidelines there. Is there any evidence that it is highly significant outside your statement? Has it been covered in, say, a range of academic journals? No. It's been covered, as far as I can see, by two news websites at the time, both of which covered it as "oh look, a power station has shut down", not "OMG THE POWER GRID IS INTERMITTENT IT'S COMING TRUE". If you can cite some kind of professional news source or academic that supports your assertion, do so. If you can't, make comments based on policy or guidelines, not comments based on the fact that you wrote the article, and are therefore predisposed to thinking it's important. Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is about Britain's "worst blackouts in a decade", involving half a million people, when seven power stations stopped working within hours of each other, see [13]. Plenty of reliable sources, highly notable event. Johnfos (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the Times story it was a cutoff to a few hundred thousand people, not million, and lasted less than an hour. If this is the worst to happen in a decade, either they're very fortunate or the system is better than they think. FWIW, though, we do not need academic journals to show significance, or we'd be removing most of the articles on athletes and musicians, and similarly in most other fields. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I simply meant for showing the significance of some fact. If you want to say something like "this was widely seen as evidence of claims that the power system was intermittent" the daily mail is really not good enough for what should, ideally, be academic claims. Ironholds (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two factors that sway me to delete are: 1) There was very little coverage of this incident after the event, and 2) There does not seem to be any real scope for this to grow beyond a stub. I've now noticed that this incident is already a section in its own right in the National Grid (UK) article, and I think this is the best place for this information. In the event that enough encyclopaedic information can be found, this can always be split off into a separate article lalter. Finally, to address the the issue of people wanting to find out about this fact, they can do so in the National Grid article. It sometimes helps to create a redirect for the benefit of people looking for this information, but no-one's going to enter "UK National Grid Sizewell - Longannet Blackout" as a search term. Redirects from "Sizewell Blackout", "Longannet Blackout" or "Sizewell-Longannet Blackout would make more sense. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already given. This isn't comparable to the Northeast Blackouts. No one is under the illusion that power plants are immune from problems. —WWoods (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 23:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waka Flocka Flame[edit]

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

No reliable sources that confirm any suggestion of notability; the subject has "signed" with Warner Brothers but has released nothing but mixtapes; nothing close to meeting the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO Accounting4Taste:talk 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is relative to location, especially when it comes to musicians (and more specifically, rappers). Although I'm in California now where Waka Flocka is generally unknown, back in Atlanta, Waka Flocka has been played repeatedly in clubs and at high volume parties. In his "No Ceilings" mixtape, world-acclaimed artist Lil Wayne rapped a verse over Waka Flocka's "Oh Let's Do It." Clearly Waka Flocka has earned some respect in the rap community. I think Waka Flocka's music is the greatest representation of Atlanta rap, and although that's merely opinion, I feel that keeping his article will help provide a testament to Atlanta rap, which has gone downhill in the past several years, with other cities bringing out famous new rappers such as Dorrough in Dallas, Texas. Just my two cents... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillvibes (talk • contribs) 00:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Number 94 in the rap chart? I quote the headline of the Ozone Magazine article (which is the only reference given at the time of this post): "Jun 2009 – Patiently Waiting: Wacka Flocka Flame". Obviously hadn't got there then. No evidence that he has yet. Some day, maybe. Peridon (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to WakaFlocka1017: This is the English language Wikipedia... Peridon (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ ~~Not notable.~~ Change to Neutral, on the basis of the below sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete. I was going to !vote keep~~Strike-through text~~ because number 94 in the rap chart is sufficient for WP:BAND ~~but I can't find any confirmation that this is true. Billboard.com has no listing of the artist or the song. Allmusic's page for the artist is blank. J04n(talk page) 21:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)~~ plus non-trivial coverage by Ozone and MTV. Kudos for the great detective work by 86.44.59.169. Now the sources need to be incorporated into the article. J04n(talk page) 11:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Confirmation of the Billboard chart entry is on their site here. Also here are some secondary sources: [14] [15]. 86.44.59.169 (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first link given by 86.44.59.169 is the same one I refer to above: "Patiently waiting" which, as I said, I consider to indicate non-arrival. I quote from the second, which is an article about OJ Da Juiceman not about the subject here: "We actually working on a me, Gucci, Waka mixtape," the Juice said. "[That's] half of the Brick Squad. I think me and Waka gonna do a mixtape first, then me, Gucci and Waka gonna do a mixtape together." Not an indication to me of anything in particular. As to being at 94 for (apparently) one week in a specialised music chart, I would not consider that particularly notable. Top 100 for a real national all-comers chart, OK. Minimum top 50 for specialised music. Depends how you take the meaning of "Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart.". Peridon (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles which seem to you to indicate "non-arrival" are in fact indications of arrival in the sense of wikipedia notability. Your !vote said there was no evidence of the rap chart entry: there was in fact evidence. It was clear from your tone here that you were not going to change your vote so I am unsurprised by your new position that the Billboard Hip-Hop/R&B Chart is not a national music chart. 86.44.55.53 (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my !voting post, you will see that I did not say there was no mention on Billboard. That came from another poster who has now struck through it. I don't have a new position. I think that reaching 94 in a specialised chart for possibly no more than one week is not notable. And is someone made notable by an article saying they're waiting for success or recognition? Or by a rather vague mention in an article about another performer? I am always prepared to change my mind. I have done so in quite a few AfDs. I see no reason to here. Go on, produce more evidence and convince me. Peridon (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read your !vote in the most logical way, that the rest of the comment followed from the question mark, otherwise it was about an arbitrary and secret notion of "arrival". In fact all your thresholds are individual and arbitrary, while mine are based on guidelines and past consensus. There are now seven cites in the article to five sources, four of which are third-party, one of which is Billboard hence passing WP:Band, and two of which are non-trivial stories again passing WP:Band. I don't know if you are within your rights to pluck "minimum top 50 for specialised" national charts out of the air as your threshold for notability in an AFD (why not 40? why not 60? is two weeks on the chart enough? three?), but it is very frustrating that one can make that view have weight depending on who shows up to an AFD, rather than making a case for it at WP:Music and getting consensus for it. Similarly you dismiss secondary sources as not to your liking. This is the kind of thing that makes contributing to Wikipedia a waste of time.

I think that reaching 94 in a specialised chart for possibly no more than one week is not notable.

I think you are obliged to take this view to Talk of WP:Music, for as it stands you are against consensus, and this has been shown in numerous AFDs.

And is someone made notable by an article saying they're waiting for success or recognition? Or by a rather vague mention in an article about another performer?

Indeed. This = multiple non-trivial independent sources. WP:MUSIC is pretty clear on what constitutes triviality.

One final thing I will add just to give you something new to sway you is that what we are here are white boys googling. Wikipedia editors and fans of Southern black music are not overlapping sets. The content of Southern rap publications like Ozone or Murderdog or Street Report is by an overwhelming majority print-only (it is only by luck that we have the Ozone article available to us). Likewise the two big national rap publications, The Source and XXL, save the majority of their substantive content for print (though XXL does have a decent web presence). How many of us are thumbing through this year's issues of publications like these for sources here? None. Does it seem likely based on what we have found that they exist? Certainly. 86.44.16.244 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I a 'white boy'? My racial origins are not listed on my user page - partly because they are irrelevant and partly because they are somewhat uncertain. Wikipedia editors and fans of Southern black music may not be overlapping sets. Someone has become an editor in order to put this article here. The same rules apply. I am not a deletionist per se. Bring the thing to the required level and I am prepared to change my mind. Peridon (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're here to decide if the subject is notable, not jump through hoops based on your judgment. If you think your !vote is sound, then you can rest easy that it will be weighed with the rest at close. 86.44.57.162 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. "Oh Let's Do It" is charting, and it is especially popular here in the Birmingham metro area on WBHJ, our urban contemporary station. Dalekusa (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference? Sorry, but your statement doesn't count as a reliable reference. If you can prove that, do it. Peridon (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 17:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 18:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm satisfied that this rapper meets criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO, not only because his single is currently number 94 on the R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart, but because the song is also receiving significant radio spins, as it is currently number 34 on the Urban National Airplay charts. Gongshow ^Talk 20:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bdsradio.com looks to be an internet station run by Nielsen, who are best known for advertising and so on. To access bdsradio.com, one needs a password. Is that chart a national one - or, given its Nielsen association, even at all representative of genuine popularity? Peridon (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need a password to access that link. However, as better evidence of the song's popularity, here is a Billboard column which notes the song debuting at number 24 on the magazine's Rap Songs chart. Gongshow ^Talk 23:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable and there are sufficiant citations that confirm notability.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, signed to major label + charted single -Reconsider ! 02:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Towers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO; no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline; no potential for article expansion beyond the existing stub. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this pornographic actress. Joe Chill (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Fails PORNBIO and GNG, although AVN calls her "legendary" [16]. Epbr123 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a presskit piece, see virtually the same text at [17]. AVN's website doesn't do a very good job of distinguishing between its own reporting and its posting of PR/promotional stuff. I'd say the former appears good as an RS and for establishing notability, not so the latter. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failing verification of pornbio. one good way of distinguishing PR releases in AVN is the lack of an author byline. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gopala Krishna Hall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, unreferenced Mattg82 (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, air conditioning doesn't make this building notable :-) Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced. There aren't really any claims to notability here, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 20:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable and unreferenced--Sodabottle (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 01:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not evident; and do all the names have to be SHOUTED? Gilo ö 07:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- NN, fails WP:N and WP:V. --Ragib (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CyanogenMod[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyanogenMod and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyanogenMod (2nd nomination). "An article about a minor modification of a minor mobile operating system is in no way notable." Delete. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "minor" in both cases is horribly subjective. The previous deletion was not based on it being a "minor modification of a minor mobile operating system," but on a lack of major secondary sources, of which there are many, now, thanks to the Google Cease and Desist. Also, Android is in no way minor, and the use of "minor" in relation to Cyanogenmod will have incredibly varying mileage. Keep Mekryd (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I would like to assume good faith here, but calling the Android OS a "minor mobile operating system" is absurd. One only need review the Android article to understand it is not a "minor" mobile OS. According to Gartner, Android, developed by a "minor" Internet company called Google, is projected to be the #2 mobile operating system by 2012, "ahead of the iPhone, as well as Windows Mobile and BlackBerry smartphones." Android is currently offered on at least 20 mobile devices] from carriers T-Mobile US & UK, Verizon, Vodaphone, China Mobile, AT&T, Orange UK, Docomo, and other international mobile companies. (A larger phone list is here.) There are thousands of unique 3rd party articles, tutorials, editorials, and other references to Android online. If this RfD is premised on Android being a "minor mobile operating system", common sense and numerous citations clearly demonstrate otherwise. Cyanogenmod itself has generated substantial mainstream 3rd-party coverage, articles, discussion, and opinion as cited within the article itself. Again, a strong keep. --Replysixty (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have still yet to see any policy cited, or sources that explicitly mention this mod cited. I'd also like to assume good faith, but the above member has only worked on this page and the Drupal page, a borderline WP:SPA. Who are telling you guys to come here and !vote anyway? If it is an email newsletter, I'd love to sign up for it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If it is an email newsletter, I'd love to sign up for it." Cry more. I have a hard time believing a user who would immediately assume such a thing or mention it just to spite other users should have any authority in deleting articles. There are only two keep votes, by the way, and quite a few of the sources explicitly mention CyanogenMod (see the Ars Technica link - it's a major article on a major online media outlet that talks about the licensing controversy and mentions Kondik and CyanogenMod throughout). coolbho3000 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I have to respond to that personal attack. Number one, since creating my account in 2007, I have edited dozens of articles ranging in topic from Eddie Cantor to Asthma to Man of Constant Sorrow to Jinx to B Girls to Beat It to Menelik II of Ethiopia to Ralph Lapp to Ray Bolger to 2009 flu pandemic to Solomon to Suez Crisis, etc. etc. You would know this if you made even the most cursory investigation. (Prior to that, I've been editing Wikipedia for years without an account.) Your account is what, a whole seven months old? Next- there is no "email newsletter"-- as one of the many contributors to the article in question, I noticed the RfD myself and came here to discuss this issue without anyone's help, thank you. You do know there's a banner right on the article, right? Third, your easily-dismissed claim that I am "borderline WP:SPA" and baseless suggestion that there is some kind of newsletter that brought me here are as spurious as the cause for this RfD in the first place. Is it is pointless to respond further to more calls for "sources that explicitly mention this mod cited" as numerous such citations are provided right in the article. Seriously, when ignorance of ready-available information about such things as Android's notability or media citations for CyanogenMod are used as the excuse for RfDs, followed by bogus accusations of WP:SPA and meatpuppetry, I do start to question your WP:NPOV on this article's topic. I always assume good faith until demonstrated otherwise, but this smacks of more than just an inability to check easily-verified facts. --Replysixty (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replysixty had perfectly valid points, yet you ignored all of them, resorting to baseless attacks instead. It is my opinion that the notes on your additions to this page put your attitude and WP:NPOV into question ("*sigh* I knew this would happen" and "and add not a vote for good luck," which you later changed to a delete vote). --coolbho3000 (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In good faith I was shocked to see this article marked for deletion. I thing you will find that CyanogenMod is a significant development in the mobile phone market. It is perhaps the most popular user compiled open source mobile phone operating system today. Open source operating systems allow users to view edit and re-compile code, and the CyanogenMod distribution is one of today best examples of this model in action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.103.66 (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If its such a "minor" mod, then why did Google issue a C&D? Obviously its not minor to the PARENT COMPANY so why should it be considered "minor" on here? There is nothing minor about this rom or the Developer. He's creating and releasing stuff before Google even does. I feel that is pretty significant, no? This is similar to different version of Linux, which there are article about. He's created his own Kernel which is in no way minor. The rate that this page keeps coming up for deletion makes it seem like someone is jealous. Wikipedia is for the people right? If this page keeps coming back, doesn't that show what the people want?76.10.32.122 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As the admin who restored the article from its deleted state a few weeks back, let me say that I had no knowledge of CyanogenMod until I came across comments expressing sorrow that this article was deleted. I took some time to look into it and researched the topic, only to discover that this is a notable subject that meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Very soon after recreating the article, other editors took over and vastly improved the article. The notability of an article topic is unimportant, only that it is notable, based on credible sources. The article has credible sources, and clear claims to notability. I wouldn't say the same about the two previously deleted versions. The editor who opened this AfD would also do well to avoid the personal attacks and simply stick to discussing the facts. Are there other articles, in addition to this one, which you would like to see restored? I'm personally willing to look into any deleted article and restore it if an editor can make a reasonable argument towards notability backed up by sources. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2005, and this article has been interesting to follow and learn how Wikipedia:Notability works in practice. I think the article should be kept because CyanogenMod is one of the primary Android variants, and is notable not only because it received some press a while back regarding a Google Cease and Desist letter about the proprietary components. The article is well referenced (significant coverage, reliable sources) and provides a useful independent resource for information regarding the emerging phone OS. I don't see any examples of original research on the page. The sources already used in the article, while not printed, have precedent as reliable: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_2#Ars_Technica_news.3F, and PC World seems to be assumed a reliable source in these discussions. Are Heise Online or Maximum PC considered reliable? To my knowledge, Steve Kondik (the primary developer) is not the primary author of the article (independent of the subject). It does not appear to violate anything from what Wikipedia is not. I don't understand why this article keeps getting nominated for deletion, could deletion proponents please explain precisely and in detail why it should be deleted? -kslays (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, regarding the delete proposal quote above, CyanogenMod is probably the #1 modification of Android, hardly "minor." I wouldn't call Android minor either, and would hazard a guess that it is more widely heard of among the American public than Symbian (or at least with random people I meet that I happen to bring up both with), even though it has dramatically lower distribution. -kslays (talk • contribs) 21:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is in several independent sources. meeting the notability requirements. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in independent reliable sources = notable. Triplestop x3 23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strongly agree with the two parent comments. In addition, calling CyanogenMod a "minor modification," and Android a "minor operating system," are gross misunderstandings of both. If we're going to invoke any policy, let's start with WP:IMPERFECT. VoxLuna (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We surely have precendence for keeping this article - I see no-one arguing about whether or not the article on the iPhone Jailbreak should be deleted or not. This is surely very similar to jailbreaking an iPhone, so why delete this article if you're not going to delete the Jailbreak article? Bolmedias (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the page regarding your argument Triplestop x3 22:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine...but I still think that the page should be kept. Before the Google C&D, I might have argued otherwise, but that C&D order has made this page relevant. Bolmedias (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Shesh Paul Vaid[edit]

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

Non-notable biography, created by COI user, multiple article issues Shem (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article is about a police officer about whom no notability can be established in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria - that is, he is not the subject of any significant published secondary source material. In addition, the creating user (who has now retired) seems to have a COI, but has stated on the talk page "please go ahead and delete it". It has been blanked by an IP already, and would be best deleted as soon as possible. Shem (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er...notwithstanding all the keep calls he stil doesn't meet the Basic_criteria. In all the references except one he is not the subject. While I've nothing against the guy, he simply doesn't meet the requirement for notability. Shem (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to the article, he was an Inspector General for a metropolitan area which is equivalent to a police commissioner, or head of a police force. I was able to find this article, and I suspect there is more available with some more searching. -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I read the Express India article, and I'm surprised that we are considering for deletion an article about an IPS (India Police Service) Inspector General, who was directly involved in the Indian government's struggle vs. Kashmir militants. The Wiki IG article confirms what User:Whpq said about Vaid's status. Note that Srinigar, where Vaid was Inspector General, is a city of nearly 1 million persons. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NinetyNineFennelSeeds. Inspectror General of Police is the top cop in a city. Nominator's main concern seems to be COI which can be removed by editing. Salih (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It does not make sense, why is someone here so eager to delete this article? It has already verified many initially developed doubts by providing authentic references. I suggest, this article should be called off from Afd and improved by slowly and steadly. I believe the editors have managed to find more than enough references to avoid it deletion. I would request everybody to find more references and material to further improve this article. Tv-med (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Till date, nine references have been provided ranging from Vaid's date and place of birth to his recent deputation to BPR&D New Delhi. Many unconfirmed posts in the article have been authenticated. Tv-med (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modding Monthly[edit]

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

No reliable sources from Google, notability seems unlikely for this magazine. The article appears to have written by the magazine's purported creator, Trader Eddy, and his buddy Roger. Roger attempted to supply references before removing my PROD tag, but these references are blog posts by the author, not reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: the article is possibly borderline promotional, and certainly involves a conflict of interest, since it was written by the magazine's creator. Wikipedia is not to be used for the purpose of promoting anything. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a reliable source? Tradereddy (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you click the links above, you'll get information about the linked subjects. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding any reliable sources. Hobit (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 14:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top 50 horror movies[edit]

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

Original Research Raziman T V (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under WP:SD #G11. Lugnuts (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom and above. SnottyWong talk 12:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to America's Next Top Model . ... for now JForget 00:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 14[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 14

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

That article will be release by March 2010 and it has not yet announce by the network. Unless it doesn't meet WP:NFF and per WP:CRYSTALBALL.

Note see America's Next Top Model, Cycle 11 AFD. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 13:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its parent articleDelete it away. Its too early to create the article. It will recreate after the announcement by the CW network. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per WP:CRYSTAL. SnottyWong talk 12:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per nom. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no need for the article this early. Sure theres some information starting to leak through already, but its not enough for an article yet. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as pure WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, the cycle has been picked up as of last summer and is already filming/being produced. To delete the page is unnecessary and would be a waste of time as it is bound to be recreated within the next four months.--Whadaheck (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect. It's going to be created again in time to come. Similar to how Survivor or The Amazing Race has pages of their future seasons, I see no strong case for deletion. ZephyrWind (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 13:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Nyswander[edit]

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

Nice person, but not notable by outside sources Cynof Gavuf 12:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep ~~Nothing notable, could have simply be prodded.~~ An obituary in the Am J Psychiatry is enough proof of notability for me. --Crusio (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is poor as it stands, but Marie Nyswander is substantially notable and verifiable, see the Ghits. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've stripped out some of the ramble, added a ref from the American Journal of Psychiatry, a substantial enough source, which truly ought to be enough to establish notability and verifiability and really think that, though the article is woefully short it satisfies all the criteria necessary for a stub to survive in the spirit of what Wikipedia really is. We state that someone can start and article and others will pick it up and run with it. I have no idea about this field not interest in it, but I have added a ref and unscrambled some text, maybe well, maybe badly, but it is enough for basic survival. And references are not hard to find, so I question the nomination and I question people suggesting it be deleted, simply on the basis of the substantial references for this person available online. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, not my field at all, but adding refs is easy. Marie Nyswander even has an award named after her, a prestigious award. She is well published in technical journals and has published relevant books, too. In view of the immediate change of mind of the first supporter of deletion, might we move to a speedy keep, and let the article take its place here for folk to enhance at will? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep about as notable as it gets. I recommend the use of WP:BEFORE as a preliminary to nominating articles in unfamiliar subjects. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GS cites 790, 316, 200, 170, 112, 100..... Inappropriate nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The Am J Psych obit and this biography in American National Biography Online make a clear pass of WP:GNG, and the citation numbers mentioned by Xxanthippe also are easily enough for a pass of WP:PROF #1. The ANBO piece cites a New York Times obituary, the existence of which by itself would usually considered enough for a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Keep. Perhaps the nom will agree to let someone close this, given all the above? That would be great, as it would save others the time of reviewing/commenting. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the nominator has made no contributions since 5 December, and has been asked (by me) to withdraw this nomination. The nom's talk page is interesting food for thought. Suggest we have a WP:SNOW here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, WP:SNOW seems to now be the verdict. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, per all of the above; plus here is a direct link to the NYT obituary[18]. Nsk92 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I hope the nominator doesn't get discouraged from finding truly non-notable academics. Try searching by "is an assistant professor" site:en.wikipedia.org. Abductive (reasoning) 03:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Excellent suggestion! A large fraction of entry-level academics are not (perhaps yet) notable, but such pages are now proliferating, in part at least, because having a WP page can materially help one's tenure/promotion prospects. Like it or not, WP (and numbers like the h-index) are now sufficiently prominent so as to be used in new ways that were not originally intended. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  - Though, to be fair, I would suggest that this particular nom, who I see is rather new at this but still quite enthusiastic, might benefit (as might we all) from a brush up on AfD criteria, and in particular of wp:before. While I know that what was not being suggested is that all such articles be nominated for deletion, I would hope the nom would engage in this bit of criteria review before any further AfD activity.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is patently obvious that this AfD requires closure early. The article is now no longer a stub and it would take an insane person to consider it for deletion in its current state. Please can we simply close it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs)

All that is needed for this to happen is for the nominator to withdraw his nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed. And that was what I had indicated I hoped for two days ago. But, despite a bevy of delete activity on December 5, the nom has been off Wikipedia since then.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's opinion is irrelevant to WP:SNOW Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Constitution (proposed change)[edit]

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

Original research, posing, etc Cynof Gavuf 11:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic -- Raziman T V (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced: what is it, exactly? A proposed constitutional change, per WP:NOR? An unencyclopedic copy and paste of a bill being debated in Nepal? Either way, it doesn't belong here. MuffledThud (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete somebody seems to have taken Nepal's 1990 constitution and altered the parts relating to the king to refer to democratic government, presumably to reflect the recent abolition of the Nepalese monarchy. It isn't the current Nepalese constitution or any document of similar importance, and even if it was it would belong at Wikisource and not here. Hut 8.5 16:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't understand what it is, but it doesn't belong here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record there was a street address near the top of this article. For privacy reasons, I have removed it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an encyclopedia article Nyttend (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure WP:OR. As far as I can tell, the text is a personal proposal by the creator of the article, User:Edeja1, for changing Nepal's constitution. Nsk92 (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of richest Americans in history to 1998[edit]

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

This is the kind of infinitely regressive article we don't need. List of richest people to 2007, then list of richest people to 2008, etc... there's nothing notable about the list up to date X. Cynof Gavuf 11:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although this seems to be pretty much covered by List of Americans by net worth, this article is based on a publication by Forbes in 1998. The difference between this list and the net worth list is that the latter does not show their worth as a %age of the US economy. Also, the latter does not show historical figures from what I can see. I am undecided about whether this should be kept or deleted, as I can not find an equivalent list that includes the all-time richest Americans, which is what this appears to do. If I get a chance, I will look into this some more during the next few days, and then make a decision here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the comment The other difference is the information on which List of Americans by net worth is based is updated every year by Forbes, (and in fact I am in the process of updating the WP article to reflect the latest, 2009, information), so no date qualifier is needed in that article's title. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if this article is an accurate reproduction of a list created by Forbes in 1998, then that Forbes article will be the only reference that this WP article will ever have. The choosing of 1998 as a landmark date is completely arbitrary and unencyclopedic. SnottyWong talk 12:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of this article, I obviously feel differently: I don't see how this list is different from List of billionaires (2004), List of billionaires (2006), and List of billionaires (2007), all of which are by necessity based only on one source (also Forbes), as are many, many other list articles in Wikipedia. In fact this list is better, because it is not released every year, and so we will not have the (largely redundant) year after year after year versions that we will have with the Sunday Times List articles and similar. Imagine this article were titled simply List of richest Americans in history: I am sure even the nominator would agree this is a sufficiently notable topic; the problem with leaving off the "to 1998" is that it would invite original research as misguided editors took it on themselves to "update" it year after year or day after day with their own calculations and without the benefit of reliable sources. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge somewhere. Valid information I imagine, but it easily can go into an existing article that doesn't have problems with arbitary cut-off dates and lack of sources, rather than sitting off in an obscure corner on its own. In the event it is kept it should be renamed - "Americans in history to 1998"? As opposed to those pre-1998 Americans who managed somehow to exist outside of history? Declan Clam (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There is no reason not to bring this up to date --the sources for each individual will be public enough: the wealth can be sourced, and so can the size of the economy. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you explain to me how doing all that math would not be original research? UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, arbitrary and not encyclopedic. Someidiot (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be adequate consensus that the journal is sufficiently notable for inclusion within Wikipedia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal[edit]

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

No outside sources of notability Cynof Gavuf 11:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Indexed in all major abstracting and indexing services, including Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. Easily meets WP:Notability (academic journals) criterion 1. Article was written quite clumsily by a new user, I am currently doing some cleanup. --Crusio (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While cleaning up the article I could not find any evidence that it is currently included in PubMed or Web of Science (but it is in Scopus). However, the previous version of the article claimed that the journal had been accepted, and as it seems to have been written by someone involved with the journal, that may well be true. It always takes a while for new journals to actually get included into PubMed or WoS after acceptance. In addition, BIIJ is OA and that means that it will be relatively simple to get into PubMed Central (and by extension into PubMed), so I don't really doubt the statement about PubMed. --Crusio (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Crusio. Gilo ö 17:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed. fetchcomms☛ 21:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not even indexed in PubMed. I'm betting it's not in WoS. It got an article in the Malaysian Star when it launched in 2005:[19], but nothing else. It's got no data in Scimago:[20]. In Google Scholar, the first 100 articles I checked have only 30 citations between them, which is not evidence of having a significant impact. If the notability proposal for academic journals allows this journal, it needs revising or rejecting. Fences&Windows 01:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Scimago takes its data from Scopus. If the journal was included rather recently in Scopus, that would result in all indicators having a zero score, but that would not really be very meaningful. --Crusio (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is indeed in Scopus. (and probably will be in WoS,since the two tend to track each other closely). Looking in Scopus, in 2005 in published 11 articles, 4 of which have ever been cited, and highest c citation count 3, 2, 1, 1 ; in 2006 it published 55 articles, of which 24 have been cited, citation count 9,4,4,3,3,3,...; in 2007 it published 57, 14 cited, counts 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 .... ; in 2008, 33 with only 1 cited so far, 1 time. However, a correction factor is needed: the "citation half life" for journals in Radiology according to JCR is 6 to 7 years, that is, half the citations arrive during the first 6.5 years, half afterward. For this journal, not even its earliest articles have reached that point yet: I would estimate the 2006 figures should be multiplied by 4 to give the ultimate citation count, value, the 2007 by 5. Additionally, these numbers only represent that these only include the citations from other journals on Scopus list, which include almost no journals published in the languages of the area it serves. As a guestimate, multiple by 2 again. Those numbers are respectable for a specialized journal covering a non-central geographical area--and additionally, it is notable as the official publication of the various societies represented. . DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone actually check whether it is in WoS? Fences&Windows 20:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently not included on the journal master list of WoS. However, if the decision to include it was recent, that may just mean that the list has not yet been updated. Same goes for the PubMed listing. Given that it is OA, it will almost certainly get into PubMed Central without much problem and from there into PubMed. --Crusio (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I checked Scopus. There's a total of 97 citations to 165 articles, with an h-index of only 4. On that basis this journal has little impact on the field. As future inclusion in PubMed and WoS is unverified the argument to keep is based on it being indexed in Scopus, which basically means that you agree with there being articles for all 18,000 journals tracked by Scopus. This clashes with the fact that Wikipedia is not a directory. This standard for keeping articles about journals is far too lax. Fences&Windows 19:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please see my comment above for why the present count is a 5X underestimate-. FWIW, I consider this as evidence that the guideline works. It just meets the guideline, and it's just notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fences&Windows regarding the issue of Wikipedia is not a directory, and agree having all 18,000 titles in Scopus is a bit too much. But in all fairness, discussing Wikipedia's standard of notability is outside the scope towards closing this discussion of AfD. I may have a vested interest on the matter, but I'm also being objective here. As of now, the journal passes the notability criterion listed in WP:Notability (academic journals), is it not? Unless the answer is in the negative, I'm proposing for this discussion to be closed. Nahrizuladib (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability (academic journals) is not an accepted guideline, it is a proposal that is not agreed upon. Citing it as though it was an agreed standard is not OK. Fences&Windows 00:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability established by being cited in other journals and also in a chapter within a textbook mentioned on the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses website.[21] Indexed in Scopus and included in the draft Excellence in Research for Australia journal list for 2010. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: comment from the managing editor of the journal - nahrizuladib (talk · contribs) --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he asks why we focus on WoS/Medline/Scopus--the reason is that it helps to have an objective standard, that we would otherwise use more of less the same criteria they do--stability, citations, publisher, sponsorship, substantial content etc. , they are selective and help us avoid being a mere directory, and that they use guidelines consonant with the way academics think,I could substitute my own personal view as a librarian about whether I personally would buy or catalog the journal, but that's just me, and we don't go by experts (FWIW, I would catalog it if I collected in the field, primarily on the basis of the sponsorship & to increase global diversity) . After all, publishers care very much about whether their journal gets in these indexes--and the reason is that it not only serves as a signal of notability but that it gets them readership which in turn leads to increased citations and notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I totally agree. And that's why I keep asking, because the journal is already listed in Scopus, although not in WoS or Pubmed yet. And according to WP:Notability (academic journals), being listed in Scopus is enough to satisfy the notability criterion. Correct me if I'm wrong Nahrizuladib (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)nahrizuladib[reply]

Delete, I can't find any independent secondary sources that analyze or discuss this journal, probably because it is a very young journal. This journal fails the GNG completely, and that is my objective standard. Abductive (reasoning) 03:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I don't mean to sound biased; but isn't listed in Scopus enough? After all this is what being listed as one of the criterion to pass in WP:Notability (academic journals) Nahrizuladib (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)nahrizuladib[reply]

WP:Notability (academic journals) was soundly rejected. Using an unapproved guideline is counter to consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 14:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the many "support" votes during the RfC of that proposed guideline, it is a bit much to say that it was "soundly rejected". However, it is clear that this proposal does not currently reflect consensus. Under GNG, the case is very clear. The journal is cited by multiple, reliable sources, hence notable. As far as I can see, in fact, many articles that would be rejected under the academic journal proposal would be kept under GNC. But as was remarked above, this is not the place to discuss that proposal. --Crusio (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cited? It is the articles in the journal that are cited. The journal itself has no secondary sources discussing it. Abductive (reasoning) 16:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article in the Malaysia Star (cited above, I put it in the article, but that was reverted). --Crusio (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article was clearly a plant or press release. Abductive (reasoning) 16:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply For the record the said articles were not press releases. The articles were dated 30 October 2005 (two more: here and here); while the journal's first issue was in July 2005. The work behind it started about 6 months earlier. Crusio: since the discussion is now heading towards whether the journal itself passes GNG, I will be more than happy to re-instate these references. Nahrizuladib (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with things being kept under the GNG. Abductive (reasoning) 16:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after re-instating an earlier, cleaned-up version by User:Crusio. For the record, I'm the Managing Editor of the journal. Nahrizuladib (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic Reality's Well of Souls[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Synthetic Reality's Well of Souls

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

Non notable game Cynof Gavuf 11:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would appear to be unverifiable; the only web hits are a multitude of directory/download site entries apparently submitted by the game developer. Marasmusine (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per withdrawn nomination JForget 22:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dielectric relaxation as a chemical rate process[edit]

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

Too special; outdated material (W. Kauzmann published in the 1940s); extensive citation but no reference given; no substantial links pointing here Marie Poise (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and clean up the article. None of the reasons given by the nominator are reasons for deletion. We cover specialised material. If it was notable in 1940, it is notable now. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Bduke V8rik (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to deepen my argument: The bulk of the article was carelessly hacked in by a one-time user in 2007. Since then, a number of people have made a few formal corrections, but nobody has touched the contents. Nobody has ever assessed correctness and relevance of the text; nobody has looked up the Kauzmann reference; nobody has cared to integrate the article into the link structure of dielectric articles.

If you insist on "keep" here, then this basically means: anybody can get any summary of any scientific work into WP, regardless whether the work is correct or not, regardless whether the summary is correct. Someone will wikify the text, and then it will never be questioned again. If a fool proposes deletion, you can be sure some optimists will oppose: keep, you never know, some day someone might make something useful out of this stub.

Note also: had I deleted two paragraphs of comparable notability and quality from a longer article, nobody would have said a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie Poise (talk • contribs) 23:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for merge with dielectric. Ashley Payne (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does not really give it a chemistry context. I'm sort of neutral on this, as I just do not have the time to fix it. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- at the chemistry desk we are patient people. Just waiting for someone to come along and expand the article. Example: this article in 2006 with just 4 lines and one reference from 1968 was converted to a big article three years later in 2009! V8rik (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ere we waste more time on an article that doesn't merit it, I withdraw my deletion proposal. -- Marie Poise (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dielectric#Dielectric relaxation as this material, as it stands, makes no sense out of context. Alternatively it should be moved (along with the corresponding material from dielectric to dielectric relaxation. as it stands alone, it's just incoherent. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop's Stortford Ultra Light Railway[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable proposal. There's only one newspaper article about it, which is mostly about the cancellation of a bus route. Similarly, most of this article is not about the proposal, but about so-called "Ultra Light Railway" technology. Make sure that, if this is deleted, incoming links and mention of this proposal are removed from other articles. NE2 10:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL on the railway proper, and in agreement on the content fork needing to be removed or adjusted. This alone is proof the article shouldn't be here yet-- a feasibility study is still years and years away from the start of construction, if it does ever happen at all. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like an attempt to gain publicity for this proposal, not the place for this without significant media coverage already. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scotkart Indoor Karting[edit]

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

No external sources say it's notable

CynofGavuf 09:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-trivial WP:RS coverage not found. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huynh van Hieu[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an alleged democratic leader who supposedly worked closely with Bush and Blair and advises the United Nations looks like a hoax: no results on Google News, and an attempt to find anything about his so-called World Democratic & Freedom Movement gets nothing. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax or unverifiable. Hairhorn (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails verifiability in spectacular fashion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Per the nominator's searches, this appears to be a hoax. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game for life[edit]

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

Made up Cynof Gavuf 09:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - WP:MADEUP. No relevant ghits or anything, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 10:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Game of Life as a plausible typo. --NE2 10:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per NE2. andy (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as total bollocks. Wouldn't personally think it's a plausible typo for Game of Life, but wouldn't object hugely to such a result -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancelin Boys Weekend[edit]

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

Non notable event Cynof Gavuf 08:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to be very notable. No relevant, usable google hits. Can't find significant coverage, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 10:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnotable OR. Note: Should have been prodded first. --MrStalker ^(talk) 11:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the original editor has weighed in here with a keep !vote, it's likely he'd have also contested the prod. There's nothing wrong with going straight to AfD, especially if it's expected that someone will contest the prod. —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Don't Delete~~: As a participant of LBW I can substanciate the event. User:Oman1974 8:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate recommendation by the same editor struck for clarity. —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: I am also involved in LBW and have been for over 5 years. --MDATECH 02:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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

~~Don't Delete~~: As the developer of the entry I am currently uploading images to further substanciate the event. User:Oman1974 10:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Absence of reliable sources or a claim of notability for the event. The description of the event is just about vague enough to qualify for speedy deletion under criterion A1. —C.Fred (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong don't delete. More information to substanciate is being gathered (pictures and links)—User:Oman1974 13:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Oman1974 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Are the links to reliable sources? —C.Fred (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable local event, no sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable. SnottyWong talk 14:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. MDATECH, one of the SPA editors mentioned above, added a link for the event at his (company's) website: http://mdatech.com.au/lbw/default.html. First, the text on that page duplicates what's on the article, though there is no copyright notice nor any way to tell which came first. (He could have copied it from here to there, which is good—an event like that belongs at a private webpage and not Wikipedia.) Second, and most damning, is that the images show a maximum of eight people in attendance at the event. Accordingly, the event is smaller in size than some parties I went to in college—and a college party, even one held annually for the better part of a decade, is not notable. Accordingly, I think this article is also running against the WP:NOTWEBHOST guideline. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the entry states, what happens during LBW stays on LBW. Photo's of the LBW contingent is stricky prohibited as outlined in the founding 1998 charter. The Maximum of 8 people that you see are the original 8 and founding committee members. (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

In that case, there will be a complete lack of independent reliable sources—all the more reason to delete the article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is one of the first entries on LBW,what would you like? I'm happy to try and comply - if that is possible. I would note your logic so far would also mean that all entries on Wikipedia regarding Area 51 and the Lockness monster should also be removed. If you were acting in the true spirit of Wikipedia you would be helping me to validate the entry and not throwing stones. Particularly if you consider that there are significant limitations on referencing in the remote communities of Western Australia who don't have running water, let alone a reliable media connection. In some cases, the LBW crew raise the local population by as much as 50-60% depending on the town in question. Please note I am also finding it more and more difficult to defend you from the other LBW particpants who are describing you as the “The Chinese King out of Role Models" [User:Oman1974|Oman1974] 11:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.14.52.46 (talk)

Well, I just did a Google search, and there are exactly zero results returned that aren't on Wikipedia. Accordingly, I can't do anything web-based to verify what's in the article. (By contrast, there are plenty of independent sources that cover Area 51 and the Loch Ness Monster.) —C.Fred (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because You - or someone at wikipedia - have now deleted 3 reference link that I have included in the article for review, including one that is mention in a line above. (By contrast, if you blocked all independent sources that cover Area 51 and the Loch Ness Monster, you wouldn't find any there either. Would newspaper or journal articles count?User:Oman1974.Oman197414:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.14.52.46 (talk) [reply]

Newspaper articles would generally count, depending on the nature of the newspaper—student papers generally are not reliable because of the lack of editorial scrutiny and the frequent proximity of writers to the subjects. Journals, it depends on the nature of the journal. A personal journal would not count; a scholarly journal, especially one where it's easy to see that there's a board that reviews and approves articles for submission, would likely count. Be prepared to furnish a scan of the article for verification purposes. —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: Wow who could believe our annual gathering could produce such an outcry. I must thank you all for taking the time to put our event on the web. The small country communities normally dont get such a large amount attention and I believe with efforts such as these that the young boys from all walks off life in the greater Gin Gin Shire would be pleased to see their event being published on the internet. It is at this moment that I would like to see this page stay on wikipedia. This would mean a lot to the young boys who attend each year and to the mentors who attend (and yes they sneek off to "The Tav" from time to time). I'm sure we could agree that this page would be a great boost for the local community and the LBW attendees. Anything that would benefit a community in these difficult financial times should be incouraged not discouraged. And finally I ask you to think of the young boys who will be delighted to know that their event has been elevated to such greatness as to have its own wikipedia page (something so small as this could possibly use only a tiny amount of bandwidth and couldn't really be offensive in anyway to anyone). I hope this helps keep everyone happy and I would be pleased to discuss the matter further with you. Regards, Current President of the LBW 1999-2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbwpresident (talk • contribs) 04:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Delete - Fails verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage or reliable sources. This event is not notable. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock'n Clothing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rock'n Clothing

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

unreferenced, non notable clothing company WuhWuzDat 07:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, and I could find no reliable sources for this company. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, uneferenced, could find no third-party sources, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joey Fisher[edit]

The result was speedy deleted. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Introduction to genetics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

If this article is intended to be an accessible, non-technical introduction to the subject, it is obsolete to Simple Wikipedia. We should not have two articles on the same topic, the other being genetics. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query Are you proposing transwiking this to the Simple English Wikipedia, or proposing an outright deletion? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no policy-based reason given for deletion. Simple English is a different project from the English Wikipedia, feel free to copy and modify this is you want to. Tim Vickers (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we do. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are clearer now, thank you, but I still don't agree with your idea. This article is a stand-alone introduction to several articles, including DNA, gene, chromosome, genetic disorder and genetic engineering. Its broad topic overlaps with all of these articles, but the level of the discussion would not be acceptable in these in-depth articles since this level of simplification means loosening the restraints on absolute precision and accuracy. For example, although it is useful as a starting point, you cannot define gene function in the main gene article as "to provide the information needed to make molecules called proteins in cells", as we do in this introductory article (this is strictly wrong, as it ignores all the RNA-encoding genes, such as rRNA genes and regulatory RNAs). However, this level of explanation is good enough for this audience and strict technical accuracy would make the text far too complex. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An introduction to a topic is not the same as an article in simple English. I agree that no policy-based reason are given for deletion. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wonder if the nominator is aware that we have a number of these type of "intro" articles, some with extensive editing history (well, i know they know, as they nominated 2 articles here). i for one didnt know this, and was at first surprised to see this article, but it apears to be a well established practice, which i support, though it felt weird at first to have 2 articles on one subject. as long as the subject is sufficiently complex to require a two tiered approach, its fine to have it here. i would delete "introduction to Pokemon" or "introduction to Family Guy" with extreme prejudice. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the standard set by Introduction to general relativity, a featured article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information covered in "Introduction to" is both distinct and necessary to information given in "Genetics". The Genetics article too large if included there (that article alone is already 71 kilobytes) thus it is within policy to split the article per WP:SIZERULE. ~ Ciar ~ _(Talk) 20:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The introductory articles are "sacrificial" articles in which we can explain things with less precision than would be desirable in the main articles. Conversely, they avoid us having to dumb down the main articles too much to make them accessible to non-specialist readers. You can't do both in one article. I refer you to the advice of Francois Jacob:

I heard one of the prize winners, Professor [Francois] Jacob, forewarn an audience of specialists more or less as follows: "In describing genetic mechanisms, there is a choice between being inexact and incomprehensible." In making this presentation, I shall try to be as inexact as conscience permits. [22] --Nbauman (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a POV split; it is an introduction per standard practice. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:MTAA guideline positively encourages the existence of Introduction to... articles. From WP:MTAA: 'Depending on the topic and the amount of interest in it, it may be appropriate to write a separate "Introduction to..." article.' Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no urgent reason to delete this article. As per the comment made by Tim Vickers, no policy based reason was given to support deletion. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading the Introduction to evolution article I feel bound to urge deletion of any related articles. Admit I can't bring myself to read it, though, after the disaster at intro to evolution. I ask wikipedia editors to consider the appropriateness of low level introductions that are poorly written and inaccurate in many parts of the article. Accuracy should never be sacrificed for readability, and there already is simple wikipedia for low level, inaccurate introductions to difficult subjects. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing that because you don't like the way one article is written, a different article that you have not read should be deleted? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that the concept is done so poorly on wikipedia, in spite of the good intentions of not necessarily bad editors, that it should be avoided like the pneumonic plague. One bad failure in this direction is more than enough for wikipedia. It is time to delete all of them. It's not dislike of the way it's written, by the way. It's dislike of inaccuracy. Strong dislike of inaccuracy. Simplification does not require inaccuracy. It is only in these introduction to biological concepts articles that required inaccuracy appears to be allowed by consensus on wikipedia. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simplification always requires inaccuracy. The more you simplify, the more inaccurate the explanation becomes. For instance, the first step of simplification is to remove technical terms, but this removes the precise and defined meanings which are the reason we use these terms. The next step of simplification is to remove minor exceptions that are not important for the reader to grasp the overall concept, this also degrades accuracy. The final step is to use analogies to every-day concepts, which are by their nature imprecise and somewhat misleading. Therefore DNA is a polynucleotide that encodes genetic information. becomes DNA is a long molecule made of repeating units that holds the information needed to build and repair organisms and then finally becomes DNA is a long molecule made of repeating units that holds the information needed to build and repair organisms, it is like a recipe book for life. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I professionally write and edit articles simplifying complex topics in the biological sciences for general audiences. I know that simplifying does not require inaccuracy. The last sentence in your post, while greatly simplified, is not inaccurate for a general audience. The article Introduction to evolution contains great inaccuracies. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NW (Talk) 01:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to evolution[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

If it's intended to be a non-technical version of evolution, then it is obsolete to Simple Wikipedia. Should not have two versions of the same article, the other being evolution. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Simple Wikipedia has articles in Basic English. Arguably that makes them jargon-free, but does not necessarily mean they are non-technical. Gabbe (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does that explain the problem with us having two pages on the same thing? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm.... They're on two different Wikipedias? Gabbe (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, English Wikipedia has both Introduction to evolution and evolution. Two articles on the same thing. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An introduction to a topic is not the same as an article in simple English. Wev have quite a number of "introduction to" articles. No policy-based reasons are given for deletion. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – oppose deletion – this article and the simple English one do different things, and this introductory article is a useful part of the series in Category:Introductions. . . dave souza, talk 10:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC) See also MOS guideline Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible: "Depending on the topic and the amount of interest in it, it may be appropriate to write a separate "Introduction to..." article." . . dave souza, talk 10:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion - as above posters, intro and simple are not the same thing. - IanCheesman (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the standard set by Introduction to general relativity, a featured article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i didnt know about these "intro" articles until now, thanks to these 2 afd's. im glad i know about them now, and they are well established and extremely well done, and dont violate any policy i know of. i was a little surprised at first to see 2 articles on one subject, so i can understand the nominators possible motivation, but as long as the subjects covered by these intro articles are sufficiently complex, and due diligence is done to make sure the articles are in sync with their facts, i see no problem.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since no reason based on the deletion policy has been given for deletion. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:FA, @ Introduction to general relativity. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am under the impression that Simple English Wikipedia is supposed to be linguistically simple, while Introductions are supposed to be conceptually simple. Simple English Wikipedia exists for people who have a weak grasp on the English language. Introductions exist on this Wiki for people who have a strong grasp on the English language, but a weak grasp on the topic. To an extent, of course, all Wikipedia articles should be written for people who don't yet understand the topic; but I believe the premise behind introductions is that some people have a steeper learning curve than others, warranting a two-article division for certain topics that are both highly technical in substance (in a way that cannot just be paraphrased away without sacrificing content), and highly important. -Silence (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Awadewit (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have a tradition of "Introduction to..." articles, some of which are even FAs, such as Introduction to viruses; see Category:Introductions. Non-technical does not mean simple English. Awadewit (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watan Group[edit]

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

I've declined the speedy on this. The article covers the group, but isn't really about it. That seems reasonable for CSD but I'm not convinced there's enough for notability generally. Ged UK 17:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I created this article using User:Organismluvva as a legitimate sock as part of WP:NEWT. I won't be participating further in this discussion. Smartse (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (barely) - Subject seems... well notable enough to prevent deletion. I think the 2 brothers or their drug smuggling operation are significantly more notable than this sham company, though. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 10:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy the GNG and is a plausible search term.

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real Aggression[edit]

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

Article with no links or citations on Serbian band makes no claim of notability except that it is "[t]he oldest one Serbian WP band." Speedy deletion was declined because of this claim, but the article does not show that this band satisfies any of the WP:BAND guidelines. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any sources which contain "significant coverage" for this band; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 06:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looking at the Music notability guidelines (band) this band doesn't yet imo meet any of them. Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I would snow delete it, the creator is continually removing the template and is not helping his position. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the band is "about to be ready", but has had no tours, no reviews, and no news. Three CDs do not matter much if you can't buy them. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clover Honey[edit]

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

This is yet another completely unsourced, utterly non-notable BLP. The article reads like a Myspace page and is complete puffery. A google search shows up over 115,000 Ghits for ... a rather well-known and popular brand of food. This really needs to go - Alison ^❤ 04:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Alison ^❤ 04:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After trying to refine the Google search, "-taste -raw -Ohio -packaging" (terms that obviousily refer to the brand of honey) I came up with... this article, and the blog and Myspace linked from it. Searching for 'his' real name, "Clover Kevin Welsh" brings me right back to the same sources as well, and tons that parrot Wikipedia word-for-word. None of this will do. For a "national broadcast journalist" evidence shouldn't be this hard to come by. Get rid of it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom... no evidence of notability other than circular references. ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sufficiently notable. Marokwitz (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and per Brad. I also have been unsuccessful in finding sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum[edit]

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

Malformed "sub-page" of, I think, Requiem (Mozart). What actually exists on these pages is trivial, and seems to already be covered in the main page. Since the "sub-pages" are inappropriate in the mainspace, they should probably be deleted. They used to be located on their own pages, which may be a good place to create redirects (Tuba mirum → Requiem (Mozart)), but one way or another these presdu-subpages should be deleted.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason as above:

Absolutely keep if we have no article on Tuba mirum at Wikipedia. This is a highly notable subject and thus this proposal is damaging to our project. Refine or improve our coverage of Tuba mirum before making proposals such as this one. Earlier versions of this article, under a different title, did cover this subject quite well. Badagnani (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but why are these now sub-articles of the Requiem (Mozart) article? We're not supposed to create sub-pages in article space (it's OK to do on talk pages, but sub-pages anywhere else are normally CSD candidates). Aside from that, if an earlier version of these articles was better... what happened? I'd rather never delete any articles, so if there's a way to move and edit these so that their acceptable then I'm very willing to do that. Call it lack of imagination on my part if you'd like, but I simply can't imagine a means to edit these articles to be proper articles right now. One of the largest problems that I see is that what little info exists in the current articles already seems to exist in Requiem (Mozart). I'm also extremely confused by the fact that Tuba mirum currently redirects to Dies Irae. If these are supposed to be spin out articles, what article are they spinning out from?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a malformed page as is the Recordare. WP articles don't have sub-pages like this. At the very minimum, they should be retitled, e.g. Tuba mirum (Mozart Requiem), Recordare (Mozart Requiem), etc. Note that in 2007 an anonymous IP removed the (rather flaming and unreferenced) commentary from the Tuba mirum[23]. The articles are capable of expansion in terms of musical analysis, but at the moment the contents are utterly trivial (apart from the assignment of voice types to each section) and already available at Wikisource. Voceditenore (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's taken me a bit to figure out what the nominator meant by subpage, since subarticles are standard in namespace. I agree that article names should not have slashes in them, but the obvious solution is to move the page back to Tuba mirum, which could be rewritten from the article history. I dont see a need for a well-formed subarticle titles like Tuba mirum (Mozart), certainly not yet. Sparafucil (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with re-naming it simply Tuba mirum is that that this article refers only to the setting by Mozart not to the sub-section of the Dies Irae which is used in the Catholic and Anglican liturgies (and has had many different musical settings). It would be misleading to the reader to simply name it Tuba mirum as if Mozart's were the only one. Note also that the moment Tuba mirum redirects to Dies Irae but Tuba Mirum (capital M) redirects to Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum, which is even more misleading. It needs to be sorted out. Voceditenore (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for explaining that. Untangling what redirects to what, and the meaning of all of these pages, is a large part of the problem here. The content distinction between Dies Irae and Requiem (Mozart) is obviously important and necessary, but these sub-pages really aren't. I would have simply merged and redirected the articles if I could have figured out the best way to do that, but the existence of two different redirect pages and the malformed titles lead me here instead. I really can't see that we're loosing anything with deletion here anyway, are we?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something definitely needs to be done – either properly re-naming the articles to reflect that they are about Mozart's setting and hope they'll be expanded, or redirecting them to Requiem (Mozart) and merging what little information there is into that article. I've asked WikiProject Classical music to comment. Voceditenore (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music– Voceditenore (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's deal with one thing at a time. Do we need a stub article on this section of the Mozart Requiem? No. On that I venture there will be near universal agreement from WP:CM. I think we can scratch Badagni's vote above as he seems confused as to the subject under discussion. An article on Tuba mirum may indeed be salutary and should be considered separately from this. Eusebeus (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum and Requiem (Mozart)/Recordare. Redirect both Tuba mirum and Tuba Mirum to Dies Irae or to a newly created Tuba mirum (disambiguation). Suggest copying relevant information (if any) from the deleted articles to Talk:Requiem (Mozart) for editors to incorporate into that article. Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I moved both articles ([24], [25]) to their current names in 2007, because their then names "Tuba mirum" and "Recordare" were misleading, like Voceditenore explained above. I always held the view, that these articles might better be deleted or at least merged into the Mozart-Requiem main article (Talk:Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum#Delete?, Talk:Requiem (Mozart)/Recordare). --FordPrefect42 (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum and Requiem (Mozart)/Recordare. Besides the points made above, original texts should be in WikiSource, not in Wikipedia. --Klein zach 13:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you look at the talk page, you'll note that the page USED to be about the invented instrument by Peter Schickele. I almost wonder if the page should be reverted back to the state it was in before that changed (there's articles on Tromboon and Lasso d'amore too). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm ready, willing, and able (as much as time allows) to capture and move any information on the page or in the history to wherever may be appropriate. Personally though, I'm just not sure what really needs "saving", so to speak. I see the discussion about the instrument on Talk:Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum, but... well, regardless of if myself or someone else pulls that and other info out into a new article or an existing article (and that would be a good conversation to continue, I think), in the end I still think that these articles should be deleted.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment If you look at Talk:Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum#Please move former content, you'll note that the instrument erroneously decribed as Tuba mirum here is in fact the Pastaphone, so there is no content worth of being preserved. Though I love the P.D.Q. Bach works, there is not very much more to be said about both these instruments, as is already in Peter Schickele#P. D. Q. Bach. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this should be a section of the main article about the Requiem. I think there's no reason to have articles about individual movements of pieces. A piece, a work, a symphony, a sonata it's the sum of it's movements.--Karljoos (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am intrigued by Badagnani's vehement defense of this article, on the grounds that there should be an article on the Tuba Mirum in general (am I understanding you right, Bad?). What do you envision being in an article like this, other than a list of settings from various masses? --Ravpapa (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be a disambig mentioning the Latin text as well as the Schickele-invented instrument. There should be two separate articles covering these two things. Badagnani (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to be disambiguated? The Latin text is no work of its own, but part of the Dies irae, which has an article; neither is Mozart's composition a work of art of its own, but part of his Requiem, which also has an article; and the notability of Schickele's instrument is doubtable. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move: Tuba mirum is a recognizable chunk of Dies irae, set as a separate movement by Mozart, Berlioz and others, and is used as well as an organ stop name and by Schickele; it also evokes the last trump and the die letzte Posaune that are the subject of much painting. No one (I think) is arguing for the present article, but If it's deleted and recreated, the article history is lost. Sparafucil (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to what? In the original Dies Irae, Tuba Mirum is 3 lines. Various composers 'chunk' the Dies Irae differently. Verdi combines Tuba mirum and Mors stupebit. Mozart chunks it all the way down to Quid sum miser. In the Polish Requiem, it seems to constitute a movement on its own. Take a look at Tuba mirum (disambiguation). If it is a concern to keep the edit history, perhaps redirect to that? But what is there of value in the edit history? A completely erroneous description of the Schickele instrument [26], the text of Mozart's setting which although called the Tuba Mirum incorporates several other parts of the Dies Irae + a completely unreferenced and POV description [27]. There's nothing to stop anyone from creating an article solely on Mozart's movement or on Schickele's instrument, if they want (not a good idea in my opinion), or expanding the relevant sections of Requiem (Mozart) and Peter Schickele (a much better idea). But I fail to see the value of keeping either of the current articles and their histories. Voceditenore (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both and point readers to proper place from main article: Though their content is hardly trivial—they simply give us the "lyrics" (!) or rather the text—all of this content actually already appears in Dies Irae. Direct the Mozart audience there and problem solved. Any futher discussion of Mozart's "movements" needs to be on Requiem (Mozart). --Jubilee♫clipman 00:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Badagnani, your reply does not convince me. Having an article which is simply a collection of settings of the Tuba Mirum from various masses seems simply the wrong way to go about this. If all these settings had something really remarkable in common (for example, they were all in the same key, or they all used the bassett horn or whatever that strange instrument is), then I would agree that there is justification for a separate article. But as far as I know, that is not the case. We don't have separate articles on "Un Bel Di" or "Caro Mio Ben" either. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Move lyrics to wikisource first if you don't want to lose them. There's no precedent for movement-specific child articles and there's no need for ones here either.DavidRF (talk)

Delete already. Ratagonia (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by DGG; (Non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Mega Giveaway[edit]

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

This is an odd article that doesn't pull up any relevant hits on Google which might hint of a hoax. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 03:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth is this? Google doesn't know this program, it doesn't know the "Mobius Lottery" the article references, and the article claims it has ran for NINE seasons! (Also, it claims to have produced 5,000 episodes. The mathematically inclined will note that 9*365 is only 3,258... so they're producing more than 1 episode a day, every single day?) Further, note the second to last paragraph says, "Due to Nathan's superpowers enabling him to fight crime as the CRIPTOCAT, all cash is given tax-free, since it is coming out of his budget." Someone is either having us on, or this is a (very-detailed) description of a fictional game that was written as fact. It just doesn't smell right. Delete it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SuperUltraMegaAlmightyOmega Delete® An awful melding of both Sonic articles and lottery game show articles which somehow results in this incredible mess where someone has taken pieces of many game show articles and Sonic articles and turned it into...I don't know what to say, but crap would actually be a compliment. Syndicated on Mobius? Sonic serves chili dogs to the audience? A TV show has a concession stand? Knuckles playing Vanna White? And really, Tails as a game show announcer? I...I have no words. I don't even have a trout to the creator. This should be G3'ed because there's no way this merits seven days of discussion (it was speedied, but somehow was declined, so here we are). Nate • (chatter) 09:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Super Sonic Delete by Dr Eggman - I cannot find anything to suggest that this wasn't made up one day by a teenager (probably). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete template applied. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak mega sonic delete: per nom.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as a hoax. Dalekusa (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XtraJet[edit]

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

An airline article that provides no information on the airline but is about one non-notable incident, expired prod that was not deleted and now challenged MilborneOne (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable air carrier. If this information belongs anywhere it should be included in the Michael Jackson series of articles, not as a stand-alone air carrier article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the airline does not seem to be notable, having no significant coverage outside of this incident. An article on Michael Jackson secret recording incident (or something similar) may be appropriate, but even that would have issues with WP:NOTNEWS. Robofish (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Clearly the incident is notable and the fact that what happened brought down the company is notable. So outright deletion is not acceptable. The question is should this be merged into Jackson's article or kept separate? Jackson's article is already way too long so adding this does not make sense. Moving to a new name? Maybe. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 03:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge there is no lasting notability for the airline and there is not enough that can be encyclopaedically said about the incident for a stand alone article. If there is an apropriate article about minor controversies related to Michael Jackson, or recording without permission, then maybe something could be merged there, but this title would not make a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centered riding[edit]

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

I can't find any sources to indicate that this is notable. The originator, Sally Swift, might actually be notable, but not this fairly obscure topic. —Chowbok ☠ 03:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Actually, the concept is highly notable within riding circles. Sally Swift is synonymous with the Centered Riding concept, which made her famous, and she's not really famous for anything else. While she was alive, people had a lot of respect for her and her teachings. The problem is that since she has died, a small group of people copyrighted the term and are doing their darndest to make it into a cult, which is annoying, but the underlying concept is still very sound. By that standard, it's no more odd than Parelli Natural Horsemanship, and in fact, the underlying philosophy is sounder than Parelli's stuff. (LOL) The article could be inproved, but due to the zealouness of the defenders of the faith, one hesitates to edit it too much and draw their attention. (siging) Montanabw^(talk) 04:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added a couple refs -Sally Swift obits from the Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal, both of these mention the method's international popularity. Novickas (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WSJ and Boston Globe articles. Priyanath ^talk 19:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STONE and Digital Dave[edit]

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

The creator contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find anything reliable or solid on them either. Probably fails WP:V, and article would probably need to be rewritten anyway, as it's not really in an encyclopaedic tone. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources cited and no reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. no consensus after 2 weeks JForget 22:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Research and Technology Development in Ecuador[edit]

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

Horridly unintelligible crap about a seemingly minor agency, the notability of which is not established through multiple, independent sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Badly written, presumably by non-native speaker. But concerns a government agency that is inherently notable. LotLE×talk 09:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we know the mantra: "all government agencies are notable". But why? You're making a rather substantial claim there, that all the world's thousands of government agencies — not ministries, but agencies — automatically deserve articles here, WP:GNG and even WP:V notwithstanding. Colour me sceptical. If someone wants to restart them once they're gone from proper sources - which will have to be done regardless - fine, but as of now, there is no evidence of notability beyond the mantra. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Not all government agencies are notable, especially not small free standing research institutes. I see no evidence at all for this one, as the link given produces a 404 error. The G search is essentially negative, but might be positive if run under the Spanish title, but Ido not see even that. On what basis are these articles being written.? DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centro de Levantamientos Integrados de Recursos Naturales por Sensores Remotos[edit]

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

Horridly unintelligible crap about a seemingly minor agency, the notability of which is not established through multiple, independent sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Badly written, presumably by non-native speaker. But concerns a government agency that is inherently notable. LotLE×talk 09:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we know the mantra: "all government agencies are notable". But why? You're making a rather substantial claim there, that all the world's thousands of government agencies — not ministries, but agencies — automatically deserve articles here, WP:GNG and even WP:V notwithstanding. Colour me sceptical. If someone wants to restart them once they're gone from proper sources - which will have to be done regardless - fine, but as of now, there is no evidence of notability beyond the mantra. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to agree with Biruitorul here... I have a serious problem with the idea that all governmental agencies are notable. In fact, I have a problem with the entire concept of inherent notablility. Every article should establish that the specific subject is notable. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more or less per LotLE. I would't go so far as saying all national govt agencies are inherently notable, but I think they're presumptively notable and there's no substantive argument here in opposition. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Aerospace Development (Ecuador)[edit]

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

Horridly unintelligible crap about a seemingly minor agency, the notability of which is not established through multiple, independent sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Badly written, presumably by non-native speaker. But concerns a government agency that is inherently notable. LotLE×talk 09:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we know the mantra: "all government agencies are notable". But why? You're making a rather substantial claim there, that all the world's thousands of government agencies — not ministries, but agencies — automatically deserve articles here, WP:GNG and even WP:V notwithstanding. Colour me sceptical. If someone wants to restart them once they're gone from proper sources - which will have to be done regardless - fine, but as of now, there is no evidence of notability beyond the mantra. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more or less per LotLE. I would't go so far as saying all national govt agencies are inherently notable, but I think they're presumptively notable and there's no substantive argument here in opposition. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirección de la Industria Aeronáutica[edit]

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

Horridly unintelligible crap about a seemingly minor agency, the notability of which is not established through multiple, independent sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Badly written, presumably by non-native speaker. But concerns a government agency that is inherently notable. LotLE×talk 09:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we know the mantra: "all government agencies are notable". But why? You're making a rather substantial claim there, that all the world's thousands of government agencies — not ministries, but agencies — automatically deserve articles here, WP:GNG and even WP:V notwithstanding. Colour me sceptical. If someone wants to restart them once they're gone from proper sources - which will have to be done regardless - fine, but as of now, there is no evidence of notability beyond the mantra. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are some references: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-press+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Direcci%C3%B3n+de+la+Industria+Aeron%C3%A1utica%22 -- Eastmain (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLS (file format)[edit]

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

Non-notable file format that has no third party references to show notability. This file format is supported by several media players but is not the default on any major one. Article as written contains several factual mistakes. That is fixable, but this is why we don't write articles without references. The only third party sources that show up are those on file-format databases. Miami33139 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this file format. Joe Chill (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common file format supported by many media player programs. I'm willing to lower/disregard the notability bar for non-proprietary file formats (it makes the encyclopedia more informative and can't really be considered promotional). --Cybercobra (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Playlist after trimming it down. Doesn't seem to be as well covered as M3U, but it'd fit well as part of the parent article. Fences&Windows 16:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge As it is a common file format supported by many devices and programs. 70.29.209.121 (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article needs some help the information is valuable. Without this article people are likely to end up on one of those "pay us money so we can infect you with spyware or worse and we'll pretend we'll tell you what this file format is." The format is in wide usage through Shoutcast servers and possibly other streaming servers. It is also utilized in standard playlist files for many players, as noted above. JohnCub (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JFileSync[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it might be useful software, but secondary coverage seems to be slight to non-existant. Fails WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Endgame (album). JForget 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

44 Minutes (song)[edit]

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

Multiple Issues that are not being resolved, very short, questionable reasoning on significance. MWOAP (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Endgame (album). Currently, article does not meet WP:NSONGS, and I'm finding very little coverage from reliable sources; just a paragraph-long mention here and a couple trivial mentions here. Will reconsider if significant coverage is shown to exist. Gongshow ^Talk 05:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge. Standard practice for nn songs or singles is to merge to the artist or album. Endgame (album) appears to meet WP:MUSIC, so redirect there.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kmuddy[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a MUD client whose only claim to importance is that it was written to run under KDE. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @138 · 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party sources presented to confirm notability. Miami33139 (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jadu[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable company; article by SPA. While there are many references cited, most of them are press releases, incidental mentions, simply links to customers, or narrow trade rags. I was unable to find substantial independent coverage. Haakon (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Non-promotion for notable company. Many examples of substantial independent coverage exist, e.g. from Google News.--Michig (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @137 · 02:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-promotion for notable company. Jadu contributes to a number of open source projects, most notable is Phalanger (compiler). Many references are reported from reputable sources (e.g. Computer Weekly, V3.co.uk, PublicTechnology).--Cosmotor (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC) — Cosmotor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Non-promotion for notable company. I think the page is useful and should stay where it is - it demonstrates that the same web application can be run on both LAMP and IIS based servers, and also shows the relevancy of Phalanger as a cross-platform tool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedi58 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estepona Golf Club[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Ironholds (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion of notability is a CSD criterion; it has nothing to do with AfD. (Here, one is asked to prove notability.)
Before we consider that, though, is a golf club not a geographical location?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not using the precise wording required. There is no proof of notability, then. No, golf clubs are most certainly not geographical locations - see the guideline itself. If it were to cover golf clubs of all things it could conceivably cover every business and company known to mankind - after all, they have physical locations too. This is ignoring the fact that the geographical locations guideline is a dormant, decrepit proposal for a guideline which never came into effect. Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. If golf clubs aren't geographical locations, then I should think we're heading for a delete, since I haven't found any reliable sources either.
I do want to speak out in defence of the "dormant, decrepit proposal" about geographical locations, though. First, it's not a proposal for a guideline, a fully fledged guideline, or even a policy: it goes much deeper than that. See the first pillar: Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopaedia. It's also a gazetteer. Which is why there's a convention, when dealing with geographical locations, that the Ordnance Survey and its international equivalents count as reliable sources and automatically establish the subject's notability where it's marked on the map.
But we can't have a rule that says everything marked on an official map is notable, or we'd have articles on individual farms, so on further reflection I think I'm in the delete camp.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the guidelines have almost always stated that while atlases, OS and the like are reliable sources for verifiability purposes, they should not be for reliability. Otherwise you have situations where every road, park, footpath, fire station etc are worthy of an article. Ironholds (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 03:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party sources. No inherent notability. Miami33139 (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @137 · 02:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notability, most of text has been copy and pasted from here:[28], it has an overtly promotional tone and a guidebook style table. Grim²³ ★ 05:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both copyright and also just not notable. It qualifies as speedy too Cynof Gavuf 11:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Golf courses aren't communities or major geographical features. Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalerab Gigant[edit]

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

Ostensibly notable jazz-rock group (the first in the Slovak Republic, which did not exist as such during the band's existence, or perhaps they meant Slovak Socialist Republic). As I noted in July 2008, there has been no development of this article (other than maintenance-related tasks) since its creation in November 2007. Tagged as an orphan article since January 2008, and for no references and notability since March 2008. There was no interwiki link to the Slovak Wikipedia (e.g. [29]) and as far as I can tell, the Slovak article does not exist. 2002 CD does not appear on Amazon and there is no entry about the band on Allmusic. Nothing meaningful on Google, for what that's worth. Delete. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. —Gyrofrog (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Gyrofrog (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The band's name apparently translates as "giant kohlrabi" (or vice-versa), which itself is a red link on the Slovak Wikipedia ([30]). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @137 · 02:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Jones (footballer born 1992)[edit]

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

No first team appearances to date means he fails WP:ATHLETE.

No widespread notability showing he passes WP:BIO.

Not yet notable, so should be deleted, pending his professional debut, which may come soon... or may never do. Who knows? Dweller (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the usual reasons per nom. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DRosin (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @136 · 02:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two appearances on the bench in the most useless competition for English league clubs does not make someone notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomVulture19 (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~The result was Change to article about book "The Geometrical Foundation of Natural Structure: A Source Book of Design". — Sebastian 07:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Correction: The result was delete. I am sorry about any inconvenience this causes; after a discussion at User talk:SebastianHelm#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Williams (geometer), I am now convinced that it was not a good idea to try and force such a major change of topic onto this article. Since considerable effort has been put into this article I will be open to incubate or userfy it on request, so that it can be reused for an article about the book. — Sebastian 17:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are 81 articles linking to Robert Williams (geometer), most of them are references to the Source Book of Design. I really hate doing that, but I have to remove them with AWB now. I will post the complete list on the talk page so that it can be reused if the article about the book is created. — Sebastian 17:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Williams (geometer)[edit]

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

Contested prod. No evidence of notability. So-called "references" are just a list of Williams's work, not citations. The entire "Biography" section is totally unsourced. I had tagged the page with ((unreferenced BLP)), but this tag was subsequently removed by the article's author. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: No showing of notability and, even worse, the subject of the article appears to be a FRINGE mathematician who invents his own vocabulary. —Finell 02:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject seems to be active in research, but I'm not seeing evidence that the requirements specified in WP:PROF are met. A non-trivial mention in a secondary source would help. There are a large number of links from other articles, but these can be discounted since they have doubtful notability themselves and the links are from references section coming from his authorship of The Geometrical Foundation of Natural Structure: A Source Book of Design. The book is used as a factual reference only and is not an indication that the author had a significant role in discovery.--RDBury (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Geometrical Foundation of Natural Structure. A Source Book of Design is a classic reference book used by applied geometry people such as crystallographers and structural chemists. Input from applied mathematicians and the like would be useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
weak keep. The might a potential of WP:OR or even uappropriate promotion and the article might require an critical overhaul. You may even question his notability as mathematician or architect, however looking at his book publications the notability as an author/writer seems to be a given for me (at first glance).--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect ~~Keep~~. Although Williams' academic achievements are limited, his influence as the author of The Geometry of Natural Structure has been profound. The recent appearance of its fourth incarnation (the first was in 1969 [31]) speaks for itself. He is notable as a writer about geometry, although possibly not as a geometer per se. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now convinced by David Eppstein's argument below - the book may be notable but the biography is not - vote changed accordingly. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The third edition (there are now four) was published by Dover Press, a high prestige science publisher. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I'm willing to stand corrected on the book but so far I've only seen some nice words with nothing to back them up. Please read WP:PROF, show how the subject meets the criteria given there, and back up your claims with evidence. For example, if the book is so highly regarded then find some published reviews to back it up and note it here and in the article. --RDBury (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Author may be the appropriate category here. Library holdings would be useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep His magnum opus gets 178 gscholar citations a good number especially for someone treading outside the beaten path. 253 worldcat libraries hold the 1979 Dover edition [32]. Evidence for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR.John Z (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If, as looks likely, the article is kept, then I suggest that it be stubbed and its author warned about BLP until sources on the subject are found. Given the lack of notability of the subject, however, it seems very unlikely that reliable sources will be ever be found for the biography section. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the complete lack of sources for anything about him. Regardless of whether or not he passes WP:PROF or WP:AUTH, we can't have an article if we can't say anything that is verifiable and reliably sourced. There does seem to be some notability for his book The Geometry of Natural Structure, so per WP:BIO1E it might be reasonable to have an article about the book and to have this title redirect to it, but even in that case we should rely on reliable sources (published reviews of the book) for anything in such an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per David Eppstein. The only thing that seems to provide a claim to notability is the book The Geometry of Natural Structure and even there the evidence is somewhat indirect; all the biographical info in the article seems to be entirely unverified. It might be appropriate to have an entry about his book (provided one can find independent reviews of it), but not about him. I agree with DE that in this case WP:BIO1E considerations should prevail. Nsk92 (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of significant notability. We are told that "his influence as the author of The Geometry of Natural Structure has been profound", but we are not given citations to any evidence supporting this statement: the same applies to the unsupported statement that his book "is a classic reference book". We are told "looking at his book publications the notability as an author/writer seems to be a given for me (at first glance)", but notability in Wikipedia's sense is established by significant independent coverage, not by the appearance of the subject's own work, quite apart from the unreliability of a "first glance" impression. We are told that one edition of one of Williams's books "was published by Dover Press, a high prestige science publisher", but that comes nowhere near to being relevant to Wikipedia's notability criteria: no matter how prestigious the publisher, we need independent coverage by someone other than the author and publisher. Many significant publishers publish a wide range of publications, including some by non-notable authors. I have myself seen books from Dover by very obscure authors. After the article was proposed for deletion with the statement So-called "references" are just a list of Williams's work, not citations, there has been a concerted effort to produce plausible looking "references" for the article, but none of them really stands up to analysis. For example, one sentence is given a "reference" to a paper by Kelvin, but that paper was published 81 years before the fact to which it is attached as a citation: the "reference" is not a citation supporting the assertion to which it is attached, but merely an external link to a paper on a connected topic. Two of the references given are merely citations for a statement as to what Williams himself regards as his most important work, which cannot conceivably be regarded as independent evidence of notability. One of the citations is to one of Williams's own works. One of the references is given merely in support of the statement that Williams's work has been cited frequently, but the fact of having a citation to a work is not significant independent coverage. (The same applies to a comment above about numbers of citations.) In short, the references given do not give any evidence at all of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, nor even in unreliable independent sources. I do not know whether Finell is right in suggesting that Williams is "a fringe mathematician", but there is no evidence, either in the article or above, that he is not. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I get the distinct impression that the subject is notable although sources are hard to find. His work is widely cited, both in academic papers and books such as CRC concise encyclopedia of mathematics suggesting that he may well pass WP:ACADEMIC. If the claims here are true, and his main work is as important as is claimed, then there seems to be a good case for inclusion if sources can be found to satisfy WP:V.--Michig (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Firstly, "I get the distinct impression that the subject is notable although sources are hard to find" is not a criterion for keeping under Wikipedia policy: we need verifaible sources, not somebody's impression. Secondly, nothing in WP:ACADEMIC can possibly be interpreted, as far as I can see, as meaning that being cited quite a bit establishes notability. Instead we have such criteria as "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level", and "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society", and "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" (my emphasis) etc etc, and Williams does not satisfy any of them. Thirdly, in answer to "If the claims here are true...", the "claims" in question are made on a web page promoting Williams's work for sale: Wikipedia requires independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His book The Geometrical Foundation of Natural Structure. A Source Book of Design is an actively referenced book, original and unique. There are too many Robert Williams for an intelligent google search anyone interested in the author. My only question is content. I don't know what content there ought to be about people on Wikipedia. For instance, I helped expand a biography on another geometer, Magnus Wenninger, equally unnoteworthy in the wider culture, but was the right person in the right time to help expand a subject and got published. Robert's original book stands equally unique, and worthy. Again, I just don't know what "personal" details are important. I can't defend ANY personal biography beyond a single sentence "<Mr. Smith>, born ...., is notable for ....". Tom Ruen (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure what "actively referenced" means, but there are many works which are "original and unique" but completely un-notable: that is not a criterion for inclusion. As for the number of Robert Williamses being too big for a Google search, it is perfectly easy to use more specific searches, such as "Robert Williams" "Catenatic Geometry" or "Robert Williams" "Hierarchical Structure", or "Robert Williams" plus the title of one of his books, or even something as general as "Robert Williams" mathematician, etc etc. I have tried a dozen such searches, and found plenty of promotion of Williams's work, but no substantial independent coverage. In any case, Wikipedia requires actual citable and verifiable sources, not just someone's feeling that there may perhaps be sources out there somewhere, but they are too difficult to find. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out before that there are 178 GS cites for the book that are independent and verifiable and 253 worldcat library holdings. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I think you may be overplaying your hand a bit. Google cites are one thing insofar as they indicate that the subject is possibly notable enough to have been covered substantially by independent reliable sources. But they do not automatically confer this notability on a subject. Does one of these 178 GS cites have a biography of the subject, or at least something that could lead to an encyclopedia article? If the answer is yes, then it should be stated. If not, then from WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the notability criteria for WP:Prof. GS cites are not expected to contain biographical information. Please note the quote "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." from here. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstand my post. Nowhere in WP:PROF is there a "Google scholar" exemption from the requirements of providing sources for a subject. While it is a fair indicator that there may be such sources, search engine scores are not prima facie evidence that an article should be kept, as you seem to believe. Rather there must be available sources that say something about the subject of the article: we do have WP:V to consider as well (which is what I quote), and this is policy. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xxanthippe says "It has been pointed out before that there are 178 GS cites for the book..." Yes, and it has also been pointed out before that "nothing in WP:ACADEMIC can possibly be interpreted ... as meaning that being cited quite a bit establishes notability". Presumably Xxanthippe read that but forgot it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being cited quite a bit is the most commonly used criterion for academic notability here. WP:PROF, Notes and Examples 1 :"The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work" (Criterion 1 is "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.").John Z (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are still needed, whatever the particular search ranking is. It is unfortunate that misunderstandings about the proper application of WP:PROF seem to be so widespread. It may need to be taken in hand. Anyway, something that has been systematically overlooked in this deletion discussion is that 178 Google cites for a scientific book is hardly a staggering figure. Among the better-cited works on my own shelf, Foundations of Differential Geometry (a book that still lacks a Wikipedia article) gets well over 3000 citations on google scholar. On the more obscure end, even the book "Geometric function theory and non-linear analysis" by Tadeusz Iwaniec and Gaven Martin gets 266 google scholar hits. (I do not think the latter is notable enough for an article, nor do I believe its authors are.) If, as has been claimed in this AfD, the subject of the article is "extremely influential", then it is really not a lot to ask for some sources. Once again, to quote WP:V policy: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." So... are there sources or not? Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. or at the very least there isn't sufficient consensus for deletion JForget 22:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Thomas Hay[edit]

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

This seems to be an article without independent sources. The only claim to notability is - admittedly quite a lot of - mildly trite books. It does not seem to have any chance of meeting notability criteria. I suggest deletion. Civis Romanus (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've good-faith submitted this for a non-autoconfirmed user. tedder (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does that jargon mean? Since the Nominator is an admitted sock-puppet (see her (Civis Romanus) TalkPage) are you 'vouching' for a sock-puppet? I would suggest that there is no such thing as "good-faith submitted" for any "non-autoconfirmed user". Don't you realize there is a reason why that other 'entity' is "non-autoconfirmed"? It is because there is no "good faith" applicable to that user. When that user, herself, has complied with the honorable procedures that qualify one for the privilege of being "autoconfirmed" then she can "submit" herself. For you to step up and say you are "submitting" for a "non-autoconfirmed user" is a little like saying you are the one letting underage kids into the drinking-party through the back door, right? Joe Hepperle (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP because the Nominator is a sock-puppet account (by her own admission on her TalkPage). Secondly, the page that 'sock-puppet' is trying to delete shows that the subject of that page is the author of more than twelve books on steam trains. The fact that sock-puppet thinks that Steam Trains is a 'trite' subject should have no bearing here. The sock-puppet's claim of no 'independent sources' is mind boggling since there are at least 15 sources given (by my quick count). Additionally, the article itself states the claim of notability, that being that the subject is an "...authority on British Steam Railways...", and that the subject is the "...author [of] numerous books and articles on the subject..." including a published book "series" in his area of expertise. The references need to be integrated inline into the article, but there is no basis whatsoever for deleting. Joe Hepperle (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DOUBLE-STRONG KEEP What underhandedness is going on here? I just checked the page-history for this page and discovered that the supposed nominator, Civis Romanus, has never been on this page whatsoever! Instead, it is the 'second' commenter, Tedder, who falsely posted twice, by cutting and pasting 'Civis Romanus's' user timestamp information onto her (Tedder's) first post. Then, she came back as herself (Tedder)and posted again. If any Admins read this, Tedder should be censured somehow, I can't believe that "false postings" are at one with Wikipedia policies. Joe Hepperle (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Tedder is an administrator. Tedder created this nomination for User:Civis Romanus because that user is not yet autoconfirmed, and is not yet able to nominate. See Civis Romanus's request for an afd on the article's talk page. Also, you are only allowed to !vote once. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. Jujutacular explained it well- I monitor the list of incomplete AFDs and good-faith submit them for nominators who can't do som themselves, because they aren't allowed to create pages (which means they cannot complete an AFD). I have no knowledge of the Peter Thomas Hay aside from this, I've never seen or heard of User:Civis Romanus. If you are truly accusing me of using User:Civis Romanus as a WP:SOCK, please gladly file a WP:SPI report. I'd be more than happy to prove through a checkuser that it isn't me. Further, no activities of mine have ever indicated I'd have a need for a sock account such as this. Civis Romanus has been to the Peter Thomas Hay article page- here's their incomplete AFD nomination attempt. Finally, note I'm not even trying to vote on this AFD. I don't know or care about it. tedder (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is written clearly above, that User:Civis Romanus is the SockPuppet. User:Civis Romanus is the user operating a rogue Sock userpage contrary to Wikipedia policy pertaining to [legitimate uses of a 'second' account]. All sock accounts that are created for one of the 'listed' legitimate reasons are required to have a link, on the sock page, to the user's 'real' or 'main' page. Civis Romanus's sock page contains neither a link to her main page, nor a valid reason (per WP policy) for having that sock page.

And you're right, the evidence that is available here does not show Tedder to be a sock, which is why I said that User:Civis Romanus is the sock, not Tedder. But WP policy prohibits creating sock accounts for the purpose of bypassing WP policies. WP policy states that non-autoconfirmed accounts are not eligible to do what User:Civis Romanus wants to do. User:Civis Romanus could have easily switched over to her Main account and do the ((afd)). But she didn't. That leaves a gaping question, "Why can't she use her Main account to nominate this article for deletion?". Nonetheless, she is trying to use her Sock account to delete an article. But her sock account is not qualified (per WP policy) to do this. Tedder has assisted the Sock Puppet account, User:Civis Romanus, to bypass WP policy.

Tedder is not the sock. Tedder has assisted the Sock Puppet account, User:Civis Romanus, to bypass WP policy. Tedder has also edited this page (here! not there) but copy-and-pasted another user's username and timestamp at the end of the edit which I believe is also another counter-policy technique. I applaud Tedder for being willing to help those editors who need help. I just couldn't square it in my mind though why she would help an illegal sock account try to delete an article here, but over [here] she helped to permanently ban a legitimate user on mere suspicion of the account being a sock. (I will soon be posting a note on Tedder and Secret's talk pages soon (per WP guidelines) about their inappropriate misuse of Admin Tools- i.e. not following the WP policy for dealing with suspected sock puppets as found [here]) Joe Hepperle (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the incorrect place to make accusations of sockpuppetry and/or aiding a sockpuppet. Please consider CR's actions (as well as my own) in good faith. If you continue to see this as a problem, take it to WP:ANI, not here. tedder (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - without getting into the sock-puppet/nominator argument, the subject seems notable on his own merits. --MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete Every reference currently in the article is self-published. From my search, I could not find significant third-party coverage of this author. I would be open to discussing any decent sources that can be found. Jujutacular ^T · C 12:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I believe the subject is notable, but the references need improving. Have added 2 new references from BBC website and British Design Museum site. Caruso 308 (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All references are WP:SELFPUB, and this individual fails the notability guidelines at WP:AUTHOR. Whether or not the nominator is a sock-puppet is something for the admins to deal with, and shouldn't affect our !votes on this AfD. SnottyWong talk 12:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the subject is notable and sock puppetry taints the Nominator - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Self published references removed and further third party references added. Caruso 308 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not verifiable, let alone passing WP:ORG Fences&Windows 16:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Sigma Phi[edit]

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

Requested to be moved from suer talk page; people appended these queries. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Leahkh 5/Tau Sigma Phi → Tau Sigma Phi (move) — I'm unable to move it on my own Leahkh 5 (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel reasonably sure that this would fail an AfD as being non notable and so I would suggest it shouldn't be moved out of userspace. BigHairRef | Talk 01:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There are many pages for individual sororities and fraternities, including local ones. Leahkh 5 (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just to add a point here, the article may also fail WP:V as the article is entrely self referential. I don't dispute (for the sake of argument) that it exists with 26 members, but do we only take the group itself's word that it is notable and the sources from its own website are unbiased for any other usage? BigHairRef | Talk 13:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. No independent reliable sources have been provided, and student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the main independent source would be the university's Greek Council, which is still in the process of building a website. I placed the organization's own website as the source, because it contains the most thorough information. Leahkh 5 (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fibron Technologies[edit]

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

I can't find anything on google news, including archive searches. There are some hits on the archive, but including the buzzwords gets only one hit: [33] which is an announcement of venture funding. There's simply no WP:RS coverage at this point. Shadowjams (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage, probably because of highly technical nature of what this company does. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Stacy[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No coverage identified. Unable to find coverage on him, Blingco, or OneDayWealth. ^Bongo_matic 01:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Cynof Gavuf 11:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aaron Carter. This isn't a notable single release. Fences&Windows 16:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dance with Me (Aaron Carter song)[edit]

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

Zero notability as a single release. Wolfer68 (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @183 · 03:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say the article has zero notability as a single release. However, according to WP:NSONGS, the single has been released and has been confirmed and promoted by the artist, Aaron Carter, therefore, it qualifies to have an independent article than the album. Plus, the song is available for purchase on iTunes and Amazon.com as a single. Cougars2012 (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where it says that on WP:NSONGS. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article because of the notability of the artists, Aaron Carter and Flo Rida, and the probability that it will be successful. It is Carter's comeback single and Flo Rida is a very well known rapper. It could be compared to the similar page of the Britney Spears song, 3, as it was created before the song was even released by the record company. Like you said early referencing WP:NSONGS, "...have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Aaron Carter and Flo Rida are notable and it is performed by them. Cougars2012 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about instead of deleting the article, we redirect it to Aaron Carter? Cougars2012 (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aaron Carter as suggested. If the song becomes a mega-hit and notable on its own basis, the article can always be recreated. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSONGS, redirect can be installed after deletion if desired, but none of the content needs to be retained.—Kww(talk) 18:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate & Professional Student Association (GPSA)[edit]

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

contested prod. Text is already duplicated in Arizona_State_University#Student_government, where it is appropriate; not notable as a stand alone article. Deletion more appropriate than creating a redirect, as many university's grad student orgs are called GPSA. Original creator already notified. phoebe / (talk to me) 01:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without a redirect - non-unique, non-notable, and a stub. --MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House Ear Clinic[edit]

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

Advertisment. Nothing encyclopaedic about it at all Mattg82 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Written like an advert, with most of the content being staff details taken from the company website. Very little encyclopedic information, and not notable per Joe Chill. Gilo ö 17:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertisement. Only "references" are links to the company's website. As Joe Chill always says "I can't find significant coverage for this [insert appropriate description, linked to corresponding policy/guideline]", Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 20:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THE MINDANAO AUTONOMOUS COLLEGE[edit]

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

People sure do like to forget that Wikipedia is not advertising. Eight Ounce Kitten (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be salvaged. Eeekster (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Mindanao Autonomous College to get rid of the all-caps article name. The article is a stub, not an advertisement. – Eastmain (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass notability per WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability (and notability). (However, I agree with Eastmain that the article is not written like an advertisement.) I have Googled unsuccessfully for third-party documentation. I searched the "CHED" database mentioned in the article (more formally the Philippines Directory of Higher Education Institutions, online at this link) and found "Mindanao Autonomous College Foundation," but not "Mindanao Autonomous College". If someone else can find some sources, I likely would change my mind on this, but at this point I don't think there's a basis for an article. --Orlady (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps the college's legal name is "Mindanao Autonomous College Foundation". The college verifiably exists, or at least its choir does, according to this search. – Eastmain (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I googled the school again, and found it mentioned in another reliably sourced news item that did not turn up earlier: a Philippine Information Agency press release indicating that the college participated in a mass planting of mangrove seedlings in 2007. --Orlady (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The listing found by Orlady (under the name "Mindanao Autonomous College Foundation") is another verification. Some of the other colleges in that document include "Foundation" as part of their name. But I am puzzled as to why more information on the college isn't available. – Eastmain (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now and move to Mindanao Autonomous College or userfy. Colleges are almost always notable. The "foundation" part of its name may indicate its private ownership by a foundation, as opposed to "public", i.e., city or provincial ownership. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Colleges are almost always notable, but that presupposes that the basic information about them is supported by some sort of source. This article is still completely unsourced -- and thus unverifiable. --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

public official colleges are almost always notable but not private specialist ones. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:ORG. only 1 trivial hit in gnews [34]. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider blocking author as a spam-only account. Just deleted a NN bio for one of this place's professors. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just blocked the user. He/she posted that NN bio yet again; all edits were on the subject of this school. No talk page edits, nothing. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has been blocked indefinitely, and the copyright violation has been cleaned up. NW (Talk) 02:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lynden Christian Schools[edit]

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

All of the references only link to the website. Eight Ounce Kitten (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All secondary schools are notable. From Google News Archive, I found this article and this article from The Bellingham Herald. Cunard (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Plenty of sports and other typical secondary-source coverage. 5,190 hits at Google News Archives. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not all schools are notable; just most, including this one. Them From Space 01:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard, etc. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 06:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely! I look at a lot of articles for schools (because they are fertile territory for reverting vandalism). So I see a lot of good ones, and many poor ones. My inclination is to give school articles a bit of slack because they are often written by students who know how to write, but don't know what the concept of Wikipedia is all about. It's better to send the original author(s) some suggestions for improvement, plus some encouraging words, in order to educate them. Threatening to delete the entire page is harsh. This particular one is a bit above the average. -- Biglovinb (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article has issues, the mantra that "AfD is not cleanup" applies here. Editing can fix these issues, and notability has been established above. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio. Content is taken almost verbatim from official website, only changes appear to be changes from first-person to third-person. Example, history section is match to "our history" on website [35]. No salvageable content; previous cleanups were undone by COI editor and in any event left article with no coherent content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not speedy. I am simply rewriting or removing the copyvio, and anyone could have done the same. I often do it for a clearly notable topic, if it's easy enough. In this case it leaves just a stub, but nothing wrong with that. But it's odd nobody noticed till just now --it implies nobody checked the references--worse, it implies nobody read the article carefully, or checked the history, because, just as HW said, it gives extremely clear signs of being copypaste. After the AfD, it could be protected if necessary, but it is not, because the COI ed. hasn't been here for months. . DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - contains a high school and sufficient sources exist, that can be added, to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There seems to be a likely chance that the subject has recieved significant coverage in some Malayalam sources, but this doesn't appear to have been investigated well. The information in the article is not of a controversial or libellous nature, so while more sources are required, this isn't an urgent BLP situation where I'd be more inclined to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joy J. Kaimaparamban[edit]

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

Non-notable writer, no evidence of passing AUTHOR or PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me to be worth keeping if it can be verified Polarpanda (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently lacking WP:V and falling short of WP:GNG. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's something funny going on here with this article. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 06:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 06:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Well known writer in Malayalam literature. Several of his books have been published by publishing major DC Books. Had won Kunkumam Award for his novel Theerabhoomikal – A mention of Kunkumam Award can be seen here. !Voting weak keep because not much 3rd party reliable sources are available on the net. I am sure sources must be available in Malayalam print. Salih (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the most famous author in the world, but seems to have acquired some notability within Malayalam. Worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great -- can you provide sources that establish this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to those mentioned by others, this notes one of the author's works was being made into a movie [36]. Several of the author's books are on Google Books. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of the author in that citation. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says "This film worked on the storylines of Joy J Kaimaparamban will start this week in and around Cherthala." Unfortunately, I can't find anything else about the movie, so I don't know what happened with it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. The relevant criteria would be "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" or "work ... subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I could find nothing that indicates this sort of notability, and very little apart from self-published articles like this. I don't think this is bias. This mentions two books, and this mentions a third. This mentions a screenplay. But no reviews or comments. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... there could be a problem finding sources due to the script. Malayalam sources would work if they showed notability. If ml.wikipedia had an entry for this author, with references, that would be good enough for me. But if there are no references at all, no ml:wiki version... Aymatth2 (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I do believe that all notable subjects deserve an article, I do not believe they necessarily deserve the article attributed to their name. This subject seems to be notable in a Language other than English, which makes sourcing difficult. Given the award posted in the above link, I am inclined to believe that there are independent sources out there but that they may be limited by the language barrier. If there is a chance that more references can be added to verify the information in the article, I would love to change my vote to keep, but at present, I would lean towards deletion unless more information is added, perhaps by someone familiar with the author's native language. Mrathel (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sebastian 21:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my reason for relisting is not to create more discussion. Rather I have two reasons:

Several credible editors indicated that they are aware of reliable sources. The one link provided, [37], seems to indicate that the Kunkumam Award may be notable, but I can not see that the author actually won that award. It is also not clear whether Express News Service is a reliable source. I want to give these editors a chance to research. If no reliable sources are provided in that time, I recommend closing as delete.
The Express News Service is a reliable source, their Wikipedia page is here. Salih (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure - that's a reliable source! — Sebastian 06:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these links [38], [39], and [40] might help establish the notability of the Kunkumam Award. Salih (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, these don't meet the WP:GNG criteria for the Kunkumam Award, since they don't have "significant coverage" of that award. Look at the entries in List of literary awards#Indian literature (apart from the first two, which are not well referenced and a redlink, respectively). Do you think you could create such an article about the Kunkumam Award? If you did that then you would not have to worry about this article anymore; even if it should have been deleted in the meantime, I would restore it. — Sebastian 06:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that Kunkumam Award does not have significant coverage on web, but not having listed under List of literary awards#Indian literature does not in any way undermine the importance(?) of the award. That list is only partial. Salih (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could still be an important award; there are probably many important things in India that we're missing. ~~I understand it's hard to create a whole new article, but maybe you could add something about the award to the article Malayalam literature?~~ We still need a reliable reference that Joy J. Kaimaparamban actually got the award, of course. — Sebastian 08:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the article Malayalam Literary Awards. Unfortunately, it says nothing about the awards, and has no references whatsoever. It also doesn't mention the Kunkumam Award. If you helped improve that article, it might also make sense to include the Kunkumam Award. — Sebastian 08:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To include Kunkumam Award in the article, I should at least know who are all won that award :-) If possible I'll make a visit to the nearest library shortly! (no problem if an admin take a decision regarding the fate of this article in the meantime) Salih (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to give editors familar with Malayam a chance to transwiki the article to ml.wikipedia.

I am aware that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions says "if [...] the discussion has only one or two commenters", but I believe it is better to ignore this for the indicated reasons. There is no rush to close this. — Sebastian 21:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. There may be Malayalam sources. I am a bit skeptical, but there is no urgency to close at all. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is BLP, and the page cannot sit indefinitely in a discussed format. This is why there is a "default to..." used sometimes... I generally hate it, but unsourced BLP information cannot be left alone forever, and it's surprising no one as chopped up the article to help it. The only things that can be considered for the delete/keep opinions should be what is sourced. Cut out what's not directly supported by the one reference offered, change to stub, leave the AfD on. All that unsourced info is a red herring to base opinion off of, unfortunately. If a BLP article is in proper form and cited, then yes the AfD can go on. If not? Do a BLP blanking, close as delete, G6 it. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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