< 7 October	9 October >

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) 23:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Themsie Times[edit]

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

WP:BLP failing WP:bio: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." $P i k i w y n$ ^talk 09:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Of the 2 references currently on the article, one appears to be a trivial mention, the other looks non trivial but I don't read Afrikaans. Also found this from Sarie which looks non trivial but again, it's in Afrikaans. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 8 October 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) 23:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: See Ron above - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 9 October 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) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Hurst[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted article that has been recreated. Same editor, same autobiographical style. Once again, this is a self-created promotional resume for a local performer who does not appear to meet WP:BIO. There is substantial conflict of interest. The only actual "references" provided are a couple of local-interest mentions in his hometown Courier newspaper, and the rest appears to be reviews, etc. (A cursory mention in a BBC article about a play he is in is still just that: a cursory mention.) Looks somewhat different than the previous version that was deleted, so brought here in lieu of a WP:CSD#G4. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the author has no other contributions, save for introducing information about himself into other articles. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think we should zero tolerance of WP:AUTO, but in any case his press coverage (passing mention of his role in BBC reviews of stage shows) is too minor to pass WP:ENT. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, insufficient evidence of passing notability standards. GlassCobra 17:25, 14 October 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 20:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Ricca[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Spammy article on a "video vixen" w/o sources and no GNews hits, with no demonstration of notability. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But what if we WP:LIKE "video vixens?" Edison (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She's mentioned in this article, can anyone access to see if its non-trivial? (excerpt: "Nicole Ricca. Ricca, a native of Jamaica, is presently in New York City working, says she is working enough through Ethnicity that she does not...") Article needs rewrite, but not sure she is actually non-notable. --Milowent (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Mbinebri, fails WP:ENT. An attractive young woman, of course, but see no evidence of notability here. Ohiostandard (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In followup to my above comment (hopefully someone can pull that article?). I did some rewriting and expanding of the article, I think she just crosses over into notability to me. Though I have little knowledge of black-focused american media (which is not a small niche), clearly she was/is a popular niche "ethnicity" model. And apparently a "video vixen" is typically a black female model who appears in rap music videos, though the term seems a bit informal. A boatload of video appearances listed in the article, and lots of informal discussion that can be found about her online; she's not just some unknown model like those that rightfully go to AfD regularly. (Aside: I had added a youtube link from a morning talk show to support the belly casting claim, but Mbinebri removed because, as I see, probably is a copyright viol issue) --Milowent (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Featured on numerous notable magazines, and in notable music videos. Dream Focus 15:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly fails WP:ENT. Random appearances in music videos aside, of the new sources added, most are not significant coverage about Nicole herself, just her name mentioned in passing. Two are focused on Mario, not her (and the later does not appear to be a reliable source, but a gossip blog). The article from "The King" is about Hype Williams, and you have to hunt to find Nicole's mention. And Global Grind is basically a gallery of "Eye candy" with a bio of Nicole taken word from word from her own MySpace. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 19:01, 1 October 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) 23:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing media mentions are not enough to satisfy WP:ENT. Kevin (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reading WP:ENT she clearly does not qualify. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appearing in music videos and getting a few small mentions does not satisfy WP:ENT. GlassCobra 17:23, 14 October 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loraine Patrick[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. (Also tagged for notability since April 2008) ƒ(Δ)² 09:19, 23 September 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 17:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails criteria for inclusion of both WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE could find little evidence of her at all. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's probably because you are looking under her married name. Her maiden name is Loraine Webber, and under that name one finds things such as an interview in the newsletter of Queen Margaret University, which she attended. Uncle G (talk) 19:01, 1 October 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) 23:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. Simply working in the media doesn't make one notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:38, 9 October 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. Listed for a month and a half with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (which is Durova). Though I'm closing "keep", I have no problem with a speedy renomination if the issues raised by the "weak keep" !voters are not addressed. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tricephalous[edit]

Keep: It appears that the page of this Deviant Mutate is pended for deletion. I say it should stay and be expanded in our own words. Besides, Tricephalous is going to appear in "The Super Hero Squad Show. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete with comment Article creator blanked PROD and replaced it with an AFD template, but without copying the prod rationale. "Minimal content, no third party sources or demonstration of notability outside fictional universe." Article creator has since entered one abbreviated reference which I was unable to parse. No objection to keeping the article if it improves. Durova³¹¹ 20:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 18:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article contains resourceful information, the main issue is the article references too many copyrighted sources (i.e. Comic books) which can not be verified in a encyclopedic fashion. Without valid third party resources to cite the article lacks any true content. If additional external open sources for the information contained can be cited, the article would be acceptable. Aramova (talk) 01:12, 23 September 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 16:17, 1 October 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) 23:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, for reasons given by Aramova. Has two external links, but they are not third party references, and thus are primary source, which doesn't add to verifiability of notability of article's subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:46, 9 October 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) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IBN Sports[edit]

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

No evidence of passing WP:WEB. --aktsu ^(t / c) 20:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources currently in the article appear to be press releases or links to the IBN sports site. There does not appear to be any reliable sources that discuss the site to establish notability ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider Reuters a reliable new source? "IMG and iBN Sports Announce Worldwide Distribution Pact" - http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS178373+26-May-2009+MW20090526 Eckinc (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters is a reliable source, but this "article" appears to be a press release. From the sound of it, IMG and iBN sports wrote the "article" so it is not a reliable source to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly never heard of IMG. IMG is a global leader in event management and talent representation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMG_(business). Your requirements for a "reliable source" seem questionable. Eckinc (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what I said to make you think I have not heard of IMG before, but I must not have been clear in my statement. To establish notability you need to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Since the Reuters article is not independent of IBN sports it is not significant coverage that establishes notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:56, 4 October 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) 23:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is not based on independent reliable sources. The Reuters "article" is in fact a press release, which does not stabilish notability. Algébrico (talk) 01:43, 10 October 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) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FNPower100[edit]

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

Listcruft - very few of the people listed have articles. Could also be considered a copyvio from Footwear News. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 October 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) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no secondary sources, meaning no evidence of notability. (i.e. no evidence that anyone except Footwear News - the publisher of the list - thinks this list is notable). Peter Ballard (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since Footwear News itself is a redlink, I doubt that this list deserves an article. GlassCobra 17:19, 14 October 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 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Clugston[edit]

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

Was originally a prod but removed as "Notability is on the grounds that she is broadcast to millions of listeners which might lead to natural curiousity (as in my case), the basic reason for an encyclopaedia", however I don't think that address the concern that the notability is not established to the degree required by Wikipedia:Notability (people). The main problem is the lack of references to demonstrate notability. Of the three references cited, two are from the BBC raising concerns about their connection with the subject, and the other one is pretty trivial. Adambro (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They enjoy fairly widespread coverage on the BBC and coverage from the BBC itself is certainly enough to meet any issue of WP:V. Notability is admittedly marginal, but IMHO does fall on the side of adequate (the comment on curiosity is also a good one). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no it isn't. It's a completely spurious argument. There are many things that people may be curious about that are not currently parts of the general corpus of human knowledge. Wikipedia is about what is known, not about what people want to know. Uncle G (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you dispute this article's ability to address what is known, i.e. WP:V? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wrote what I actually wrote, not something else. Uncle G (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Curiosity, and wishing to know something, certainly doesn't guarantee knowing it — but nor does it contradict it. This is an article that people might wish to know, it's also an article with adequate WP:V that we can robustly claim to know this. We have no problem with it on that score. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You prove my point for me. The comment on curiosity was not "a good one". It was, as I said, spurious. Uncle G (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So what is your point? It appears to be that we can't reliably know anything about this person, which (if true) would certainly mean that we'd be unable to write about them. Your evidence for this seems to be that curiousity implies a lack of knowledge. Although we're often curious about the unknown, the converse that we're only curious about the unknown is a non sequitur. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have clearly and straightforwardly stated my point twice, now. This is the second time that you've put a different set of words into my mouth in response. Please read the words actually written. Uncle G (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You have stated that the argument is "spurious" and "not good", but provided nothing to back this up. You then went off on an irrelevant digression about the limits of knowledge: that is either a claim that this article is unverifiable or unknowable (false), or else it's an irrelevance. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I recently re-wrote a BLP about BBC announcer Sally Traffic after it was deleted. I found a lot of tabloid and trivial mention in sources, but also managed to find 20 or so fairly solid ones. I am betting a good editor who took their time could do that for Kathy Clugson but it takes time that most Wikipedia rescuers undevoted to their subject matter don't/won't commit to. Miami33139 (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd love to keep the article as not only is she a newsreader on Radio 4 but she also plays the ukulele. But... I can't find good sources. So I'm neutral. Fences&Windows 01:17, 6 October 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) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Article's subject appears to meet bare minimum requirements of notability, per WP:BIO, in so much that there have been at least one source provided that is not connected to the subject, i.e. not the BBC. If additional sources can be found, I would change my statement to Keep. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:52, 9 October 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 Times Community Newspapers#Rappahannock News. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rappahannock News Times[edit]

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

A local weekly paper which gets 19 Google hits. There are no sources that help establish notability. Speedy tag removed with the false claim that newspapers are exempt from A7. Deprodded with the edit summary "niche newspaper which serves community of Washington, Viriginia. Cited as a reliable source in other Wikipedia articles". I am not of the opinion that all local newspapers deserve an article, and would prefer to see the usual standards of the General notability guideline applied to this for-profit corporation. Abductive (reasoning) 22:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that all newspapers should have an article. This is one of the very few times that I use WP:IAR. Joe Chill (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the ((UK regional daily newspapers)) template, for example, you will see that many daily UK newspapers don't have articles. That's consistent with people not ignoring the notability rules. Abductive (reasoning) 02:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't care. Joe Chill (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with regrets. I would go with WP:IAR if this seemed like it was worthy, but this is just a small weekly newspaper with a staff of three. I can't see how it even comes close to passing WP:N. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small, non-notable newspaper. GlassCobra 17:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Redirect to Times Community Newspapers#Rappahannock News, per below. GlassCobra 14:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Times Community Newspapers#Rappahannock News, the newspaper group that owns this weekly. I have completed the merge. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Times Community Newspapers#Rappahannock News seems reasonable to me.--RadioFan (talk) 12:10, 15 October 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) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Your Villain[edit]

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

Non-single, and non-notable. Keytar Shredder (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appears to meet notability per WP:NSONG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NSONGS, never charted, never released as a single, not covered. Possibly redirect to its album, You Could Have It So Much Better. talking birds 18:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSONGS per above. GlassCobra 16:34, 14 October 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) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Henry[edit]

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

No sources to prove any of the claims, let alone show notability. Prod removed by creator without addressing concern.

I did find a "Jason Henry" listed with a 7-14 record at MMAUniverse.com but not on the more reliable (and listing pro-fights only) Sherdog.com. This MMA-blog has an article on mentioned amateur-organization "Unplugged Fights", but does not mention Henry. He is listed on LinkedIn as having that position, but I can't imagine that is a reliable source.

A Jason Henry seems to have fought twice at IFC 8 (going 1-1, see MMAUniverse), but I was unable to find anything on him winning a lightweight title, and even if he did that is by all accounts not notable by itself being in a very minor organization.

In short, no sources to establish notability per WP:GNG/WP:BIO. --aktsu ^(t / c) 22:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he was on the U.S. Olympic judo team as the article claims, I think he would pass the notability requirement for athletes. However, when I look at the list of U.S. Olympic judo teams at http://judoinfo.com/usolympic.htm I don't see his name. Papaursa (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MMA universe is not wonderfully reliable for records (they had me down for a pro fight rather than amateur @ one point) if his name is also failing to appear for other claims then sounds non-notable) --Nate ^t/_c 18:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Considering the Olympics claim hasn't been validated (as Papaursa points out), it doesn't seem to be notable. I wouldn't consider LinkedIn as a reliable source for the CEO claim, as anyone can put anything in their own profile. Additionally, I'm not sure the company would meet notability either. In short, not enough sources to establish notability. Vincent Valentine 03:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nate1481 and VincentValentine29 above, fails WP:ATHLETE. GlassCobra 16:33, 14 October 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) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reiff Funeral Home[edit]

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

A non-notable funeral home. It was deprodded by ThaddeusB on the grounds that it has survived in a bundled AfD. Going through the 3600 Google News hits is a pain, but those are mostly death notices. When one filters out those, only 9 News items remain. They do nothing for advancing any claim of notability for this ordinary business. Abductive (reasoning) 22:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this funeral home. Joe Chill (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amazing that this and some others have stayed up since 2006. Not an ad put up the funeral home, but apparently part of someone's project [1] about funeral homes in and near Dubuque, Iowa. See also Martin Page Funeral Home and Hoffmann-Schneider Funeral Home Mandsford (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Hoffmann-Schneider Funeral Home has some chance of being notable, as the oldest funeral home in Iowa. Back when I reviewed some Jesster79's creations for deletion-worthy items, I found enough sources to convince me not to prod it or even put a notability tag on it. Even though retired, Jesster79 still has 398 articles on Wikipedia, and aside from some questionable choices of non-notable banks, churches and funeral homes, and uploading some possibly non-free images, never seemed to get into much trouble. We should all be like Jesster79. Abductive (reasoning) 18:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Joe Chill, no substantive coverage found. GlassCobra 16:32, 14 October 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 20:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seton Hall University School of Law Entertainment and Sports Law Society[edit]

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

Non-notable student club. Before I prod-tagged, I searched by the more loose "Entertainment and Sports Law Society" "Seton Hall University" which gives 18 Google hits. Deprodded by an IP with no improvement to the article. Abductive (reasoning) 21:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a non-notable club that also might be about to run afoul of WP:NOTWEBHOST by listing the programs of all their seminars. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally not notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional material for the Seton Hall law school, and cut and paste from their website. One of the perks if you get accepted to Seton Hall, I suppose. Mandsford (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not merely spam; it is a sponsor of a notable legal symposium; or merge. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90 and Mandsford. GlassCobra 16:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If they have a publication or other influence then they're notable, but there's no independent coverage in a reliable source that indicates the group is notable. Any particular school will have dozens of these clubs. That doesn't make them notable. Shadowjams (talk) 22:59, 14 October 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) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Letzelter[edit]

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

Player appears to fail WP:ATHLETE, sources show that the highest level he has played at is the Championnat National, which is not on the list of fully-pro leagues. Lack of sources so seems to also fail WP:GNG -- Big Dom 21:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It won't hurt to keep and expand the article, would it? Btilm 21:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've made quite a few edits to this page, mostly updating stats, and I noticed that he hadn't played in a fully pro league. If you can find some reliable, non-primary sources to expand the article then go ahead but I haven't found any. -- Big Dom 21:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I changed my vote. I agree with GiantSnowman. Btilm 02:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unfortunately he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG; until either of these concerns are met, he isn't notable. Giant Snowman 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per GiantSnowman. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above Spiderone 11:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. GlassCobra 16:30, 14 October 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) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of productions of the University of Canterbury Drama Society[edit]

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

I fail to see how a list of plays put on by a student club at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand is not in violation of WP:NOT#DIR. The article was deprodded by its creator, with the argument that because the University of Canterbury Drama Society is notable (no secondary sources are in its article, btw), the list of plays is too. I have carefully checked; lists such as this are very unusual on Wikipedia; there are four, for three better-known (but still not the heavy hitters one might expect) theatre companies/festivals, and are, in my opinion, equally in violation of NOT#DIR. It would take some serious secondary sources, remarking at the amazing series of plays this club has put on, for this list to be notable on its own right. Abductive (reasoning) 21:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd say that a listing of student plays would pretty much be a violation of WP:NOT#DIR too. Without any proper sourcing (and university papers typically aren't considered reliable sources for play reviews), this should go. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note This is potentially notable, since Ngaio Marsh was involved in the early years and there are numerous secondary sources on her. Whether they can or will be bought to bear is another matter. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that would make the Drama society notable, not require a separate article listing their productions. Notability isn't inherited, or in this case, transferred. If they're only notable because of her, then we should just have a list of her productions. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't make a !vote as I have a significant CoI, having been the society's archivist. I'd just like to point out that I wasn't the article's creator. I found it in a fairly sorry state and expanded considerably. It is interesting to note that the list was created by splitting it from the parent article on the society. However it is probably too long to merge back. Modern productions (since the 1970's) have far less significance nationally than earlier ones, but setting inclusion criteria for a list of significant productions would be quite difficult.dramatic (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a list of every production is de facto webhosting. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though no objection of a smerge of the more notable productions into the article on the society (which is definitely notable but needs better sourcing). Grutness...wha? 23:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-weak delete, per nom, but admittedly has some potential, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABLE. Also fails on the not so recognized "Who cares" criteria. Nezzadar (speak) 23:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About 90% of WP articles would fail that latter criterion, so it's not that reliable... Grutness...wha? 00:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list, WP:NOTDIR. GlassCobra 16:28, 14 October 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 20:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selfconsistent electromagnetic constants[edit]

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

Whole article is WP:SYN. Steve (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, per nomination. There are many references, but they don't appear to refer to a group of "self-consistent electromagnetic constants". Instead, they talk about the use of individual constants. Not quite sure where this should point to. Maxwell's equations seems to have the best overlap with the article's subject matter. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you don’t like “vacuum wave impedance” proposed by Stratton (American applyied physicist), so you want to delete the article..., and you are the theorist wich used the CGS units. Note that, the term “electromagnetic constants” was used in the first part of 20-th century (see Tamm). However, even Soviet theorist Tamm considering the LC circuit should to use the SI units..., but great Tamm considered the resonance frequency only, but not “characteristic impedance”... The athours of lower scale, for example Сена Л.А. (Sena L.A.) even in late 80-ties wroute that “there are NO any WAVE VACUUM impedance”. You are with Sena, but not with delicate Tamm. Farthermore, even Zel'dovich, B.Y. (2008), one of the former Soviet talanted theorist now returns to the “characteristic impedance”...195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange to say, you Christopher Thomas are the applied phisicist engaged in the engeneering field “CMOS Image Sensors” and you don’t like electrodynamics constants in general and “characteristic impedance” partially, which are out of scop of your proffesional interest and education...195.47.212.108 (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm only an amateur scientist, but this seems to check out. At Wikipedia, there is going to have to have some degree of summarizing and synthesis in hard-core science articles like this one. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Babble that adds nothing to useful physics. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Good "babble" that opposites the "feeld theory" (an analog of "not even wrong")...

Note, that in the CGS units the standard field approach considers that

\epsilon _{0}=\mu _{0}=1,\

and electromagnetic constants are DIMENSIONLESS. This leads to "absence" of the characteristic impedance

\rho _{0}={\sqrt {\frac {\mu _{0)){\epsilon _{0))))=1.\

However, in the article is shown, that electromagnetic constant plays the dominant role in electrodynamics and determine the vacuum properties. Furthermor, it is shown trhat in the CGS units these constants are not equal to "one":

\epsilon _{0}=1/4\pi

{\displaystyle \mu _{0}=4\pi /c^{2))

\rho _{0}={\sqrt {\frac {\mu _{0)){\epsilon _{0))))=4\pi /c.\

195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Original research is not acceptable in WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: This appears to be an attempt at a grand synthesis of concepts that are already covered in several Wikipedia articles. To the extent that verifiable statements or reliable sources in this article do not duplicate material already in other articles, they should be moved, and adapted as necessary, to the appropriate articles. However, this should not exist as a separate article in Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 22:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original synthesis. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be original synthesis without notability. Neither standard internet searches nor my printed reference materials indicate that this presentation of material is canonical, and it overlaps substantially with other articles which present related topics more clearly. Ben Kidwell (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ultimately this article would need to be drastically overhauled. I can detect an unequivocal point of view being pushed, in that I can't see the basis for the categorization of these constants into a primary and a secondary group. In my view, claiming that the speed of light is more fundamental than the magnetic permeability is akin to saying that the speed of sound in a solid rod is a more fundamental constant of the rod material than the density of that material. As for the 377 Ohms for vacuum impedance, this is the interesting bit. I have seen it derived in relation to the space in the immediate vicinity of a transmission line. The derivation involves inductance in relation to a phenomenon that primarily involves capacitance, and if my memory serves me correct, the derivation depends on the geometry being two long wires that are very close together. As such, I most certainly can't see the 377 Ohms as being a more fundamental constant of free space in general, than the electric permittivity or the magnetic permeability. Nevertheless, the 377 Ohms of impedance in free space is a very interesting concept, and it is sourced. It is a thorn in the neck for anti-aetherists due to the fact that it implies a dielectric nature for space, and I would hope that this isn't the real motive that is driving those who wish to delete the article lock, stock, and barrel. Perhaps an attempt should first be made at neutralizing the article. Failing that, if the article is finally deleted, I would like to see the 377 Ohms being placed in an alternative article, perhaps about transmission lines, if it is not already mentioned there. David Tombe (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The speed of light is more fundamental than magnetic constant by traditions from the one hand (so it happens by historically). From the other hand, the speed of light is the "upper limit" of velocity in our Universe, and it is connected with other dielectric and magnetic constants by relation

{\displaystyle c=1/{\sqrt {\mu _{0}\epsilon _{0))))

. Ulternatively, the electromagnetic vacuum impedance

{\displaystyle \rho _{0E}={\sqrt {\mu _{0E))}/\epsilon _{0E))

and gravitational characteristic impedance

{\displaystyle \rho _{G}={\sqrt {\mu _{G))}/\epsilon _{G))

doesn't LIMITING the characteristic impedances in both cases (electromagnetic and gravitational). And the last, but not the least. We have the TWO upper limits for wave's speed:

{\displaystyle c_{E}=1/{\sqrt {\mu _{E}\epsilon _{E))))

- for electromagnetic waves and

{\displaystyle c_{G}=1/{\sqrt {\mu _{G}\epsilon _{G))))

- for gravitational waves. Furthermore, these values are equal to each other:

c_{E}=c_{G}=c

! 195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the limiting cases of characteristic impedance, and is already described at impedance of free space. The derivation is presented in pretty much any electromagnetics course. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, the article characteristic impedance considers “classical case” only. Furthermore, the transmission line is the partial case of general LC circuit, or “electromagnetic resonator” (see Feinmann lectures for example). The QUANTUM case is considered in the article Quantum electromagnetic resonator. There are NO any DERIVATION in the article impedance of free space..., but DEFINITIONS only.195.47.212.108 (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In short, I consider this a useless essay. One can write numerous articles claiming some constants are more "primary" than others, but they would not help the physical theories (which are the primary goal, not the constants they use). The mere fact that some systems (and most theoreticians) set ε₀ and µ₀ = 1 speaks for itself (that they are not primary or self-consistent constants). Materialscientist (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons given; essentially that notability is WP:SYN, assuming it is technically correct. This person could become a good editor, but needs mentoring, and a neutral POV. Faulty English is a complication, making his articles difficult to parse. A clear and compelling summary of the need for this innovation, summarizing arguments referable to reliable external sources, would address the original synthesis objection, and would help make the material more accessible if it can be provided (which I doubt, alas). I think such a motivational summary ought to appear as an introduction, and precede the details. Wwheaton (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN. As you know, the physics models and theories are based on axiomatic method which use the strongly Mathematical logic. Therefore, when A = C and B = C, then A = B! Farthermore, when we suppose that CGS units are equivalent to the SI units then should be some transformation RULES that transform physical values from one system to another. For example,

{\displaystyle L_{SI}=L_{CGS))

,

{\displaystyle C_{SI}=C_{CGS))

,

{\displaystyle \epsilon _{SI}=\epsilon _{CGS))

,

{\displaystyle \mu _{SI}=\mu _{CGS))

,

{\displaystyle \rho _{SI}=\rho _{CGS))

, etc., but that isn't the case! So, the theorists considering the LC circuits and electromagnetic waves goes to the SI units!195.47.212.108 (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pieces may all be correct and not WP:OR, but the WP:SYN rule still requires the pieces to be explicitly combined in a reliable external source. Without such external sourcing it is OR, not externally verifiable, and therefore not notable. A harsh rule, but there it is, and it is probably even necessary. Get it published by a reputable refereed journal, and accepted by the community, and it is OK. Otherwise, it's an innovation, and as such not encyclopedic. Wwheaton (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does indeed seem to be original research. GlassCobra 16:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say that the author should start all over again. As it stands now, it reads more like a thesis, than like an encyclopaedia article. There is good material here, but it needs to be re-organized and the opinions removed. There is no harm in principle in having an article on this topic. It is a good idea to have these constants all discussed together on one page. David Tombe (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have some expierence in discussions on the theme speed of light... What do you mean by saying “it needs to be re-organized and the opinions removed.”?195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically referring to your opinion about the two categories. We can state the relationship between the speed of light, the magnetic permeability, and the electric permittivity, but we cannot make an opinion as to which of them is more fundamental than the other. And yes, I did indeed get caught up in a major controversy about how the speed of light, when expressed in terms of modern SI units, fits into that relationship, which is why I am interested in your article. I am advising you based on my own experiences. You have got good material in the article, and it is a very interesting topic. At first I was suggesting that you needed to make a major overhaul. But seeing the hostility that your article has received, I am now advising you to just let it go, and start all over again. Make sure you keep copies of the draft material so that you can copy and paste the difficult equations with ease. Then start a new article. Concentrate on the inter-relationships, but drop your own opinions. If you remove the opinions about relative fundamentality and set out the inter-relationships clearly, it will be interesting to see if your new article is still opposed, and on what basis. If it is opposed the second time round, at least you will know that it is not over the issue of 'opinion'. I support your idea of having an article that deals with the inter-relationships between these quantities, but as this article stands right now, you have left yourself wide open with your opinions. David Tombe (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank David. What means "your own opinions"? It seems to me that there no one... So, what in your mind should be deleted concrete?195.47.212.108 (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should remove the 'two categories' classification, because that classification is your own opinion regarding which of these quantities are the more fundamental. I doubt if you would find a textbook that ever presents this point of view. You need to narrow it down in order to find out what is the offending material. Also, my advice is that you need to write it more in the style of an encyclopaedia article as if it were in something like Encyclopaedia Britannica. Just stick to the facts and lay out all the inter-relationships clearly. You will soon discover whether or not it is the actual inter-relationships themselves that are the offending material.

Also, the title had a word 'Selfconsistent'. You need to get rid of that word. Pick a more general title like 'Fundamental constants of electromagnetism'. David Tombe (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More thanks David.195.47.212.108 (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

195.47.212.108 Here's a source that you may find useful at some point in the future [2]. The author obviously shares your opinion about which two constants are the most fundamental. But I have to confess that I see them all as being equally fundamental. David Tombe (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Apeiron" is a reliable source? Further more thanks David. Note that Bishop presents the viewpoint from the West, and I - from the East. But both approaches lead to the same result.195.47.212.108 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, I found that interesting. Until I traced your IP server to the east, I thought that maybe you were Forrest Bishop. Forrest Bishop comes up with some good ideas. I don't agree with him on that particular point, but I can put you in touch with him if you like. There is a debate on right now at WT:PHYS which is discussing the controversy surrounding the inter-relationships between these constants. You should take a look. I'll be fascinated to see how your new article tackles the post 1983 SI units hornet's nest. That may well turn out to be its achilles heel. David Tombe (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete SYN William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 15 October 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) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Wagner[edit]

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

Disputed PROD, does not appear to meet notability requirements (WP:BIO, WP:GNG). Two sources have been added, but womansday just shows a listing of the book, and nydailynews.com is a comments piece which quotes a couple of lines from the person. I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. Chzz ► 20:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Motivational speaker... Abductive (reasoning) 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His book is essentially self-published (by Book Surge, a vanity publisher) and in almost no libraries. just as would be expected. Nothing else to indicate any notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DGG. GlassCobra 16:24, 14 October 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) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yelptini[edit]

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

New mixed drink, nonnotable despite being mentioned in passing in one story in Forbes magazine. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 85 total Google hits suggests this thing hasn't taken off. Abductive (reasoning) 22:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get "about 1,600" per google, which is still pretty low for something invented in 2007. To be fair, 400 are on the Yelp.com site and many seem to be Wikipedia mirror sites. We ought to check some real bartending books. Perhaps among some of these sources there is more than a passing mention. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the end of the search results; 85. Abductive (reasoning) 23:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, interesting. Thanks. What does it mean when google says there are so many results but produces only 5% of them? I'm guessing that means most are duplicates in google's eyes, likely yelp.com pages, copies of the Wikipedia article, spam pages, and so on. Wikidemon (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it also looks at close strings. Abductive (reasoning) 02:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But this weekend, try ordering a Yelptini, and bring your laptop when the bartender says, "What the fuck is a Yelptini?" Mandsford (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any significant mentions in any reliable sources; google just spits out non-independent, trivial or unreliable citations, and wasn't able to find much via ProQuest either. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear - this is not looking good. Wikidemon (talk) (article creator) 03:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not so bad! I realize now that my first article should have been deleted on sight (which it was, so...) Ok I guess I was not going any where with that comment. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Abductive. GlassCobra 16:21, 14 October 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) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spill.Com[edit]

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

Non-notable website. No reliable sources covering site. Fails WP:WEB. Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plenty of reliable sources. Did you click the News link in your AfD? [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. And a million and a half hits on Google for the site (excluding the half million index hits of of the site itself). --Odie5533 (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See WP:BURDEN and WP:GHITS, but since you asked: #1 valid ref; #2 and #5 valid ref, but seems more about parent company; #3 and #4 seems to be be a restatement of a PR piece so appears to fall into the WP:WEB#Criteria 1b) exception of "trivial coverage"; #6 does not appear to reference Spill.com. So that leaves one valid ref and two sort-of refs, which doesn't meet WP:WEB#Criteria 1). The other News links are reprints of PR from Spill.com. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it more, it seems to be a popular site but not have enough reliable coverage. Until more reliable sources cover the site, I'm inclined to agree that it should be deleted. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this CNN coverage citing a Spill.com article [9] The Austin Film Critic Association [10] and references from /film.com including this one [11] as reliable coverage? It should also be noted that while the previous 2 & 5 (from the Motley Fool) focus upon the stock of the previous parent company MIVA, the articles themselves are about the stock of that company based upon the content and popularity of the site in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.103.212 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The X-Men Origins: Wolverine references are about the leak itself, not about Spill.com so I do not think that would be enough to establish Spill.com's notability: CNN was just in passing as a background screen shot, /film just reports somebody from Spill.com said it was an old version so it not really about Spill.com. Being a member of the Austin Film Critics Association does not make one's website notable. The Motley Fool content is more about MIVA, not Spill.com. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. It is nonsensical to delete the page "untill it cites more reliable sources" as more reliable sources cannot be added to the page if it has been deleted. The best thing to do is to simply leave the website up for the time being and if it doesn't have more reible sources and citation by an alloted time, then it should be deleted. 92.251.175.206 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not proposing deleting the page because it doesn't cite enough reliable sources, we are proposing deleting it because its subject (Spill.com) has not received enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spill.com is a suitably large movie review site with full time reviewers working for it. As such it is a legitamate website and is worthy of a short entry. Several movie pages have their grades in the Reception sections and thus has recieved enough coverage. It was also featured on network news over the Wolverine/Fox piracy debate in may --Davidbray2 (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2009 (GBT) — Davidbray2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It does appear to be reliable, but I am not sure reliability is the same as notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable enough for many people to want a wikipedia page about it. It's a short entry, and people will use it because so many people actually use that site (spill.com)and tell their friends about it. And it did appear CNN, which is one of the biggest news networks. I'd say that's notable enough for a short wiki page. --EspioChaos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC). — EspioChaos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: JoBlo, Cinema Blend and other film sites that are less notable and have NO sources on their pages aren't up for deletion, why should Spill.com be singled out?PittJames (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC) — PittJames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; articles should be judged on their own merits, and not be contingent on the existence of other articles. If you feel that the ones you have listed (JoBlo, Cinema Blend, etc) are unworthy of having articles, you may put them up for deletion as well. See the steps at WP:AFD. GlassCobra 20:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, said article also states that saying automatically dismissing the "other stuff exists" argument isn't a valid response. Spill is a well-known website, as are sites similar to it that have pages. I don't understand the debate here. Especially since much of it was started by Flesheater, who is a well-known spammer on Spill, causing grief and insulting various members of the site because he thinks its fun. PittJames (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Well-known" is a subjective term, see WP:BIG. Wikipedia judges notability by the amount of verifiable coverage in reliable, third-party sources; the debate here is to determine whether this article passes these standards. As for your other point, I don't see anyone named Flesheater here, nor am I aware of anyone by that name on this site. GlassCobra 01:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's all over the discussion page saying that Spill is a virus and other nonsense. PittJames (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone identifying as Flesheater has indeed posted on the talk page, though his comments are not that egregious, and do not appear to intend to start any discussion, as you state. Furthermore, whatever comments were made on the talk page do not affect the debate here at all. GlassCobra 02:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References provided here could be used to demonstrate the notability of the parent company, Miva, but not this website. Still lacks references to significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and RadioFan. GlassCobra 16:08, 14 October 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 deleted (CSD G3) by Xezbeth. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Annabele de Rothschild[edit]

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

Contested prod. Nothing notable about the person that I can see Declan Clam (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment. this is an unsourced putative BLP, with google giving no evidence that the "fashionista" in question even exists. Adding: what's the drill for hoax articles? --Paularblaster (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 03:56, 10 October 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) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Five9 Inc[edit]

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

Released September 24, 2009, fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Five9 Inc. Was speedied previously under WP:CSD#A7. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for creating and keeping the page are documented on the talk page for the article: Talk:Five9_Inc The press release links have been removed. There is a feature article specifically on the company in the regional media, and several analyst and media mentions of the company. The products are not specifically mentioned by name, as they are in Avaya which evidently is not a candidate for deletion. There is an academic reference provided supporting the notability of the company's technology as a whole, and thereby the notability and significance of the company. It's not a WP:SPA account - take a look at call centre to which I contributed an academic citation in support of the various types of call centers, and added encyclopedic, not promotional, information about premise-based versus virtual call centers, supported by the academic reference, thereby improving the article.

Also, the criteria in WP:CORP seem to be at odds with each other, on the one hand, it suggests that multiple minor media mentions are sufficient to establish notability, but when I added those in, they were either edited out by someone else or decried as "PR" in violation of WP:CORP If a media outlet wants to do a story on an industry, it's quite likely they are going to talk to marketing or PR reps for the companies they cover in the story. [[User: Predictive (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)— Predictive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Per nomination, the sources are trivial mentions or PR releases. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP defines "trivial mentions" this way: "Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories." If you read the references, it is more than simply reporting meeting times, shopping hours, publishing telephone numbers, etc. There are no references to press releases (PR) in the current article.Predictive (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. This would also include quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NawlinWiki. No substantive sources found. GlassCobra 16:06, 14 October 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, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2000s in Young People's fashion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2000s in Young People's fashion

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

This article appears to be one person's opinion; it is certainly unreferenced. I42 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Someone's POV. Joe Chill (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No sources cited to verify against. The article presents what appears to be one writer's opinion and original research; it certainly isn't global in scope. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates almost every rule we have. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails all of the guidelines that Doc Strange listed with flying colours. Wikipedia is not your blog, nor will it ever be. talking birds 18:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: quick delete! --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doc Strange. No objection to SNOW close. GlassCobra 16:05, 14 October 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, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Box & Ship a Bicycle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Box & Ship a Bicycle

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

Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide. ((Prod)) denied by article owner without edit summary. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WikiDan61 said. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much else to say, this is not an encyclopedia article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTHOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This is a how-to, not an encyclopedia article. Magician3545 (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had added a prod2, agreeing with the argument that this fails the WP:NOTHOW guideline. Gonzonoir (talk)
Delete: A how to guide. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this: Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. The instructions were also pointless. James1011R (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete -- Unsalvagable "how to". Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bahahahahahaha! --Triadian (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOW, Wiki isn't a how-to guide. GlassCobra 16:04, 14 October 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 as WP:CSD#G4 as no new information after last Afd.. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Duke Mason[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not yet appear to meet WP:BIO requirements. Though the article cites an interview, I can find no other significant coverage in reliable sources. Because notability isn't inherited, being the son of notable parents (Belinda Carlisle and Morgan Mason) is not enough. Gonzonoir (talk) 18:01, 8 October 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, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Yeo[edit]

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

The article's subject is known only for his membership in a quiz team; I can find no evidence (in e.g. a Google search for "matthew+yeo"+-"university+challenge" "matthew yeo" -"university challenge") that he is otherwise notable. I believe WP:BLP1E applies and that the subject does not meet WP:BIO requirements. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Declan Clam (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the same reasons gone over ad nauseam at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Trimble. Pure BLP1E, and all the "these people are all going to be famous after this" voices seem to have gone strangely silent. – iride scent 19:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Trimble precedent (heh, sounds kind of like a Forties detective pulp/Coen brothers title) that made me bring this here rather than PRODding. The smaller volume of coverage here makes this seem clearer-cut, too. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not sufficiently notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, WP:BLP1E. GlassCobra 16:03, 14 October 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) 04:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Am... Sasha Fierce era Singles[edit]

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

I'm not sure what this is, but it surely doesn't need to exist, since there is already I Am... Sasha Fierce. Very unlikely search term for a redirect. Wolfer68 (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article consists of a duplication of material at I Am... Sasha Fierce, with the addition of chart positions for each of the singles. That information should be merged to the I Am... Sasha Fierce article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no point to this page, when everything written here is also on the "I Am... Sasha Fierce" and "Beyonce's Discography" pages. 14:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete I do not see the need for information to be spun out at this time. Guest9999 (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unnecessary duplication. Joe Chill (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to information in the article Beyoncé Knowles discography. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, redundant to existing discography article. GlassCobra 16:02, 14 October 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, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Buchanan[edit]

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

Fails the criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Completed for (User talk:98.248.33.198) ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, city council member in small city, doesn't belong in a general reference encyclopedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete City council member, just not a major metropolitan area. Eau Claire is one step too small. Royal broil 04:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-if Brandon Buchanan runs for the Wisconsin Legislature or even Congress and wins-the article can always be recreated. As it stands now this article is premature.Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NawlinWiki and Royalbroil. Does not meet WP:BIO. GlassCobra 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in secondary sources for WP:BIO, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ray^Talk 03:22, 15 October 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 20:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Word Alive[edit]

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

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, but I'm not convinced the band is truly notable. So bringing it here for further evaluation. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs work, but they are signed to Fearless Records which seems to be major enough. Dincher (talk)
Delete - I'm actually the speedy deletion nominator. My bad. But, regardless of the fact that I absolutely LOVE this band, I do not believe they meet notability. They don't even have a full length album, and their EP did not chart on any charts of any kind. And Dincher, I'm afraid being signed to a record label does not make a band notable. Please see the notability guidelines.Krazycev 13 18:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - they lean towards notable with the record label and touring, but I can't find references that really get into the band as much as I'd like, and just having one EP suggests this is early. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Being signed to a label is insufficient. They may become notable in the future, but not now. --- Whpq (talk) 15:21, 15 October 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 00:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Lopez[edit]

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

subject and author requested deletion. too much other editing for speedy by author request. questionable notability. no evidence awards are major, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:08, 24 September 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) 19:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. One, there've been plenty of edits over the past couple of years since the article was born, aside from the primary contributor - so I'm not feeling like undoing the work. Second, I remember there's no real allowance, office actions aside, for "subject requests deletion". Third, he seems OK for notability, ergo weak, but I do recognize the problem posed in re the awards. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:28, 1 October 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 16:31, 8 October 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. Skomorokh, barbarian 00:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Krajcev[edit]

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

Non-notable writer; article created as autobio; article creator has been unable to provide reliable sources beyond two local newspaper articles that mention him promoting his novel; instead wages a revert-war through anon IPs to remove the unsourced-BLP warning tags from the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has been 2 weeks and the author(s) of this page has still not been able to provide sufficiant sources/references to justify its notability. The two only(same)sources are written in macedonian that does not seem quite pertinent. Notability is questionable and not sufficant coverage (Google search has practically no pertinant hits about this person. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 14:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment but leaning towards delete~~Delete - I'd like someone who knows the language to look at this to see if the award would count as a notable award or honor per WP:ANYBIO. If it's not notable then it's a delete and there's no other case made for notability per WP:N or WP:AUTHOR. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had invited Apcbg who understands Macedonian to take a look and am leaning towards delete from what I see on the updated article in terms of references and potential qualifying points for notability. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but leaning towards delete changed to Delete as the underpinnings for notability are not strong enough to hold this article up. See reply to Apcbg below. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is better sourced now, I believe. Moved to 'Igor Krajčev' as is the correct transliteration of the name. Apcbg (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Apcbg for the tidying. Could you please explain the 9th November 2008 Award of Merit award? I'm trying to see what points on WP:N, WP:GNG, or WP:AUTHOR he's qualifying under. The award seems like a city government award and not one of national importance that would have been reported widely within Macedonia. In other words, would this award be "notable" in terms of coverage about it from reliable secondary sources? It appears the coverage of the author is trivial. Игор Крајчев is only mentioned once on each of the cited refs and usually as part of a list of names. It's hardly the detailed coverage from reliable secondary sources that WP:N wants. If I'm reading this correctly his only qualifying point for notability would be the award win under WP:GNG if it's a "notable" award. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is what I gather from the available sources. Igor Krajčev is a young writer whose work has already got some notable recognition and nationwide media coverage. He was listed by Dnevnik Daily (an important national newspaper) along with few other writers from the city of Veles (one of the major cultural centres of the Republic of Macedonia) in an article on that city’s public library. Krajčev’s novel Warriors and Heroes was considered of national significance by their Ministry of Culture (sourced), and was presented publicly at a national (in fact international) annual cultural event (Racinovi Sredbi); the presentation was reported in a separate article by Večer Daily (another important national newspaper). I don't know much about the award in question; what I see is that that award along with Krajčev’s receiving it was regarded as notable enough to be reported by the country’s official information agency; by the way, Krajčev was not one of many to receive that award for 2008, as a matter of fact he was the only writer among them (the others were a folk group and three sportsmen). It is my opinion that this is notable enough as well as NPOV and adequately sourced now (all the sources mentioned above are reliable secondary ones); therefore, I confirm my “Keep” opinion. Apcbg (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I see the Dnevnik Daily coverage as trivial as Krajčev is one of a list of names and there's no significant coverage per what WP:N asks for. The recognition at Racinovi Sredbi is stickier. WP:ANYBIO includes "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one." It seems plausible that it is notable within Macedonia and thus would qualify Krajčev under WP:ANYBIO. I wish there were language or country specific WP:INCUBATORs as this article looks like a good candidate to park off to the side pending someone with the time and language skills to evaluate if Racinovi Sredbi is notable and to create an article on that which would then allow both the Racinovi Sredbi and Igor Krajčev articles to be moved into mainspace.

I'm still with delete and hopefully someone who later takes an interest in Igor Krajčev will spot this AFD and first work on Racinovi Sredbi before asking that the Krajčev article be undeleted or userfied. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I see the Dnevnik Daily coverage as trivial as Krajčev is one of a list of names" - Well, Dnevnik is listing Krajčev as one of five notable writers from the city of Veles; do you believe that he ought to have been listed as the city's single notable writer in order to see that publication as nontrivial? :-) Apcbg (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should explain the list of names thing better. When checking to see a subject has significant coverage per WP:N I make notes to myself about each search engine hit. "list of names" explains the hit and that the subject was not covered in any detail. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:08, 11 October 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 16:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there don't appear to be multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. As mentioned above by Marc Kupper, the only mention of the subject appears to be in lists of award recipients (where the award is of unknown notability). While the cleanup is an improvement, there still don't appear to be sources discussing the subject, outside of passing references. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin - If consensus is delete please be aware that the article was moved during the discussion. I suspect the best way to handle it will be to first move this page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Krajčev and then to delete Igor Krajčev. That way the links to this AFD discussion will be valid no matter how someone seeks this article and/or AFD. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:29, 9 October 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, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Sanderson[edit]

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

Subject of the article requests deletion per WP:BLP, OTRS ticket#2009100610065474. I am neutral. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the subject's request and seeming lack of notability. Dincher (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GS gives h index = 15. Could pass WP:Prof #1 but Delete if(?) subject wants it. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
delete a marginal case for passing WP:PROF, outweighed IMO by subject's request for deletion. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed with Pete.Hurd, notability is marginal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The awards aren't at a level that would lead us to keep the article, so notability would seem to rest on WP:PROF #1. Given that the case there is not strong either, I'm happy enough going along with the subject's request. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In cases of marginal notability such as this, subject's request tips the scales. GlassCobra 16:00, 14 October 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 20:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security Texas school district controversy[edit]

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

This article appears to fail WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of long-term notability. As far as can be determined, the government reported a discrepancy, some newspapers and websites briefly discussed it, and then it fell off the radar. Why do we need an article on this? *** Crotalus *** 13:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed. This is a local scandal; it might be worth a slight mention in some larger article about Social Security regulations - the Social Security (United States)#Fraud and abuse section is rather brief - but does not seem to be a subject with "legs". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This has been a long-running issue with national news coverage including the New York Times [12]. The article does need lots of work from someone with access to the relevant news sources (best coverage is likely to come from regional news operations). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard WP:NOTNEWS case. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's local news confined to one region and this won't be a long-term story. WP:NOTNEWS. Nate • (chatter) 04:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, as noted above. GlassCobra 15:59, 14 October 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, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Keselman[edit]

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

The article is about an undegraduate student, which is very far from meeting the Wikipedia notability criteria. Goudzovski (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not (yet) notable. The article sounds like a self-written bio in tone, and the linkedin link is telling as well. There is assertion of notability (the awards), but it's quite thin. If Ms. Keselman becomes notable at some point, an article would be in order - but there isn't enough there (yet) to meet our standards. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the article's creator about this debate. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Forget linked in, they didn't link her Facebook! That would be helpful for male engineers, I think. Note it does appear she's a graduate student now (not an undergraduate), but i can't find any sources other than a mention or two of her being part of a student group at CERN. --Milowent (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, fails WP:BIO. GlassCobra 15:54, 14 October 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. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Goldberg[edit]

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

Delete. Sounds like a self-written biography of a random professor. Omsairamom (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very much like a resume Dincher (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His top five publications in Google scholar have over 400 citations each, and over 1000 each for the top two. That's a clear pass of WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Top GS cites are 36503, 1304,1181,1050. How can that not pass WP:Prof #1? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Oops, I see I missed a few. The numbers are even stronger than I thought, and I already thought they were very strong. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that this AfD is the only page ever edited by the nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC). A sock-search may be appropriate. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
keep I saw this in the Academics and Educators deletion list, and thought, "what, the David Goldberg?" Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in case it is not yet obvious. You can also try to search for "genetic algorithms" in Google Scholar: 3 of top-5 hits are Goldberg's publications. — Miym (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone with 10 papers cited nearly 500 times each, and a book cited 36503(!) times, is a bit notable, I'd think. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and probably other criteria as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to what others have noted above, he also holds a named chair appointment at UIUC. I have added a reference regarding this to the article. This seems to satisfy criterion 5 of WP:PROFESSOR. 98.212.63.90 (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note his book gets more cites than the greatest hits of Noam Chomsky, Charles Darwin and John Maynard Keynes - combined - so he just barely ekes out a weak keep in my view. :-) John Z (talk) 09:10, 14 October 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 deleted (CSD A7) by Graeme Bartlett. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 20:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James P. Morrison[edit]

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

Delete no evidence of notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Anon user has added to Talk pg; I saw revert only in edit summary with no reason given and missed the response on the Talk page. If the editor manages to show some notability soon, that that will be acceptable. But so far, there's a lot of information, but doesn't convince me it meets WP:MUSIC. Boleyn (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD template removed by anon user. Below I will copy the reasons they put on Talk page of article: Okay, consider this, Boleyn: The mission of the Wikipedia website is, as all who love and enjoy it know, to compile the sum of all available human knowledge into one, easy to use and search-able database, free-of-charge and as impartial as is humanly possible. The sum total of all human knowledge does, by definition, include knowledge of and/or pertaining to James Paul Morrison, regardless of how famous he may be. So if you think about it, this article isn't out of place. Nothing in the article is untrue. I guess what I'm trying to say is... just let us have this one thing on Wikipedia! It's not hurting anything... Please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.46.149 (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines for notable musicians at this point. Come back when he's signed to a notable label, touring and has a full-length album out, okay? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really an a7 deletion. claiming credit for something he has done before he was born?? salt. autobio of someone who wants to be someone. anon user is not anon and does not understand the mission of Wikipedia. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in the article indicates how/why the subject meets WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted under A7 15 yo kid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:22, 10 October 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, website with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okidoki[edit]

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

I can't find any notability. I can't even find hits on Google. Alexa Traffic Rank is 581,832. Haakon (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails CSD#A7 immediately, as well as WP:WEB. DMacks (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what DMacks said. Dincher (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 8 October 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. Verifiability concerns have been adequately addressed. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vadakkanadu[edit]

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

This article about an alleged village has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested prod. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Keep per the hilarious additions and comments by SpacemanSpiff.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that if you lived somewhere where the possession of a change of clothes was a matter for comment you wouldn't find the subject hilarious. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hilariousness of the comment was based on the fact that it was the only source to prove the existance of the village. However, keep in mind that many people have different senses of humor and I may infact find such a thing funny considering my own poverty as a kid. Although I am heartbroken about any suffering child (or animal), I still find the sole source funny. This is because I compartmentalize my feelings and I am not going to bow to political correctness. When I run for President of the United States, please feel free to bring this up (I am considering the 2032 or 2036 races).--TParis00ap (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 16:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to this the aquaduct mentioned in the article is situated "in Mathoor, hamlet of Aruvikkarai revenue village in Thiruvattar Panchayat Union" - no mention of Vadakkanadu or any similar spelling. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a verifiable village, I don't know how many people live there, but I know how many people don't have a set of change clothes (sadly), per the refs I've added. -SpacemanSpiff 21:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a verifiable village, per SpacemanSpiff's excellent work. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SpacemanSpiff (good job). It's a verified village.--Oakshade (talk) 18:47, 11 October 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, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 07:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chenkody[edit]

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

This article about a~~n alleged~~ village ~~has~~had no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested prod. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 16:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable, inhabited village with a high school and a post office. -SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per SpacemanSpiff. Joe Chill (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn given the recently-added references. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:29, 9 October 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) 00:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dependent statement[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This may refer to the dependent statement itself. If this article will not be subjected for deletion, then, I suggest merging or redirecting it into another major article. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 13:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a dictionary article about the phrase "dependent statement". It is a stub encyclopaedia article about the grammatical concept of dependent statements. We even have a stub category, ((ling-stub)), for such stubs. That is what you should have applied, mere minutes after this article was created. There are, after all, plenty of grammar books, published over centuries, that document the grammatical concept of a dependent statement, in English, Latin, and Classical Greek for starters. Per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, you should have put in the effort of checking them, before coming to AFD. Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be of the same ilk as Dependent clause and other syntactic entities. Author also responsible for Long tense, in case that also needs to be considered within this AfD. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a worthwhile subject in English and other grammars that is not exhausted by this brief article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in this case perhaps it's too early a stage to make a big deal out of it, but I think that when grammatical articles like this deal only with English, it should be reflected in the article's name. Declan Clam (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that the answer to that is to expand the article's content to clarify that different languages use different constructions for this, not to restrict it to only covering this concept as applied to English. I've corrected the obviously parochial "normally by the addition of that". Phil Bridger (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the clarification, Phil.--SAT85 (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is quite right that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that hardly seems relevant to an article that belongs more properly in a grammar. One could argue that Wikipedia is not a grammar either, but some coverage of the subject is probably appropriate.
On the other hand, I'm concerned about the sourcing. Onions is a reliable source, but there should be an ISBN, a page number, and all the other required material for a proper citation, and a second source that describes the subject would certainly not go amiss.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:41, 12 October 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. Sourcing concerns and merge disputes do not belong at AfD. Closing without prejudice against individual relistings, as long as they respect WP:BEFORE. Skomorokh, barbarian 00:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WAMP[edit]

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

Co-nom with:

These articles are unsourced (or sourced only to a commercial variant of no established notability in the case of MAMP) and warrant very little more than a sentence or two in a "variants" section of LAMP (software bundle), the parent article for the vastly better-known term. Keeping these forked just splits effort across four pages where the optimal approach would be one higher-quality work. Merge was undone without comment by Neustradamus (talk · contribs). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed
- Keep WAMP Notable, as the Microsoft world's contrast to the better-known LAMP.
- ~~Delete~~Merge SAMP (Sun Web Stack) & MAMP though - these aren't sufficiently common enough, WP:N enough, or different enough to LAMP to justify them as separate articles. MAMP is no different to any other generic-Unix-AMP these days.
- Keep & improve List of AMP packages This is a poor article that's not much better than a simple list, and that's of little more value than a simple web search. However the topic is important: we need an article that gives overall coverage of AMP-hosting with just this scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about FAMP? Is there a BAMP too? It's the FreeBSD equivalent for LAMP, but on a different non-Linux unix. I've actually used "FAMP", but never called it that - we always referred to it as LAMP just the same, even though we knew the difference. As a term rather than a concept, it seems to have little or no currency. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Practically none of the derivative terms have any real currency; even the term "AMP" as a derivative of "LAMP" is uncommon. This is amply demonstrated by the complete lack of reliable sources for almost all of these terms. There is little value in having a list page which will still never be adequately sourced. That applies just as strongly for "WAMP", which aside from the odd technical reference in textbooks has no real-world currency or reliable secondary sourcing to demonstrate why it is notable in and of itself and not simply as an occasionally-used derivative of LAMP. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep goods articles and you can look on a search engine like Google that is known — Neustradamus (✉) 20:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not for cleanup. It seems like we've been down this road before with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of WAMPs.
Looking at the edit histories of the above three articles as well as LAMP (software bundle), what I see is the nom boldly redirecting these articles to LAMP (software bundle) (not an actual merge per WP:Merge) and Neustradamus reverting those redirects. These of course are the first two steps of WP:BRD. Instead of initiating the 3rd step (discuss) the nom seems to have instead chosen to nominate these articles for deletion.
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WAMP, Comparison of WAMPs, LAMP (software bundle), List of AMP packages pages are good, after you can merge others (SAMP (Sun Web Stack) and MAMP) I think. WAMP and LAMP are known. — Neustradamus (✉) 03:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the following WAMP, SAMP (Sun Web Stack), MAMP, FAMP, BAMP (some of these are not nominated because they already are redirects). Redirect List of AMP packages to LAMP (solution stack). Miami33139 (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tothwolf. AFD is not cleanup and cleanup is possible (and so is merging without an AFD). The nominator should have started a discussion instead of an AFD. So Why 11:50, 14 October 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, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mauj Jamshedpuri[edit]

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

Page was Prod'ed, Prod removed by new user (only edit), Article is unencyclopedic and refs do not assert notability G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any signs of notability. The forum ref in the article includes posts where someone accuses him of plagiarism. -SpacemanSpiff 01:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable poet, no reliable sources included to verify notability. GlassCobra 15:47, 14 October 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) 07:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jiri Borkovec[edit]

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

Does he meet relevant notability standards? Not clear. Rd232 ^talk 11:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was written by a non-English speaker not used to WP style. However the subject's notability is claimed and a source is cited, or at least mentioned. No reason to delete the article unless something else comes up. The article is also tagged for conflict of interest, seemingly because the author is also involved in the same sport and lives in the same nation. If so no American who plays golf should be allowed to contribute to Tiger Woods's article.Northwestgnome (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument is a bit disingenuous. The conflict of interest tag is almost certainly for the far more obvious reason that the article is about one Jiri Borkovec and its creator is one Borkovecjiri (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. I missed that. Maybe delete then is the best thing until someone can translate the articles in the Chech body-building magazine which are said to establish his notability.Northwestgnome (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hello! Im Ivan Mach, the author of the article. Jiri gave me all rights to do all his promotion. Im using Borkovecjiri nickname because Jiri wanted me to use it. About the Czech Magazine...You can find all his media exposure at the photo gallery at his official website. If there is anything that I can explain dont hesistate to ask me me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Borkovecjiri (talk • contribs) 05:14, October 11, 2009
Delete. I'm sorry, Northwestgnome, but there is a way too obvious conflict of interest. And sources need to be cited, not only mentioned, that is what Wikipedia is all about. And article needs to be written much better. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious COI and prose concerns, questionable notability as per WP:ATHLETE, no Google News hits, no quality sources found from a brief search. GlassCobra 15:46, 14 October 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, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Aanuoluwapo Kehinde Adesodun[edit]

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

Contested PROD, removed by IP user with no reason given. This player is not notable, as he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable as he has not played at the required level to pass WP:ATHLETE. Eddie6705 (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not competed at a fully-pro level of football. --Jimbo^[online] 16:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no evidence that the article would pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable player, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, fails WP:ATHLETE. GlassCobra 15:43, 14 October 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) 03:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis regan[edit]

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

This purported perpetrator of the 1871 Great Chicago Fire fails Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Perpetrators. A Google News Archive search does not indicate that Regan is notable outside of the criminal act. Cunard (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established in current version of the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any unique information to Great Chicago Fire per WP:ONEVENT (article subject is notable for a single event only). If no unique information exists in the article, delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be discussing this article with the student who created it today. We will likely merge it into the GCF article. Please wait at least a day so I can use this as a tool to further teach my students how Wikipedia works. MrSilva (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment AfD discussions normally last at least seven days, so this one is not likely to be closed for a couple of days yet. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another option for preserving pages is to move them into your User space, which may be useful in an education environment. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article on the fire. Northwestgnome (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourcing, no significant evidence suggested, "believed by some" is not a sufficient basis for creating a Wikipedia article alleging criminal conduct, whether the supposed perp is living or dead. That said, WP:ONEEVENT would not appear to apply if the article were properly sourced, since the Chicago Fire is a highly significant event, and the subject's role is alleged to be consequential. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Great Chicago Fire if sources can be incorporated, otherwise Delete. Shsilver (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E, no objections to merging whatever content is found worthy to the main Fire article. GlassCobra 15:38, 14 October 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Scott[edit]

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

Contested prod. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. The band he is best known for playing in might be notable, but there doesn't appear to be sufficient references to establish notability for him alone. RadioFan (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - WP:MUSICBIO isn't particularly demanding; it's apparently one of the few cases of inherited notability, where releasing "a charted single or album on any national music chart" creates a presumption of notability for each of the creatives on that album. I can't find any evidence, though, that Souvlaki charted (though it may be it did). It may also be that Souvlaki, or a single from it, "has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network", which again would create the presumption of notability. But again, I can't find sources to support that. So, weak delete, but if anyone can show me the album charted or a song from it got radio play I'll change to a keep. Given the substantial fan following I'm surprised at not being able to find the sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC). [reply]
Keep - Slowdive's album "Just for a Day" peaked at #3 in the UK Indie charts, which entitles each member of it to a presumption of notability under WP:MUSICBIO. Given that the band appears to have a substantial fan following and its albums are widely lauded I don't see any reason to rebut that presumption. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have suggested merging, but he has been a member of at least two notable bands, so best to keep this separate.--Michig (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Michig. Joe Chill (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why was this relisted? There was nothing but Keep arguments above the line. In any case, still Keep for the reasons set out in my comment above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:36, 9 October 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 deleted (CSD G3) by R'n'B. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 19:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Dantes[edit]

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

I get in trouble all the time for CSDing stuff; the PROD was removed. This article is highly unsourced and seems to be a joke, and not informational. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 08:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The author has created 3 pages which appear to be partially copied from genuine articles, and has vandalised other pages. I've requested speedy deletion for all 3 pages. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:18, 8 October 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. The arguments that this company has enough secondary published coverage to show notability are unconvincing. Kevin (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Eagle Manufacturing Company[edit]

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

Current page is tantamount to being an attack page. It essentially recounts a long tale of legal battles, and rests mainly on uploaded images of a legal complaint against two named persons. This is a primary source. As far as actual secondary sources establishing notability, there is little, if any, attention to this company in the mainstream press. There are notices in the specialist business and financial media saying about 5 years ago the company's assets were being sold off and the name changed. It's unclear how this story of alleged financial misdeeds is notable or encyclopedic. Dbratland (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but sanitize all legal stuff per BLP policy. These bikes do exist, right? not many of them, but they have a following, are bought and sold etc. Notability test should be based not on the organization itself, but on their products; and the article should deal with products firsthand. NVO (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This company produced over 800 motorcycles and it was a popular brand that is still listed in the Kelly Blue Book, I used to own one of the bikes. Current legal action was removed.WPPilot (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out any secondary sources that establish notability as per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? --Dbratland (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=658737 Business Week Magazine

http://www.kbb.com/motorcycle/trade-in/1999/american-eagle-motorcycle Kelly Blue Book 1999

http://www.kbb.com/motorcycle/trade-in/2000/american-eagle-motorcycle Kelly Blue Book 2000

http://www.kbb.com/motorcycle/trade-in/2001/american-eagle-motorcycle Kelly Blue Book 2001

http://www.kbb.com/motorcycle/trade-in/2002/american-eagle-motorcycle Kelly Blue Book 2002

http://AEMotorcycleVideo.netmediatec.net 1999 "factory" video

Is this enough?? WPPilot (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not in my opinion. Those links only establish existence. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. Have any books or articles been written that show American Eagle meets the basic criteria of notability (specifically WP:COMPANY)? The reason I nominated this for deletion (instead of just deleting the attack material) is that I found none.--Dbratland (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability

is Kelly Blue Book "Trivial" to you? Where do you live??? that is recognized the world over as the authoritative data source for ALL motor vehicles. During the dates listed above (before Wiki) that company was one of the big 3, after Harley and Big Dog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dog_Motorcycles The company had been in every motorcycle mag for years before the scandels that are listed. WPPilot (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing Kelly Blue book of lying. The issue is that KBB doesn't say they are notable; they only confirm they made some motorcycles. If American Eagle has been written about in every motorcycle magazine, it should be no trouble at all to cite some. That's all I'm asking for. --Dbratland (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've searched the following magazines, and none of them mention this company, even in passing: American Motorcyclist, Cycle World, Cruising Rider, Rider, Dirt Rider, Motorcyclist, and Motorcycle Consumer News.--Dbratland (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I see 14 mentions in American Motorcyclist and 7 in Cycle World.~~ Withdrawn per Dbratland's comments below. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are false hits. See below... --Dbratland (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

haha those are "Girly bike" mags !!! Try V Twin, or Easy Rider! We will post those today for you, Dbratland! WPPilot (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - have removed the legal battle stuff because it was unsourced, but would still be good to see more sources to firmly establish notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uh, WPPilot, isn't that WP:BIAS right there, for calling a motorcycle magizine girly? I mean seriously. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existence =/= notability. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News search shows nearly a thousand hits on "American Eagle" + motorcycle, including this report [13] that the company had become a publicly traded enterprise. In general, publicly traded companies will have sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG, even though that coverage is not necessarily easy to find on the web. Even allowing for the likely spurious hits in the news search, the company's business activities appear to have been covered in some detail eg [14] [15] [16] . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTED says notabilty is not automatic for publicly traded companies, *although* such companies usually have enough sources to establish notability. The cited articles indicate that the company has been bought and sold and had carried out various financial procedures. All publicly traded companies do these same things, yet that alone does not establish notability. All I'm asking for is for something that can tell me "This company is important because _______ " --Dbratland (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already addressed in my comment, noting the substantial and sustained coverage of the company's activities. And the specific articles I cited included a report discussing the company's manufacturing plans. "All publicly traded companies do these same things" is really a relevant argument; one might as well argue for the deletion of all film actors who haven't won Oscars/whatever, since all film actors act in films, so that can't be a basis for notability. Not a sound argument. And the guideline you cite says specifically that "importance" is not the same as "notability," so that argument also fails. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try again. What did this company do that was notable? If this page is not deleted, what is the article going to say? That the company existed, and was bought and sold? That's the whole article? (And not all actors act in films, and of those that do, not all films are notable.) --Dbratland (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Loads of reliable sources available here. Refutation accepted - I remain neutral as regards keeping/deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are false hits. American Eagle Manufacturing Company was founded in 1995. Most of the hits you've found are for the Laverda 750 "American Eagle" of the 1960s and 70s; most of the dates in the search results are before 1995. The article even mentions this under Other “American Eagles”. Every single "American Eagle" hit you mention above for American Motorcyclist and Cycle World are either the Laverda, or something called American Eagle Publications. There is only one exception, the highly ureliable Sonny Barger gives us only this chestunt: "Titan, American Eagle, and American Illusion make what they call 'clone bikes,' and although some of these models are manufactured in America, they often don't make their own engines and are just copies of Harleys." His opinions here don't establish notability.

The question remains: What is American Eagle Manufacturing Company notable for? Simple question. --Dbratland (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a meaningful question, in terms of Wikipedia notability criteria. It meets the notability criteria because of the coverage of its business activities in multiple reliable sources, as I've cited previously I supposed you could answer that it's notable for its business activities. What is The Bodyguard from Beijing notable for? Or Leprechaun 2? Or The British Museum Is Falling Down? "Notable for" isn't really a meaningful concept when looking at Wikipedia notability, and would often call for a subjective answer. "Notable because" is the important concept. And what are Cocoa Puffs, French fries, Dog_food, and labradoodles notable for, other than being what they are? Your "simple question" really doesn't relate to any Wikipedia policy, and therefore neither do your deletion arguments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Labradoodles, cocoa puffs, dog food and so on have all been part of thousands or even millions of people's lives for decades. If they had not existed, many people's ordinary lives would not be the same in all sorts of ways. Even non-users of these things recognize them instantly. They are part of the vocabulary. They are notable for hundreds of things. Leprechaun 2 and their ilk? I'd probably support deleting them if all you showed me were articles saying they existed but never caused a ripple.

This is a company (alleged) to have made a total of 800 motorcycles. Ever. Today Harley-Davidson, which makes well over 200,000 bikes in a bad year, announced they were selling MV Agusta, which few people have heard of because it's a "boutique line" which, last year, made only 5,800 bikes. In one year. Which is over 7 times the number that American Eagle made during its entire existence.[17]

When corporations get the usual snippets announcing mundane actions in the specialized financial press, that does not, to me, meet the basic criterion in WP:N "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." That's insignificant coverage. Incidental coverage. You get that just for existing. I would compare it to various non-notable clubs and groups whose bowling tournaments and bake sales are listed in the events calendars of even major newspapers. Some intern enters whatever you sent them into a calendar, but that doesn't meet WP:N.--Dbratland (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not really responding to the question, are you? You're just presenting your own idea of what notability should be -- causing "ripples" in the world, which is fundamentally subjective. There are about two dozen people in the world whose "ordinary lives" would be materially different if Paris Hilton had kept a low profile in life; are you endorsing deleting her article? Or are you proposing judging businesses by the same standards as celebrities? When a company's routine business activities are covered by the business press, like Business Week, that's solid evidence of notability. BW doesn't report on the routine activities of Joe's Fish Market or Jimmy's Dog Groomers or even Paris's Brandy Bistro. When you look at the press coverage of major corporations, 99.9% of what you see reported are "mundane actions." Dow Chemical doesn't get drunk at night, rip its shirt off, dance on a bar, and go home with Lindsay Lohan. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable minor manufacturer. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 16 October 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.

Shane Martinez[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fightback (Canada)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Insignificant organization. ~~None of the sources are notable. Seems to be a vanity/promotional article.~~ Article was previously deleted by AFD and then recreated. Senatrix (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep - While the organization is still insignificant the sourcing problem has been fixed. It appears that a member of Fightback created the article and is highly involved in editing it so it needs to be monitored for COI. Senatrix (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This organization is significant enough to be covered in multiple news sources (which don't need to themselves be notable). The previous AfD was in 2005 before all of these sources were written. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Let's put it this way: I've been heavily involved with the Federal and Provincial (Ontario) NDP basically my whole life and I've never heard of this publication as sad as I am to encourage removal of a Marxism related article from wikipedia the publication is most likely not notable. Simonm223 (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is determined by available sources, not an editor's personal familiarity with the topic. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most recent edit to page brings it over notability line, good work. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 9 October 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, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human Earth Animal Liberation[edit]

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

Non neutral, non sourced and speculative article, not meeting WP:V or WP:ORG. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure if it's WP:SOAP or possibly a hoax, but it's not a proper article anyway. andy (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate which element of SOAP this is considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginzershop (talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure original research with little or no hope of saving. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research. HEAL is cited. The quotes used are exact, and taken directly from HEAL's own web page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginzershop (talk • contribs) 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as original research, and as a subtle attack page. Horselover Frost (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please clarify reasons that this is considered original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginzershop (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources included to verify notability. GlassCobra 15:32, 14 October 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) 23:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb the Music Industry![edit]

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

Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. One editor said that "Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network." but I see no evidence of this broadcast on the article or on the internet for that matter. LuftWaffle0 (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTMI meets criteria #1: "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." References include Alternative Press, AbsolutePunk, Razorcake, & Punknews. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that 3 out of 4 of those are just online sources, and the coverage in Alternative Press is so trivial as to be meaningless. If every garage band mentioned in a punk music website had their own wikipedia article, there'd be no room for legitimate articles. In fact it's probably arguable that some of those articles about those websites are themselves unfit for wikipedia. There are many examples of punk bands that have "made it" (tour nationally/internationally, featured in major magazines, significant tv coverage, etc.) and thus warrant their own articles but this band like thousands of others are just nobodies with zealot fans that have gotten away with making a wikipedia article. The original article in fact seemed to have been written by the band itself. --LuftWaffle0 (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MakeBelieveMonster and 105 gnews hits UltraMagnus (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 2 albums on Asian Man Records. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Duffbeerforme. Meets WP:BAND categories 1 and 5.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 14 October 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 merge to Principle of maximum entropy. The keeps failed to satisfy the content fork concerns. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law of maximum entropy production[edit]

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

Not notable. POVed. Ϙ (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edit history, I tagged it speedy a few minutes after creation and was soundly rejected. I have since found a bunch of stuff on the talk page which should serve as a good reference for those interested in this topic. There seems to be a few Swenson proponents with few additional edits except related topics that ref Swenson. The work the proponents want to make the focus minor or fringe by most obvious criteria. I think the term may be notable but article needs a lot of work and we now have some interested folks. FWIW Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - this needs improvement and expert attention, but this does seem to be a notable topic of research. While trying to pin this down, I discovered that the journal Entropy is currently soliciting articles for a special issue on the proposed principle of maximum entropy production. They seem to regard it as speculative but it does seem to be a topic of active research for individuals connected with mainstream established institutions. This particular article's issues are complicated by questions of NPOV and focus on a specific researcher who seems very active on the internet in this topic namespace. It should be made clear this principle has not yet attained the status of a widespread consensus as scientific law. Ben Kidwell (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, well the special issue highlights Dewar who is marginalized here as having shown to been "Wrong." Additionally, I'm not sure if contributor or Swenson is making inconsistent or at least imprecise claims or making unhelpful comparisons and assertions. I keep asking on talk page for sources but without luck in many cases. The one ref that treats Swenson in any depth seemed a bit circular with maybe only one citation on gscholar. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is problematic but subject is clearly academically notable and well referenced. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 00:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CounterPoint: If you take out the self-cites for Swenson, IIRC you only have 2 in which he is singled out to any great extent. Of these, one is only mentioned once on gscholar. Sure the volume of stuff is there, but you have to look at it a bit. Keep in mind, I'm defending more inclusiveness on Creation Science due to certain definitional issues. And I would support this article if there is some community of MEP-ers even if their work has no scientific merit. We need notability, not nobel prizes but given the number or, eh transient and unorthodox theories this areas draws such as perpetual motion machines, you may be able to impose a greater bar on notability before merging. Personally I think the topic can stand but Swenson would be a small part of a larger taxonomy of things with the same basic name. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do at least something about this

This article is distinguished by its use of the word 'Law' to refer to the assertion that it discusses. It seems that the main author of the article thinks that use of the word 'Law' is very important. Mostly the mainstream talks of 'a' or 'the' 'principle' of maximum entropy production. About the status and generality of the assertion that is made, whether 'law' or 'principle', the mainstream is not remotely as confident as Swenson and the main author of this article. The mainstream is avowedly struggling to provide a really sound thermodynamic definition of entropy for a non-equilibrium system, but such problems are not serious, it seems, for Swenson and the main author of this article. It is one thing to announce or "give" or "postulate" that an assertion is a law; it is another to prove its generality or validity. From the viewpoint of the mainstream literature, the 'empirical proof' of the assertion offered by Swenson and the main author of this article is jejune.

This article is really about the work of Swenson, not about a mainstream concept or study of the possibility of a principle of maximum entropy production in thermodynamic terms. The above "keep" comment by Cyclopia that this article is "well referenced" is valid only on the premise that the article is about the work of Swenson; it would not be valid on the premise that the article was about mainstream ideas on maximum entropy production in thermodynamics. Perhaps the enthusiasm of the main author of this article could be kept alive by giving the present article a new name that makes it explicit that it is about the work of Swenson, not about the mainstream thermodynamic concepts and problems of extremal principles for non-equilibrium processes. How important for the Wikipedia is the work of Swenson is another matter, which I am not qualified to assess.

If the present article title is left to stand, the present content of the article should be replaced with mainstream discussion of maximum entropy production in thermodynamics, with perhaps a very brief mention of and reference to Swenson, a very brief mention. It seems that the replacement article content should not be written by the main author of the present content.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AsAbove: I'm not sure the MEP work of Swenson itself is notable enough to get its own page although he has done a number of things and maybe a bio for him would be warranted. The page title could stand and we can work on an outline of specific laws, ideas, or principles to include. Team Swenson has been asked to justify their assertion that "this must be about Swenson" without much response but they have responded to things such as the work of Dewar and did know it had been proven wrong to some extent ( need to check lit, odd that the special issue is highlighting Dewar ???). Personally, I think the Swenson version is being presented as something on the order of Murphy's Law- while may rise beyond that, it will take some work to get an article that captures the literature well. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rescue, fiddle, or scrap? note Onsager 1931. separate the possible page on extremal principles from a possible page about Swenson

Can we have perhaps some more evidence that Swenson himself is Thermohistory and DrProbability? If so, then it will be hard to avoid the idea that this page should be scrapped entirely. I agree with Q's comment (under the heading "Delete this page" in the discussion tab of the page), that the present "entire piece is just trying to promote Rod Swenson's papers". I do not go quite so far as he does in saying that those papers are "entirely vapid" but I would agree so far as to say that they are largely vapid or jejune. Fiddling with the present version of the page is not a good way to solve the problem I think.

After the present page is scrapped, if someone else likes to write afresh another page on extremal principles for non-equilibrium thermodynamics, well and good; with luck such a new author will do a good job. The new author will presumably make some introductory statement more or less along the following lines: Onsager (1931)^[1] wrote: "Thus the vector field J of the heat flow is described by the condition that the rate of increase of entropy, less the dissipation function, be a maximum." Careful note needs to be taken of the opposite signs of the rate of entropy production and of the dissipation function, appearing in the left-hand side of Onsager's equation (5.13) on page 423. The possible new Wikipedia page on extremal principles will probably talk about both maximal and minimal principles, and about both entropy production and the dissipation function. This is a task for a serious expert, who may not be available for it. The Swensonist is not in the race for this task. If the Swensonist likes to start a page about Swenson, I suppose he is free to do so, provided that what he does be subject to the usual Wikipedia customs. Chjoaygame (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get full text of Linsker paper but apparently the issue with Dewar is confined to something to do with SOC but not sure what else it addresses. AFAIK, these principles are all imprecise and seem to be yielding to fluctuation theorems. I think the Kirkoff law example was mentioned by Landauer as being wrong when circuit isn't isothermal or some other simple counterexample. There may be some rules of thumb buried in here but these have a lot of problems as dynamics would seem to be a microscopic issue and indeed many macroscopic quantities like temperature may not even have obvious definitions depending on mechanisms available for thermalization/equillibration of different pars of the system. But, there is a bit of discussion so I imagine the topic is notable but it would probably include more history, including some Onsanger as you suggest, and discuss the fluctuation theorems as Dewar has done. Issues of trying to relate subjective "order" to something precise like entropy should generate a lot of text but maybe not much science. In any case, current discussion relating min and max entropy producers doesn't seem consistent with current form in article from Team Swenson. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues in Grinstein and Linsker 2007. The more important for our present concern is that they say that the Dewar 2005 proposed proof of a principle of maximum entropy production relies unnoticed on an assumption of linearity, while the main point about the principle is that it should extend to cover non-linearity. They say that this leaves the validity of the principle undecided, not that it refutes the principle. As you note, the other issue in Grinstein and Linsker 2007 is about SOC. I haven't seen a reply from Dewar.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 05:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess the Team Swenson assessment of Dewar is a bit too negative then and I was just parroting that. AFAIK, these are principles or almost platitudes, slightly above Murphiy's Law, designed to give guidance but not trajectories to the systems' analyst. As such, a missing proof is probably not too damaging any more than Landauer's ( ca 1975) counterexample of the non-isothermal circuit. In any case, the Swenson citations for MEP as opposed to other things he may have done seem to be limited and going forward the Dewar approach with segue into flucutations seem to be more popular. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear, I wouldn't like to think these principles were almost platitudes! I am not sure if they are really well defined or true or general. I think the serious experts find them problematic. To read Swenson you would think they are platitudes, but that's just because he doesn't seem to care about accuracy, or doesn't understand the problems. I think it really matters whether Dewar's proof is valid or not. I have an idea that perhaps he may be able to remedy the defect that Grinstein and Linsker 2007 found. I think accuracy matters a lot here. I would like to read a paper that made the physical meanings of the various principles and quantities clearer.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it is irrelevant, but again consider the existence of counter examples or "judgement" in looking for constraints etc- did you find the Landauer example and determine which laws that addresses?I guess that circuit example is done in detail, you could probablyjust put in different temps and see what happens but note that V=IR doesn't have a tmperature term other than R(T). A single counter example would mean at best it is somekind of approximation. The dynamics are determined by microscopic issues- you can probably construct 3 level systems and do it almost analytically ( use Stirling, make up some interaction between particles, make a non-equillibrium situation, and write expressions for entropy and temperature etc). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wanted to point out the Wikipedia competitor, Citizendium, has a signed article on Life, "Survival of the Likeliest?" by John Whitfield [18], that extensively discusses the maximum entropy production (MEP) assumption (the same as the supposed "law of MEP"), with citations (starting from fifth paragraph), and that site has more stringent notability and academic standards, and a tougher review process for signed articles. I'm not trying to promote Citizendium or claim it's better than Wikipedia, or tha Wikipedia should follow it, but the fact that MEP got past review there is strong evidence that it's notable enough for Wikipedia. MrVoluntarist (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL: " Entropy and biodiversity are mathematically equivalent" and it doesn't cite Team Swenson. That seems to be a reprint of a PLOS letter or it could be a wikipedia mirror competing with wikipedia. My original objection and speedy delete was based on presentation as a non-notable neologism, right now the article is a little better and i dont think it is worth deleting talk page and we could just agree to blank the current article and keep discussing. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

have now read Swenson Turvey 1991

I have now read Swenson and Turvey 1991. I am reaching the conclusion that Swenson's work is a pollyanna wish list rather than a scientific achievement list. The notion of entropy arose in thermodynamics where it has a precise meaning. The stretched notion that entropy and 'disorder' are closely related is a vulgar error, as explained clearly in Entropy and the Time Evolution of Macroscopic Systems (Oxford, 2008, ISBN 9780199546176) by W.T. Grandy Jr, who there in secction 4.3 examines the serious literature about it. As explained by E.T. Jaynes in many places (for example, E.T. Jaynes (1965), Gibbs vs Boltzmann entropies, American Journal of Physics 33: 391-398), entropy in thermodynamics is about experimental reproducibility, not about 'order', whatever that might mean. Pace Swenson, the entropy of thermodynamics is not a prime candidate to explain the origin of species. Swenson takes entropy far beyond what its thermodynamic basis will carry. Swenson does not really understand the thermodynamic meaning of entropy. Perhaps the Swensonist would like to try to refute this statement of mine: the Wikipedia page on the "Law of Maximum Entropy Production" is not the place for him in the meantime to claim the benefit of what he would perhaps call 'the doubt'; Swenson has not made a good enough case to earn a place in the Wikipedia as a serious contributor to understanding of thermodynamic entropy production, which he is ostensibly claiming.

That is not to say that the origin and survival of species is not explicable in physical terms, but it is to say, contrary to Swenson, that thermodynamic entropy is not the main relevant physical concept. Also it is not to say that irreversible processes and entropy production are irrelevant to the origin and survival of species, but it is to say that they are not the main explanation. Entropy is not a force of nature, it is an explanatory concept, linking explanatory ideas, not describing a physical force. Swenson's work is really a grandiose and vapid misuse of a word, which apart from his misuse of it, has a well established precise meaning; the misuse works by baffling and impressing the ignorant. Swenson, like many others, would like to see that precise meaning extended to a wider domain, but such an extension is easier wished for than achieved. Swenson and Turvey 1991 set up a straw man: "... ordered states ... are the inexorable products of natural law rather than miraculous debt payers fighting against it." No scientist thinks that ordered states, nor living organisms (which, by the way, Swenson would like us to equate to 'ordered states'), are "miraculous debt payers fighting against [natural law]". To accept that living organisms are not "miraculous debt payers fighting against [natural law]" is not to accept that the principle or "Law" of maximum entropy production, with entropy defined as in thermodynamics, is the only explanation left. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." The straw man is testimony to the rhetorical skills of Swenson and Turvey, not evidence of their contribution to the understanding of the thermodynamic concept of entropy.

Entropy production is the path to empirical reproducibility, not 'order', and evolution is the creative advance of nature into novelty, not its inexorable advance into mere colourless 'order'. This is far from saying that natural creation disobeys physical causality, but it is saying that the path of evolution is unique and not reproducible in any empirically verifiable sense. Getting down to hard brass tacks, Swensonism is nonsense clothed in fancy dress. The Wikipedia is not the place to invite novices to struggle through this kind of critical reasoning. An Wiki article on Swenson would be better written as showing how even today someone can get away with using pseudo-science to bluff the ignorant, than as an article about how entropy is a useful thermodynamic concept.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But is it notable? I guess my point is many or all of these princinples really can't hope to be much more than this, probably even the Noble Prize winners, as AFAIK they generally have simple counter examples. Even science fiction has been known to spur scientific advancement, anecdotes and folklore distilled into a one liner do have merit sometimes. And, again, these basic issues come up in most hard core sciences- try following biotech stocks LOL. If someone can find a one line equation to translate some subjective order into a quantity great but again we can't care much about merit. There is probably even less scientific regard for Creation Science but I would continue to defend a comprehensive article on this topic for a variety of intellectual reasons. So, I again think a purely one-author article does not fit this topic but a bio on Swenson or maybe even a Swenson MEP page, given the 100 possible g-scholar hits may be something to debate elsewhere ( do you want a page on every perpetual motion machine? Thermo has had a lot of non-notable or trivial entrants. ). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thermodynamics is an exact science. "Principles" that have simple counterexamples are not part of it. An approximation in an exact science is distinguished by its stating exactly how far it can be relied upon.

Cyclopia writes above: "Article is problematic but subject is clearly academically notable and well referenced." This shows how easy it is for pseudo-science to be taken as if it were real science. Work is not academically notable to Wikipedia standards unless it is referenced by reliable secondary sources, which Swenson's is not, whether Cyclopia thinks so or not. Swenson is perhaps the only writer (or one of a fringe few) to propose that title "Law" for a principle of maximum entropy production. This is evidence of his boldness, but not of his correctness.

The Wikipedia does not aim to promote pseudo-science as if it were real science. The Swensonist wants to promote the work of Swenson as if it were part of thermodynamics, when in fact it is pseudo-science. An article in the Wikipedia is not the place for him to do so, nor for an accumulation of more or less related statements that might be mistaken for a scientific debate. Chjoaygame (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chjoaygame, I have two unrelated comments:

1)I have said that it is notable and referenced, not that it is true or meaningful. If it is pseudoscience, so be it, and let it be described as it, but it has nothing to do with it staying or not on WP; after all we have an article on flat earth.

2)For sure thermodynamics is not my cup of tea, yet I feel a bit worried by your explanation. Entropy is maybe not strictly "disorder", but isn't the Boltzmann definition of entropy a direct function of the accessible microstates of the system? And what do you mean by saying that it is an "explanatory concept"? Isn't it a physical quantity? I am worried that we're seeing conflicting POVs on the thing. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 00:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As originally written, notability was established by Team Swenson self-cites. The one ref that could claim intellectual independence itself has one passing ref on gscholar and that scarity of usage is ( IMO ) likely due to lack of merit. If you see the talk page, I think Team Swenson further claimed Dewar to have been shown to be invalid or unworthy of more than passing mention but AFAIK right now the proof is questionable and no affirmative proof of badness has been shown and AFAIK Swenson's Law is not even really testable. So, Swenson may be notable for an MEP notion and probably deserves mention somewhere but his proponent(s) here haven't been too helpful. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclopia: Thank you for your two comments. As to the first: I am pointing out that at present one might very easily get the impression that the article on Law of Maximum Entropy Production was an article about an area within thermodynamics; but it is not so. As to your second comment: the Boltzmann definition of entropy is far from the only one. Boltzmann's definition is not suitable for defining the time rate of entropy production: Boltzmann's definition is very strictly an equilibrium definition, as usual for classical thermodynamics, while entropy production is specifically a non-equilibrium concept. If you would like to make thermodynamics your cup of tea, you might, I suggest, do well to read the references to Jaynes and Grandy that I gave above. For me, classical thermodynamics is perhaps best set out by the masterly E.A. Guggenheim in Thermodynamics: An Advanced Treatment for Chemists and Physicists, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1987, seventh edition ISBN 0444869514 (paperback). You are right that there are conflicting points of view about the statistical mechanics of thermodynamics. It is not an easy subject. When one is confronted with pseudo-science, one can be led into endless arguments, and that is not our purpose here. I suggest you carefully examine the content of Swenson's work for the sake of getting a clear idea of its status.

Nerdseeksblonde: Thank you for your comments. Swenson was bold to assert as a Law what others had long considered a possibility, but Swenson seems hardly to understand why they were not asserting it as a law; the use of the word "independent" seems intended to indicate his originality, but it does not establish the validity of his work as a part of thermodynamics. Is the use of the word "independent" intended to mean that he had not read the long-standing literature? Swenson's Chapter 6 of Cybernetics and Applied Systems (1992) cites not Rayleigh, Onsager, Ziegler, Gyarmati, Prigogine. Swenson's 2000 paper in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences cites 13 papers by Swenson including Swenson and Turvey 1991; it cites Schroedinger 1945; from the just-previous list it cites only Prigogine 1977. Swenson and Turvey 1991 cites 11 papers by Swenson; it cites Haken 1983, Malkus 1954, Nicolis and Prigogine 1989, Schroedinger 1945, Thompson 1852, but not others on the just-previous list. For thermodynamics, the problem is to define the precise meaning and range of applicability of the principle.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question then is if Swenson is even notable enough to be included here or to get it's own article? If S has 100+ gscholar hits that are him, plus his Plasmatics work ( no, this has nothing to do with the non-equillibrium distribution of bond angles in polyethylene ROFL) he made be a reasonable BLP candidate. If the LMEP comes up in two places, then would it just be easier to make its own article and link to it from the two places? I don't think anyone beliefs he is the most prominent player in this topic other than Team Swenson. In response to other comments, all of this is about making up macroscopic summary numbers that tell you most of what you need to know about the system. Instead of chasing around individual particles, temperature may tell you enough. So, in reality all of these drop a bit of detail but somewhere between a microscopic trajectory and Murphy's Law an approximation or rule of thumb can have merit. And, sure, entropy production is precise, dS/dt but then you need to define S still. Note some terms from literature like "non-negligible" etc and think about what is accessible etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Needs input by more people. Sandstein 06:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NoOneCares: I'm not sure if more opinions will help. The consensus seems to be as follows, the original article was largely self-cites to a Swenson usage of the term which failed to establish notability or provide useful context. The Team Swenson contributor(s) are largely if not exclusively contributing Swenson citations- to which no one would object if they reflected the existing literature. Right now, the article still lacks context and perspective and a non-TeamSwenson editor removed my Dewar/Ziegler headings as well as "rambling junk." Everyone (AFAIK) who has checked the literature ex Team Swenson agrees Swenson is mis-represented but that the topic is notable and I personally don't want the talk page to go as I put a bunch of notes there. I guess the question is should we just blank all the Swenson and elementary thermo stuff or keep pushing it back as others add more perspective? Further, given that Team Swenson does seem familiar with literature in this area, I'm a bit annoyed at the way they represented the criticism of Dewar although I admit I probably read more into their comments than they intended. In any case, I guess we just need to ask " what should we do?" to avoid edit wars rather than just "keep/delete." FWIW Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge/redirect as a content fork of Principle of maximum entropy. This article appears to be mostly polemical original research. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMG : Search this for Swenson and guess who added him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_maximum_entropy ? LOL. But, note that this is not a content fork and indeed in LaPlace-land off by a factor of "s" which means dS/dt not S? QED? FWIW. HTH. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was added by DrProbability (talk · contribs).[19] I don't know why Nerdseeksblonde didn't provide the diff. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a travesty

Ziegler, e.g.,[3], a contemporary of Prigogine, but whose work had previously gone largely unnoticed, has recently received recognition as person who believed the idea of entropy production maximization had an important role to play in physics early on. His work went mostly unnoticed for a number of reasons. One of them was that he did not come at the problem from the view of trying to solve the problem of why the world inexorably and opportunistically produced order, with life as a manifestation, but instead as a theorist in the specialized field of continuum mechanics. There was no suggestion by him that entropy production maximization might play a role in solving these larger theoretical problems, and thus his work escaped the attention of those with these broader, more general theoretical interests. Another reason is that while he stated a maximum entropy production principle, it was never stated as a universal law although it would seem he intuited this. His principle which he demonstrated using the geometry of vector space relied on a “orthogonality condition” which only worked for systems where the velocities define a single vector or tensor. It was thus, in his own words “impossible to test by means of macroscopic mechanical models”[27] and was invalid in “compound systems where several elementary processes take place simultaneously”. Such limitations are severe, but although Ziegler thus only went a certain distance with his intuition, he deserves credit for being there early at a time when the tide was running the other way.

This is a travesty of the meaning of Ziegler's conclusions on 346-347 of the second revised edition of An Introduction to Thermomechanics, North-Holland 1983. The travesty is slanted, perhaps unintentionally, to make it look as if Swenson has discovered and revealed to the world something that Ziegler missed. The reality is that Ziegler found that the principle of maximum entropy production does not make sense for and cannot be applied to compound processes, because the latter are not of essentially thermodynamic nature. Swenson may wish they were of essentially thermodynamic nature so that the principle of maximum entropy production might apply to them, but he is not remotely able to show that it is so, because in fact, as pointed out by the thoroughly expert Ziegler, it is not so. Swenson's arguments do not come within 100 miles of dealing with these problems with the precision that Ziegler has mastered. Glansdorff and Prigogine 1971 on page 15 make a point close to that just quoted from Ziegler: "Let us emphasize from the outset, that the local equilibrium assumption implies that the dissipative processes are sufficently dominant to exclude large deviations from statistical equilibrium." This means not that some better definition of entropy will make the principle apply, as Swenson evidently hopes and asserts without justification, but it means that the principle is undefined or often violated when the required conditions do not hold; but Swenson just shuts his eyes to this and asserts the principle as a "law" regardless, and congratulates himself on his boldness of intuition. The Swensonist condescendingly congratulates Ziegler on his intuition: no, Ziegler does not rely on intuition, rather he relies on a seriously rational scientific approach. If at some future time, a further extension of the principle of maximum entropy production should be validated, Swenson cannot claim that his work anticipated it; he has just guessed blindly.

It is also the case that the Swensonist, perhaps unintentionally, has previously seriously misrepresented the statement of Mahulikar and Herwig 2004 about "The major revolution in the latter half ... etc". And that he has, perhaps unintentionally, seriously misrepresented what Grinstein and Linsker 2007 had to say about Dewar's purported proof.

There is a fair amount of literature on entropy production, and different experts, including two Nobel Prize winners, have tackled the problem in different ways. It is not at all easy for a non-expert to write a fair sampling of the literature. It is not an easy subject. The degree of difficulty is illustrated by the absence of references to Rayleigh, Onsager or Gyarmati in the present article, and by the leading place given to the article by Mahulikar and Herwig 2004 (which, by the way, is cited once without listing Herwig as an author and a second time with his name misspelt). And while we are on spelling, principle is so spelt, not as principal.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to admit I had the same impression reading that as an attempt to include Zeigler as at least one other author who did single out Swenson did so for admirable intuition and independent rediscovery of existent notions. How about if we just blank the page and try again? I was trying to document the "undiscovered" work of Zeigler with a year-by-year citation count but I couldn't find a good tool and gave up, I'm sure our conclusion is right but I thought it would be easy to get numbers to prove it. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Solution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_production_principles Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed this up.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have been talking. I would note you moved the page to a more general topic and started a more comprehensive outline. It looks like the article will become pretty large and the entropy principles could be a topic in themselves and the terms are used in literature. If you can source your more general term that would help I guess but otherwise looks fine, we can argue over scope later. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be hard to present the subject without a fair amount of talk about the dissipation functions.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could also define entropy and temperature but we have other pages for that and that was the path this article was going down. I would just avoid too much detail on things that have their own pages. If dissipation is that big a deal, create a page for it. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue This article needs to be saved from spiralling downhill into an edit war. The Swenson-focus seems to have directed it toward a rather fringe interpretation. I believe notability is fairly well established and this has really become a content dispute. Ben Kidwell (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge/redirect as a content fork of Principle of maximum entropy per HW. In addition, if the problem is "Team Swenson", apply for RFCU William M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a fork see my OMG response, as the article does say or said somewhere, this is related to the entropy production rate and not the final entropy value. The topics are somewhat different. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge/redirect per Wolfowitz and Connolley. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think everyone lost interest and the only active editor adopted my above suggestion but did move and expand the page. I guess you could call this a content dispute. Who would complain if we just leave this page as-is and revisit in a month or so? We can compare the new page to this and consider informal redir or cleanup without a lot of brew ha ha. It would have been nice to get some input from Team Swenson but they may show up on new page later. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable fringe with a probable side order of self-aggrandizement or meatpuppetry. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Save Talk Page - I amassed a bunch of links there, if you want to move it to my user space I guess I don't care what you do with existing main page but I would note there are scattered refs to Swenson perhaps making him obscure but rising beyond the one-patent,one-website perpetual motion machine that often comes up in thermo. Certainly Team Swenson doesn't catch all the literature but still not sure if something can be salvaged here. The original article that I wanted speedy was purely put forth as non-notable Swenson neologism. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:41, 16 October 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. Skomorokh, barbarian 00:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maison du Sport International[edit]

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

This article claims no notability of its subject. Good faith searches identify no significant coverage. There are numerous mentions as there would be for any building whose tenants are mentioned. ^Bongo_matic 05:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The archives of Le Temps, the regional paper of reference (registration required), have two articles with non-trivial mentions:

"Lausanne compte une concentration unique au monde de fédérations sportives sur son territoire - 17 fédérations internationales ainsi qu'une vingtaine d'organisations comme le Tribunal arbitral du sport (TAS), le siège européen de l'Agence mondiale antidopage (AMA), etc. Sans compter le CIO. Signe de ce succès, la Maison du sport international, à Vidy, regroupe une partie de ces fédérations et est aujourd'hui pleine comme un œuf, tant et si bien qu'un quatrième bâtiment devrait voir le jour pour permettre à la structure de se développer." [20]
"Une «Maison du sport international» a également été inaugurée en juin de l'année passé. Son but: offrir des locaux à proximité du siège du CIO aux fédérations et organisations sportives qui souhaiteraient s'établir à Lausanne. Les trois bâtiments affichent déjà complet et la construction d'un quatrième immeuble est d'ores et déjà envisagée." [21]

But on the whole, an article like Sports in Switzerland or even Sports in Lausanne would be a better home for such content. Sandstein 08:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I frankly felt that the very fact that this was to become a center for all WORLD governing bodies, made the facility per se "notable", due to its purpose... and this is certainly supported by the second letemps article. Do all involved read French? If not, perhaps a translation would be helpful here.

As to the COI allegation, although I was an officer of one of the tenants, I have nothing to do with their being there, and have had no vote in their EB for many years. I have absolutely nothing to do with either of the parties involved in the creation of the facility and thus, even a vested interest is pretty remote an accusation. I shall continue to try to locate more second party references to the organizations that moved in...

Do I get a vote? If so, I vote KEEP

Drsjpdc (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added numerous secondary news references and book cites.

Drsjpdc (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The additional references in the article provided by Drsjpdc do not appear to go above the "passing reference" level of significance of coverage. While Sandstein's are somewhat more on-point, I don't think they rise to the level of "significant coverage" either—the level of coverage they represent is not sufficient for establishing encyclopedic notability. ^Bongo_matic 00:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the only opinion that this article should be deleted is from Bongo, and to be frank, since Bongo has tagged every article that I have written with COI, and Notability issues, and even tagged an article that one of WIKI's senior editors has written in response to my {call for help). I am fast coming to the suspicion that he has a problem with anything remotely related to the subject of Chiropractic; (at least it starts to look that way) and assuming that were true, then that itself would be a violation of WIKI's policies.

The logic he uses, seems to be thus; medical journals are ok as sources for articles on medicine, but chiropractic journals and chiropractic texts, and other secondary written sources, (he even challenged the article written by an Australian University that teaches Chiropractic) are not ok for chiropractic articles. What then; only medical sources can be used for chiropractic articles? By this logic the only source for articles on Judaism would be from the Vatican.

He also seems to have a COI problem with any member of the Chiropractic profession writing anything remotely related to the Chiropractic profession; presumably on fundamental COI issues. Again, by this logic, only those with no intrinsic knowledge of the subject and no motive to write on it, would be allowed to publish in WIKI. That would neatly eliminate all articles on Chiropractic. When I started writing for WIKI, I did violate the COI rules and a page I wrote was taken down. I have thoroughly read the rules, and have been very careful not to violate them again.

The only connection that I have to the MIS, is tertiary, i.e., that an agency I once founded, long after I was no longer involved with them, became a tenant in their facility. I am not an officer, of that agency, and have no relationship to, or connection with the MIS, the IOC, or any related agency. This is already absurd.

Can someone please remove this flag? Or show me a a rule that would allow me to do so... Drsjpdc (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: per User:Sandstein. With the improvements to the article since nomination, and the references that Sandstein located that should be incorporated, I think this article merits inclusion in WP. DigitalC (talk) 15:59, 12 October 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 Wrong venue. Use ((db-a2)) on the page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 06:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rickyrab/Tempsandbox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rickyrab/Tempsandbox

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

playing with Twinkle

 —  Rickyrab | Talk 04:34, 8 October 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 userfy . Author says on talk that they need time to develop the article because of real-world time commitments, and has expressed interest in working in a sandbox. Commenters below have provided references showing that these are important terms of art in the real estate field. Moving to their userspace so it can develop without being under the gun.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions[edit]

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

note also:

Extraordinary assumptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hypothetical condition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete, it appears to be O.r. and it seems to be confirmed by talk opage comments Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems that the term gets used in certain real estate appraisal documents. As can be seen here, it does not seem that the terms are always found together, nor in that order; as part of the seminar, appraisers are taught the difference between "extraordinary assumptions" and "hypothetical conditions". All it really means that if one is going to appraise some real estate higher than it normally should be, one has to justify this explicitly so that for every hypothetical condition, an extraordinary assumption must be made. Abductive (reasoning) 04:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not exactly right. A hypothetical condition is an assumption you know not to be true or contrary to reality. Any analysis or discussion results based on a hypothetical condition are therefore also not reflective of reality and under professional ethics and standards must be communicated in such a way that they are not interpreted as being true. Extraordinary assumptions simply assume facts that could be in doubt, and professional standards and ethics require that you have a reasonable basis for making the assumption, but you can complete the analysis as long as your communication of the results does not imply that you are making a representation that the facts that are in doubt are actually true. (Actually there is another distinction between extraordinary assumptions and ordinary assumptions, I thought about expanding the article to include all three at a later date, but it's already being deleted, so I won't bother.) --KTrimble (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't have to be deleted, it could be merged to Extraordinary assumptions. Or you could ask for it to be put in the article Incubator. I also note that it existed for three minutes before being nominated for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 05:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the talk page comments actually say is that (a) sources will be forthcoming, and (b) these are concepts in the field of real estate appraisal. And that's borne out by the sources that turn up when one looks:
- Childs, Doyle (2008-10-01). "Use of extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions". The Canadian Property Valuation.
- Joseph F. Schram, Jr. (2006). "The Appraisal Process". Real Estate Appraisal (2nd ed.). Rockwell Publishing. p. 81. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
- Dennis S. Tosh; William B. Rayburn (2001). "Appendix A". Uniform standards of professional appraisal practice: applying the standards (9th ed.). Dearborn Trade Publishing. pp. 131, 134. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
- Robert A. Simons (2006). "Valuation of Impaired Property". When Bad Things Happen to Good Property. Environmental Law Institute. pp. 148–152. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
- Jack P. Friedman; Jack C. Harris; Barry A. Diskin (2005). "Extraordinary Assumption". Barron's real estate handbook (6th ed.). Barron's Educational Series. p. 266. ((cite encyclopedia)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
- Jack P. Friedman; Jack C. Harris; Barry A. Diskin (2005). "Hypothetical Condition". Barron's real estate handbook (6th ed.). Barron's Educational Series. p. 312. ((cite encyclopedia)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
- William L. Ventolo; Martha R. Williams (2001). Fundamentals of real estate appraisal. Kaplan Financial Series (8th ed.). Dearborn Real Estate. p. 64. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
Uncle G (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What I find lacking is the combination of the two. We have Extraordinary assumptions If we have these as two seperate articles covering both terms (I couldn't find the Hypothetical Conditions) we need to be able to find how those terms are linked. And when one actually looks I didn't tag the other article for deletion despite no sources. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you haven't read the sources cited. Start with Schram. Uncle G (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i wish the creator of these articles would ask to take them back to his sandbox, or the article Incubator. and no, you dont write an article first, then provide references, esp. 3 articles, all linked, with no refs. esp. if the language is so broad, when the references, if they were put into the article, point to only one specific field. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would say trim back to a stub, saying these are real estate terms, and let them be built up.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, OR andy (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please follow the discussion that you are adding to. Uncle G (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bizarre concatenation of unrelated ideas, an essay of original research: In a discussion of creationism or evolution, assuming that God does or does not exist. .... Applicability to Real Estate Appraisal. The swinging back and forth between alternate history, metaphysics, and the recurring refrain of real estate appraisal suggests a motive, at any rate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Userfy all. This article (these articles?) is definitely going somewhere, as shown by UncleG's references above, but it may take more than a week to get there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Userfy all. (By All, i mean this along with Extraordinary assumptions and Hypothetical condition) Creator KTrimble is a newbie just learning the ropes. It appears he may have embarked on the creation of useful articles here but is being caught in the suspected O.R. trap and unreferenced trap. I have corresponded with him via my talk page to try to help him out. It is kind of surprising that in late 2009 we don't have an article on what a "hypothetical condition" is! In terms of real estate and business valuation appraisal (at least), it is clear that an article could and probably really should exist on it. It has to start somewhere. In 2001, the current huge article for Ant started with the word STUB. --Milowent (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and delete it The consensus seems to be that this whole subject is too minor or bizarre to be included, which seems odd as there are entire seminars out there that do nothing but deal with the distinction between these two concepts. I makes me wonder how or why all of the inane undocumented crap on WP survives and this article is causing so much heartburn. Maybe the problem is that the sources aren't cited yet. Even though there are dozens of potential sources to cite, they aren't going to get put on here. I am a working professional and have only a couple of hours every once in a while to work on something like this. I am not going to waste it. I spent maybe a couple of hours last night creating this article, I made one minor edit a few seconds later, and it had a banner to be deleted already. I spent the next several hours whining about it, reading the talk pages of everybody involved, etc. Now I am writing this the next morning. I am already way over budget on time on this project, and it is nowhere near being in good form. Citing the dozens of potential references will take a few hours which I originally planned to do in conjunction with documenting other possible related articles after I learned how to do proper citations (which will also take some time, probably a few hours), which I might not be able to get to within a week. I also envisioned a major rewrite to expand on examples, add a couple of other concepts, etc., which in addition to documentation I expected to do over a period of weeks, letting the article evolve, hopefully with the collaboration of the community. I admit that the article needs more work which will take some time, but I am not interested in making that kind of investment if the whole thing is just going to be deleted because it is a minor, bizarre, or unnoteworthy subject. One suggestion was that the whole article be taken back into a sandbox. That was my original plan. But I see now that is not practical. I am not going to spend dozens of hours putting any major articles into a final form with citations and everything and trying to anticipate everybody's viewpoints on the subject and then roll it out into the real world if it is just going to be deleted in the first five minutes. I was under the distinct impression that you could get an article into a working form in a sandbox and then roll it out live and let it evolve and build with the input and collaboration of the entire community. According to the welcome pages, the place for these kinds of discussions are the talk pages, and that collaboration is part of what WP is supposed to be all about. My options are to work on it further or abandon it. In this environment, I have spent all the time on it that I am willing, so I am abandoning it. The banner says I can't completely delete it, so I trimmed it back, as suggested, to a stub with basic definitions and something that said it was important to appraisal and might be important to other fields. I would document it, but why bother. Somebody might want to go ahead and trim it further to just the definitions, but trimmed to this form or to just the definitions, it's useless without explanation and should probably be deleted. --KTrimble (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the article needs, most importantly, is focus. If this is a notable concept in real estate appraising, opening sections with a discussion about the existence of God seems slightly out of place. Please don't take this wrong; but when an article moves from abstract and metaphysical subjects to real estate and back again, it makes the resulting article look like it's intended to promote a real-estate business while pretending to be something else. Editors who patrol the Articles for Deletion page may have a bit of weary suspicion of the various ways people have tried to insert advertisements for their own businesses into the encyclopedia, and the current text probably raised a number of red flags.

I was under the distinct impression that you could get an article into a working form in a sandbox and then roll it out live and let it evolve and build with the input and collaboration of the entire community.

This is true. However, the sandbox is user space, not encyclopedia space. This is why several other editors suggested that we "userfy" this text - jargon for "moving it to one of your user pages" where it can be improved until you think it's ready for "prime time".

My personal suggestion would be to take a look at the real estate appraisal page, and see if you can see a point for insertion of your subject there. That article is reasonably well written, and can serve as well as any as a model for how to write up this subject. Try to include at least one, hopefully several, published sources. And then, that article could become a hook for your new text.

It also wants a better title; "extraordinary assumptions" and "hypothetical conditions" have meanings outside of real estate; a title that actually related these subjects to appraisals would be better. If I can help further, please let me know - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:59, 8 October 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. Copyvio of http://www.abc.net.au/queensland/federation/stories/s427578.htm NW (Talk) 03:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convit punishment[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:OR, and spelled incorrectly to boot. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per above. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:58, 8 October 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 pacifism as a plausible search term, without prejudice against the former content being used elsewhere. Skomorokh, barbarian 01:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radical pacifist[edit]

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

Delete, Appears to be neologism. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to pacifism. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non-notable neologism. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a neologism which is non-notable. JBsupreme (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep has 186 Gnews hits and 371 Gscholar hits, the second of which seems to document its use for nearly 100 years.--UltraMagnus (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. Hairhorn (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking on the link to Google Books search up top I see many notable books using this expression for quite some time. The article does need a lot of work though. Dream Focus 16:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you use Google News search, and click archives, you will see a rather large number of articles using this term to describe various groups. [22] Unfortunately, all the good ones from the 1960's and whatnot, require a paid subscription to view. I'd ask the deletion votes to actually look for information before trying to have something deleted. When you call this a neologism, it shows you made absolutely no effort at all to search for the term. Dream Focus 17:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

earliest I can find that does not require subscription, is 1917, I think that is conclusive proof that this is not a neologism --UltraMagnus (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evident notable, for example see Marian Mollin (2006), Radical pacifism in modern America. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the qualifier "radical" in front of pretty much anything. That doesn't confer "radical pacifism" with a set meaning that is the same for everyone. Hairhorn (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to pacifism per OliverTwisted and Hairhorn. GlassCobra 15:29, 14 October 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 01:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jints[edit]

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

Delete, No ghits appears to be a hoax possibly. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a hoax - [23] - or possibly softredir to Wiktionary. 7 03:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete this hoax - --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a probable hoax. Soft redirect to Wiktionary preferable. GlassCobra 15:28, 14 October 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 20:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Villarruel Architects, Inc[edit]

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

NN corporation. Recreation of deleted content from previous prod (by another editor). Sources are all self published.-- Syrthiss (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominating reason; a gsearch turned up nothing. --Scythre ^Talk _Contribs 21:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search turned up "1,210 for "Villarruel Architects, Inc". With such links from k12.ca.us, dgs.ca.gov and edu. Very reputable and established firm. Not all wikipedia entries can be 100% fully cited from every source on the internet. This page is merely a modest start to something that can be built upon by someone else now. --Remati^Talk _Contribs 23:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like spammy advertising to me. I didn't see evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely spam. I went ahead and tagged it as spam (not speedy material though...).--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 16:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete immediately per scythre,syrthiss .--NotedGrant Talk 19:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional. Netalarmtalk 01:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Begun re-writing article to sound less like an advertisement. --Remati^Talk _Contribs 18:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.166.92 (talk) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

likely delete - if some of the references can be sourced to reliable third parties, then keep. Otherwise, delete. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they link to "Our Wikipedia page" on the firm's homepage. What a blatant ad. Racepacket (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Why was this relisted, was there not already a consensus to take action? JBsupreme (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Remati (talk · contribs) indicated that he would rewrite the page, so I figured I would give him some additional time to do so. NW (Talk) 16:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Using wiki as an ad tool is not a use of justice! --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:50, 8 October 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. Many arguments in favour of keeping this article are remarkably unconvincing. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flotilla DeBarge[edit]

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

Another non-notable entertainer biography, this time their 'one event' claim-to-fame was in posing for a PETA anti-fur advert. This is hardly sufficient to warrant notability in itself. Almost all of the references are from blogs and .. well, Gawker, or are 404'd, and seem to be only there to document a single incident of petty crime :/ Note also that I've just edited it to remove a few dead reference - Alison ^❤ 00:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD is also debated by editors in an external forum

Delete - as above - Alison ^❤ 00:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that the range of references is enough to establish notability. The references also suggest that the subject may not have been primarily at fault in the incident which led to the criminal charges. - Eastmain (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is preferable to fix broken links than remove them. Besides, references need not be available online to be valid. I replaced one 404 link with its Archive.org version. Further coverage of Flotilla DeBarge from Gay City News can be found at this Google News archive search. Note the article about the threat of a lawsuit which appeared in the New York Post, a downmarket daily newspaper. Even though the article is posted on a blog site, it appeared in a reliable source. And Show Business Weekly, which reviewed one of , also counts as a reliable source, even if the review isn't available online any longer. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's tenuous in the extreme; 'they're reliable sources, just that we can't access them any more' - how do we know they are?? - Alison ^❤ 04:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources needn't be available online. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources states: "Verifiability implies that any one can check the cited sources to verify the information stated in a Wikipedia article. This does not, however, mean that any one can do so instantaneously, without any cost or effort. For example, some on-line sources may require payment to view; and some print sources may only be accessible in specific university libraries. The ease of access does not affect the verifiability of the information taken from such sources." In any event, I found replacements for two 404 pages at http://www.archive.org and I updated the article accordingly. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tough call - ordinarily i'd say keep as there appears enough verifiable notability, but the article is threatened to be taken over my a very minor arrest complaint, which would be undue weight to something pretty stupid. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more of a one time event, incidental coverage, than actual notability. Racepacket (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable for multiple unrelated events, sourced, documented, etc. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 11:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did a little searching added some cites, definitely is sufficiently notable. Coverage of the "one event" does not defeat notability otherwise.--Milowent (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just as an example, Google Books spits out this from Falling Out of Fashion‎ by Karen Yampolsky, "All the famous drag queens like Lady Bunny, Joey Arias, and Flotilla DeBarge were vogueing. Debbie Harry was there, of course; despite her age ..." A secondary source has called the topic of the article "famous", so s/he's notable. Bonus points for being mentioned in line with other people with Wikipedia articles. Other Google Books results are "Among the performers on the drag circuit is Flotilla DeBarge. Flotilla, whose act is a strange hybrid of Pearl Bailey and Eric Bogosian, thinks a double ...", (this constitutes analysis, another sign of notability), "... Imitation of Imitation of Life, featuring drag divas Lypsinka and Flotilla DeBarge, which performed to sold-out crowds in Manhattan in 2000. ...", and "... Wendy Wild, Flotilla DeBarge— Empress Of Large, Leigh Bowery and Jayne County, to name just a few. lts standout moments are many though the bitch fight...". We have articles on every last one of her co-stars in these results. Abductive (reasoning) 20:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - um... you do realise that Falling Out of Fashion‎ by Karen Yampolsky is a work of fiction? Guest9999 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care, real people appear in works of fiction. Here's the thing; I've heard of Flotilla DeBarge, just like I heard about Lisa E and Futura 2000, and I have never lived in NY. Abductive (reasoning) 23:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, I find it hard to accept that being described as famous in a work of fiction confers notability. If someone else wrote a book that described the individual as a small time act that nobody had ever heard of would that automatically mean they were not notable? Guest9999 (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it odd that the other "fictional" drag queens also seem to have a Wikipedia article? Abductive (reasoning) 23:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, as they appear to be notable - as this individual may be. I was just wanted to clarify that I do not think that the content of a description in a fictional work should not be used to establish the notability of a real-life person. Guest9999 (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews say Falling Out of Fashion is a thinly veiled memoir‎ of Jane Pratt. Abductive (reasoning) 02:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was still published as a work of fiction. I'm not saying - and have not said - that the person is not notable or that the fact that they were mentioned in a book should not be mentioned in the article about them but I find the idea that a description of a real person in a fictional work can establish their notability to be baffling. We clearly disagree on this and since neither of us seems swayed by the arguments of the other I suggest letting the matter rest. Guest9999 (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficiently notable. I learned of this discussion at Wikipedia Review. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. No real sources other than tabloid gossip. Kevin (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do we explain the kardashians then? This person actually has 125 google news hits. I added the cites to New York Magazine and USAToday which aren't tabloids, even if the content is not high-brow. We are talking about drag queens here, not Nobel prize winners. --Milowent (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing based on the existence of other articles is not valid. The cites to New York Magazine and USAToday are only passing mentions, and do not add any weight to the notability argument. Kevin (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability established by sources. Everyking (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Cla68's comments, this user is not notable- only minor gossip, and appearances as a drag queen is not sufficient for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billrogerson (talk • contribs) 16:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Cla68 said was "not sufficiently notable", these are not persuasive comments dear Wikipedia Reviewers.--Milowent (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny user Billrogerson. All his contributions are AfDing another article, !voting on this and... requesting adminship! --Cycl^opia - ^talk 17:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Washington Post and USA Today, among many other news sources, have mentioned the person. Click the Google news search thing at the top of the AFD, and just look around. Also, why is there a link to a forum at the top of the page? Some people on a forum were posting how they didn't like drag queens having articles apparently, so decided to all come here and say delete. Doesn't that violate the canvassing rules or something? Dream Focus 00:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Some people" were saying no such thing, if you'd care to check. And no, there was no canvassing done. We've been over this one before in the past re. Wikipedia Review, and it was previously discussed at WP:ANI - Alison ^❤ 00:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As Alison correctly says, the matter has been already discussed time ago. I add the link in the interest of transparency: since editors sometimes discuss AfDs or other WP discussion processes on external forums (might be WR or anything else), I usually add such links when I am aware of, so that everyone can as openly as possible see "what's going on". My personal impression is that it borders to canvassing, but it seems from the AN/I it's just me: in any case, adding the link avoids at least this being stealthy and makes no harm. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and greatly expand the high-heel assault! Seriously she has been a featured drag queen in New York and that's arguably one of the toughest cities for the form. I've seen her in quite a few movies and she has numerous mentions in reliable sources. For any drag queen she would be considered quite accomplished. It would help to find interviews and articles about her if not already done. I know she's been interviewed in some LGBT documentaries but I have no idea which ones. There is also some work under Kevin Joseph, like Broadway's Threepenny Opera, which can be folded in. -- Banjeboi 07:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Benjiboi. She is described as a legend! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the subject seems to be a bit above the common drag queen artist, the news articles do not confer notability. Appearances in movies are little more than extras.SonicRay (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, references are not convincing and indeed they point to nothing but a blank page on at least one occasion. Extra bits in movies are being manipulated to appear far more than they are; threatening to sue PETA does not add any notability; assaulting someone with their high heeled shoe and serving 45 days is mundane trivia at best - unless of course her attack was upon GW?!--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:49, 14 October 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. Consensus is that the company is not notable enough to satisfy WP:N Kevin (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colorware[edit]

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

Spammy article about a non-notable product. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I've just tidied the article. I've removed the overly detailed information about its products and services, which was unencylcopedic, advertisement-y, and gave undue weight to the topic. I've also pulled out all the references which only pointed back to the company's own website. That leaves a reference on Engadget and one on Boing Boing, both of which are little more than a regurgitation of the company's press pack verging on advertisement. As always if anyone feels I've been unfair to the article, please revert (although the links to the company's website should definitely be "External Links" at best, not sources). - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Note - an anonymous user (presumably the article creator) reverted my edits and will probably do so again in future; I've had a second go but I guess there's a good chance at any given time you're going to be seeing the version that's just an outright advert. - DustFormsWords (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete - (Noting the changes I made above), the article asserts notability but has no reliable sources to back that claim. There is coverage in sources which are both reliable and independent - but only two of them, the coverage is not significant, and appears to be a regurgitation of a Colorware press release. I therefore don't consider it passes WP:N and should therefore be deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stub - There is too little information and the information helps only a bit. Plus Colorware is not notable. James1011R (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I consider this notable enough. The company provides a service that is in the vanguard of new technology and therefore encyclopedia worthy. The problem seems to be mostly with the way it is written. It DOES need copy editing--the lack of clarity in this discussion about whether it's a product or a service illustrates the problem. I'm going to challenge the writer to step up to the plate and make the article much clearer. Explain to your audience how it differs from other companies offering appliance support. We also need some information on the technology of application.Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 23:30, 10 October 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) 04:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FileFactory[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking GNEW and with no GHits of substance to support Notability. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's in Alexa's top 1000 worldwide, so it seems very popular. Or atleast merge it somewhere. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Popularity does not equal Wikipedia notability. ttonyb (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment very popular items are definitely notable because of their popularity. As I said, a merge somewhere would be fine by me. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That is an incorrect statement. Popularity does automatically render Wikipedia notability. See WP:POPULARITY ttonyb (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for referencing. Although popularity does not guarantee notability in the wikipedia sense, they are correalted. The article is very new, and hasn't been really given a chance for improvement. Tag for referencing first before heading straight for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam; contains no information of an encyclopaedic nature, and none can be found in reliable sources to fix it. Chzz ► 06:16, 6 October 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 00:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chzz. No reliable sources found. GlassCobra 15:25, 14 October 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. No consensus to keep. Treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin Sylvester[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 07:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 30 September 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 00:33, 8 October 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 without prejudice to speedy renomination. Listed for almost 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator, and no comments from other editors at all for the past 20 days. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Talbot[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 07:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think that WP:ENTERTAINER is a more accurate category to use as a guideline as she is a television personality, not a journalist. She satisfies the criteria of having a significant role in multiple television shows (as a presenter for BBC North West Tonight and a co-anchor of Calendar as the most significant). --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 14:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think ENTERTAINER applies to people who deal with journalism and news-related issues. ƒ(Δ)² 16:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here. ƒ(Δ)² 17:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 30 September 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 00:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:46, 8 October 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 ITV News Channel. Per Ron Ritzman; relisted twice with only one !vote and no argument for deletion aside from the nominator. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Siraj[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. Tagged as a BLP requiring sources since June 2008. ƒ(Δ)² 09:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ITV News Channel as an unsourced BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 October 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 00:27, 8 October 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) 08:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Goodwin[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 09:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to STV News at Six as an unsourced BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 October 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 00:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure even a redirect is supported. The original version of this article, equally as without sources as the current one, pointed to a completely different television programme. I cannot find anything anywhere that documents this person's life and works, even a source which reliably states up-to-date information as to which television programme this person is currently associated with, and thus which article would be the proper redirect target. The only thing that I've found is a fluff piece in a gossip column about how this person was proposed to. Even that doesn't state the television programme. The world has simply not documented this person. The PNC is not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G, no opinions on redirecting. GlassCobra 15:24, 14 October 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. Skomorokh, barbarian 01:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geraint Vincent[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 09:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't feel as strongly about this one as I do about Felicity Barr (another deletion request today), but I know who he is, he was a familiar face on TV during the last World Cup, and I certainly think he warrants inclusion. Tris2000 (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please refer to the discussion here. ƒ(Δ)² 06:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A newscaster for a major national network. And doing a google news search I see his work as been featured prominently on CNN and PBS. --Oakshade (talk) 06:09, 30 September 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 00:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Not enough published about the subject to write a bio. Kevin (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News reporter whose reports are broadcast nationally and sometimes internationally. RMHED 23:25, 15 October 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. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Bevir[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 08:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ITV Tyne Tees & Border or delete. Article is an unsourced BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 6 October 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 00:19, 8 October 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. Counting 2 of the keep opinions as coming from one editor Kevin (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Lighthart[edit]

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

What...WP:NOTABLE? Fails WP:BIO... BrianY (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' - appears to be a rather complicated bit of a self-promotion for the novel "The Manufactured Identity". The cited news sources as far as I can tell are either self-published or "in on the joke". I may be wrong but if so it would help if the article were re-written to be less like a short story and more like an encyclopaedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' - I overheard a professor saying this case is going to be the standard example of dissocialize amnesia he will be using in his classes for years to come. I came here looking for more info. I do think this article has merit but I agree it should be reformatted to be more like a normal bio article. - Rich83202 06:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' - As a psychological enthusiast and a sometimes lecturer of social work, mental health, psychology, counseling, I felt compelled to create this article as Mr. Lighthart's case is currently the most notable instance of dissociative amnesia on record. It is not meant as a promotion of the fiction novel The Manufactured Identity, and far from self-published references, most of the article references are from primary media sources, such as The Seattle Times or other newspapers. Finally, the controversial pieces, of which the primary one has been the parrallels between the Dr. Sommer novel, is important as this case has yet to be without controversy, and given that 50% of such cases of dissociative amnesia are characterized by those faking the disorder, I felt it necessary in accordance with Wikipedia neutrality doctrine to include the primary counter argument against Mr. Lighthart's veracity, although I am of the opinion he is most likely not faking. regards for your allowing these thoughts Rstero (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC) — Rstero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The two 'keeps' above are the creator of the article, and the creator of a not yet released article on the author of the book referred to. There seems to be a fair bit of media attention, but I wonder how long this will last. Doesn't seem to have the potential of a Kaspar Hauser. I am rather suspicious about the parallels with the novel (as reported - I haven't read it and probably won't), regarding activities like this coming at the time of a book's release as more than coincidental. Peridon (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – based on the following coverage by 3rd party – creditable and verifiable sources [24]. An argument could be made to delete based on One Event. However, in light of reading the articles listed above and the two other keep opinions. I can see a case being made that Mr. Lighthart will be the subject and focal point of further study with regards to dissociative amnesia in scholarly works. Regarding the association with the just released novel “The Manufactured Identity” is supposition at best. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hard to assess, but the sources are so strange. If kept, the article needs a lot of work (e.g., stock for sock). Racepacket (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having looked in the sources, I get a distinct whiff of self-promotion. It is interesting that apart from the two keeps at the top, no-one in the field has come forward to confirm that either the book or the subject of the article are going to be the definitive examples, or even that they are going to be used in any way at all. A single event in the life of someone who may have been around but is not particularly notable to my reading of things. Not even for managing to get $600 into a sock along with a foot. 6 x $100s maybe. Otherwise, uncomfortable... The novel itself doesn't appear to have been considered worth an article, so a possible emulation of it rather fails to be notable too. Peridon (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Check the piece now. I rewrote - wikified - added better references and categorized. Hope it helps. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tidier, yes. Increase in notability, no. Blog comments and readers' comments on a newspaper page don't take this beyond a one day minor (very) sensation. Still looks like a promotional stunt to me. Peridon (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's got references, but it's full of "thought-to-have-been's" and similar. If there's nothing certain to be said, why say it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.120.186 (talk) 20:36, 14 October 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Sarah Palin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article violates WP:NOTNEWS. The article goes into needless detail that would be culled out of the main article (Sarah Palin) if a merger occurred. The resignation of a governor is not that big of a deal, especially when the article doesn't have much of anything to say about it. WP:NOTNEWS states: “Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own.” That is truly the case here; this article simply isn’t encyclopedic by its very nature.

Let's take a step back here and look at the bigger picture. Sarah Palin is not a very important figure in United States history. Sure, she’s been in the news a lot since she became John McCain’s running mate last year, but she was not elected vice president. At this point, she’s just a former Governor of Alaska who served less than one term. There is nothing about her resignation that makes it especially notable in the history of the United States, and other than the fact that it happened recently, there’s no reason why anyone would ever consider giving this topic its own encyclopedia article. This is a genuine example of the culture of celebrity over-inflating a person’s long-term significance; per the arguments laid out at WP:RECENTISM, this article ought to be deleted. Keep in mind that recentism being rampant doesn’t make it correct. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge- deleting the information would be a disservice to wikipedia, but it probably doesn't need to be a standalone article. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something else I wanted to add- we do not currently have an article on the Resignation of Richard Nixon, which was quite frankly a bigger event than Ms. Palin's resignation. The topic of Nixon's resignation is handled in separate articles related to him. I'm not trying to use an other stuff does/doesn't exist argument, merely trying to draw a parallel between the two to give this debate some perspective. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful to Sarah_Palin#Resignation, and delete the rest. To give the early resignation of a minor Governor its own article gives WP:UNDUE weight to its significance, and is WP:NOTNEWS --Saalstin (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - i just saw the box on the article - "This article is part of a series about Sarah Palin" - holy moly! its the sarahpedia! The article is ridiculously in-depth (do we really need to know what each individual pundit said about her resignation, though I appreciate the effort?), over time I would suspect Sarah's coverage here will be more condensed.--Milowent (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (per Saalstin) I agree that this is recentism and needless detail. The useful content can be comfortably merged with the main article. Hekerui (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent. This is far beyond the whole WP:NEWS thing. JBsupreme (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In what way is this "far beyond the whole WP:NEWS thing"? The fact that this event was a few months ago does not automatically disqualify the article from being deleted under WP:NOTNEWS. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simply, it was a very notable event. While I agree with the above comments that contributors to this article could have done all this work on articles of vastly more lasting significance, that doesn't mean that these efforts should now be undone. WP:NOTPAPER applies here. Gruntler (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What do you think made this "a very notable event"? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 1) I'd argue that any time a US state's governorship changes hands for any reason it's a notable event. This is why we routinely have long, detailed, full articles on state-level elections. Sometimes this event can be covered adequately within other articles, but it should always be covered in some way. 2) Palin is much, much more famous than most governors--the only current state governor who might be more famous is Schwarzenegger. It's a much bigger deal for Palin to suddenly resign than if John Hoeven had resigned. 3) The event got a deluge of national news coverage--NYT front page, network news, etc. 4) This was an extremely unusual type of resignation, without any recent precedent that I am aware of.Gruntler (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. Numerous governors in U.S. history have resigned for various reasons, and there hasn't been an article on each event. And many of those resignations have gotten a deluge of national news coverage, regardless of whether that governor was as famous as Palin. For example, there isn't an article on the 2004 resignation of New Jersey Governor James McGreevey, even though that event was the subject of a deluge of national news coverage. Why not? WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, and the fact that it could be adequately covered in the James McGreevey article – which it has been. Again, this is just one example, but the McGreevey resignation is arguably more deserving of an article than this one because there was an accompanying scandal, as there was when Eliot Spitzer resigned (see Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal). And your contention that this was an unprecedented sort of resignation is basically an opinion and has little to do with the notability of the subject (in fact, that is barely broached in the article). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases of resignation, there isn't a specific article because there is a full and detailed article on some event which is very closely related to the resignation, usually a scandal. In effect, an article explaining the scandal is the same thing as an article explaining the circumstances of the resignation (as in the case of Spitzer). Anyway, WP:OTHERCRAP goes both ways. It might have been *better* if the "resignation" section of the Jim McGreevey article had been broken out into a new article--the coverage in the McGreevey article takes up as much space as everything else he did as governor put together! In general, if Palin's resignation is covered and other governor's scandals and resignations aren't, then the problem is with the lack of coverage of the other governors. A governor's resignation--any governor's resignation--easily passes WP:GNG. Gruntler (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough; my main concern is that undue emphasis is not placed on Palin over other politicians of similar stature due to her celebrity status. In any case, it appears that we're headed towards a "merge" consensus. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It seems Mrs Palin is going to be with us for a while, and the main article is big enough as is, but I'd rather see this merged and cleaned up. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main Palin article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Other than providing jokes to late-night comedians about her quitting half-way through her term, her resignation has not been notable and will be forgotten in time. At most it warrants a tiny section in Palin's article. TJ Spyke 16:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main Palin article. There's no need for a separate article about this incident. LadyofShalott 16:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the nominator's statement that much of the information in this article "would be culled out of the main article...." That's precisely why it shouldn't be merged. It's a good example of the use of summary style to accommodate different readers' interests. Some readers of the Palin bio will be curious about the resignation and will want more detail than can conveniently be included in the main article. JamesMLane t c 16:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - major speech watched live by over 5,000 people, and millions on the news; onging discussion in the legitimate media indicates probable, but not certain, encyclopedic value. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after trim per WP:UNDUE — Ched : ? 20:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to main article. Are we supposed to have a new article every time a prominent person moves on to a new stage in their career? If she were to announce her candidacy for President in 2012, would we then have something entitled "Announcement by Sarah Palin of Intention to Run for President"? This is why we have the policy WP:NEWS, because most events are not that significant a month later. Mandsford (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Wikipedia:Summary style this is a spin-off from the main article. It adds material that would be too detailed to include in the main article - and that article is already quite large. The nominator's reasoning that "Sarah Palin is not a very important figure in United States history" would disqualify 99% of the biographies - e.g. most soccer players. The test for inclusion is not that the figure be important in history; the test is that the subject be notable. This article easily meets the test of notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's apples and oranges, Sbowers3. I'm not arguing that Palin is undeserving of an article. I'm arguing that the subject of this article, an event in Palin's life, is undeserving of an article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as valid spin off from main article that is well sourced and continues to be discussed. I don't have any strong objection to merging. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An intriguing, arguably unprecedented high-profile resignation that shook the US political landscape.--The lorax (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but delete extraneous or undue content. This event, in the grand scheme of things, was not notable enough to warrant its own article, even given the unusually pervasive media attention that surrounds Sarah Palin. My guess is that all of this content in the main article would have been rightly problematic due to wp:undue, but the same issue exists with (or may even be amplified by) the separate article, just with fewer eyes paying attention. user:J aka justen (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, for same reasons given by Ched. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I recommend a SNOW Keep. AFD is about deletions, not merges. Based on all the above comments, there is no way this article is going to be deleted. If a Merge is appropriate, the way to do it is by proposals on the talk page(s), not here. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The real talk page is here. "SNOW Keep" generally requires that lots of people are saying "keep", and parliamentary procedure notwithstanding, AfD discussions frequently close with "The result was merge". I think that most of us who are saying "merge" would rather the article be deleted, but there should be some time given to trim the fat and to leave relevant information in the regular article. Assuming a merge happens, folks who are interested can talk about what's relevant enough to mention. Step one will be to lose the entire "Reaction" section and the 12 lengthy quotes by everyone from David Frum to Rush Limbaugh. Step two will be putting in links to her speech and to other news items that were being written about as they happened. Good luck in '12, Sarah. Mandsford (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but ... develop it into an article. Smiling, but not joking. That it has not progressed is THE ONLY argument that should have been raised for having another time-wasting AfD so soon. Again, smiling but not joking. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM are as unpersuasive now as they were last time (at least to those who know the full complexities of the matter). Merge?, no. (See previous parenthetical.)
[BEGIN SOAPBOX] Speaking as a rhetorical analyst, the rhetorical argument presented is: Sarah Palin is a flash in the pan ... Clearly the resignation of a flash in the pan is of momentary interest (news), certainly not historical ... because, um, Sarah Palin is flash in the pan. Whether or not one is a fan of Sarah Palin, she, and her notable/controversial resignation (marking a surprising turning point in her career) is of more historical significance than huge swaths of what we cover in Wikipedia—not that our opinion on that matters, of course. Which is why such opinions should not be the basis for a time-wasting re-run Afd.
BOTTOM LINE: Asserting WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM is not persuasive. Rhetorical handwaving of personal opinion of the historical significance of Sarah Palin is less so. HOWEVER (AS PER ABOVE) What is there (on the page) is NOT improving toward article-hood. Let us wave a stick at those who say "KEEP" to do something about that. (SOTTO VOCE) And yes, Ms Palin, I'll be happy to help you write your speeches, for a very reasonable fee—which will not include editing your Wikipedia articles, which costs extra, plus Jimbo's cut. :)
META COMMENT If I'm going to have to waste my time on another time-wasting AfD, I'm gonna sure as heck have fun. I have. Cheers!
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meta discussion of User:Proofreader77's complex understanding of the article in question. ;)
"WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM are as unpersuasive now as they were last time (at least to those who know the full complexities of the matter)." I really resent the implications of that. I fully understand the complexities of the matter, and I am not the only one who has subscribed to those arguments. This AfD is not "rhetorical handwaving of personal opinion"; it is simply a fact that having articles like this over-inflates Palin's importance in American history. How many unsuccessful major-party nominees for Vice President can you name? Does Wikipedia cover their careers in the same excruciating detail with which it covers Palin's? The answer to the latter is no, of course not. It's recentism, plain and simple, and I find it hard to believe that you can't see that and somehow think that the recentism argument is "rhetorical handwaving of personal opinion." You joke about the flash in the pan thing, but frankly, in the broader history of the United States thus far, Sarah Palin is a flash in the pan. Try to be civil. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] re WP:CIVILITY Assertions have no rights to be treated with civility. :) NOTE: If I had said, e.g, That well-known-for-silly-assertion-offering ...Willoughby is at it again, then civility would be an issue. Compare Obama/Wilson (and who got in trouble). :) AND Implying that one position is more firmly grounded in knowledge than another, is normal rhetorical boilerplate (to which only those who are less rhetorically knowledgeable would take offense.) LOL. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Let's just say this: "[All the people commenting with that opinion that differs from mine are wrong] (at least to those who know the full complexities of the matter)" is probably not the most collaborative way of going about summarily dismissing the differing opinions of others. :P I've read your position, I feel I understand it, and I feel as though I understand the "full complexities of the matter," and I still happen to disagree with you. It's not that I believe you're failing to understand the full complexities of the matter. I just believe you reached a different conclusion. Anyway, this is all meta to this discussion, and while I thought your comment might be an effort to be a tad bit witty, I didn't feel offended... user:J aka justen (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Dear J FYI: When I came to the page to post my wits out, you had just posted your vote ... So, specifically to avoid offending you right beneath you ... I delayed my message until other votes intervened (?). (smiling, but not joking) Surely allusions to paid editing and aspersions of Jimbo corruption should earn extra-point bonuses—and indicate the appropriate Smile-when-you-say-that, mister tone. Yet, I will posit (?) that from the perspective of effective collaborate discussion... providing negative feedback to the speaker is vital (hopefully with appropriate aforementioned tone.) E.G., TO WIT, I.E.(?): Discouraging unnecessary AfDs is a "social good.," which I gladly provide without fee, or thanks. :) FINALLY (LET US PRAY) The assertion that some have a more complex understanding of the matter (and that someone is me) is made in the context ... of a lot of words ... from which a judgment can be made of the alleged superiority of the quality of perception. I'm sure you all have. LOL THE END. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meta discussion of User:Proofreader77's complex understanding of the article in question. ;)

"WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM are as unpersuasive now as they were last time (at least to those who know the full complexities of the matter)." I really resent the implications of that. I fully understand the complexities of the matter, and I am not the only one who has subscribed to those arguments. This AfD is not "rhetorical handwaving of personal opinion"; it is simply a fact that having articles like this over-inflates Palin's importance in American history. How many unsuccessful major-party nominees for Vice President can you name? Does Wikipedia cover their careers in the same excruciating detail with which it covers Palin's? The answer to the latter is no, of course not. It's recentism, plain and simple, and I find it hard to believe that you can't see that and somehow think that the recentism argument is "rhetorical handwaving of personal opinion." You joke about the flash in the pan thing, but frankly, in the broader history of the United States thus far, Sarah Palin is a flash in the pan. Try to be civil. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re WP:CIVILITY Assertions have no rights to be treated with civility. :) NOTE: If I had said, e.g, That well-known-for-silly-assertion-offering ...Willoughby is at it again, then civility would be an issue. Compare Obama/Wilson (and who got in trouble). :) AND Implying that one position is more firmly grounded in knowledge than another, is normal rhetorical boilerplate (to which only those who are less rhetorically knowledgeable would take offense.) LOL. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say this: "[All the people commenting with that opinion that differs from mine are wrong] (at least to those who know the full complexities of the matter)" is probably not the most collaborative way of going about summarily dismissing the differing opinions of others. :P I've read your position, I feel I understand it, and I feel as though I understand the "full complexities of the matter," and I still happen to disagree with you. It's not that I believe you're failing to understand the full complexities of the matter. I just believe you reached a different conclusion. Anyway, this is all meta to this discussion, and while I thought your comment might be an effort to be a tad bit witty, I didn't feel offended... user:J aka justen (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear J FYI: When I came to the page to post my wits out, you had just posted your vote ... So, specifically to avoid offending you right beneath you ... I delayed my message until other votes intervened (?). (smiling, but not joking)

Surely allusions to paid editing and aspersions of Jimbo corruption should earn extra-point bonuses—and indicate the appropriate Smile-when-you-say-that, mister tone.

Yet, I will posit (?) that from the perspective of effective collaborate discussion... providing negative feedback to the speaker is vital (hopefully with appropriate aforementioned tone.) E.G., TO WIT, I.E.(?): Discouraging unnecessary AfDs is a "social good.," which I gladly provide without fee, or thanks. :)

FINALLY (LET US PRAY) The assertion that some have a more complex understanding of the matter (and that someone is me) is made in the context ... of a lot of words ... from which a judgment can be made of the alleged superiority of the quality of perception. I'm sure you all have. LOL THE END. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on Sarah Palin. I am not certain why this warrants a standalone article. It seems like a single news event and should be part of the larger Palin biography. Warrah (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is very common for 21st century national figures to have articles for each stage of their life in order to keep the main aritcle to a reasonable WP:SIZE.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Example of Wikipedia:Recentism Sole Soul (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To quote from Wikipedia:Recentism: "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion". I don't agree that an article going into great detail is sufficient reason to delete it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Sarah Palin per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. This is really only worthy of a paragraph or two in Palin's article, we certainly don't need extensive lists of opinions from various pundits and talking heads. GlassCobra 15:20, 14 October 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 01:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sekhon[edit]

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

This may or may not be a notable topic but as it stands a notability tag has been on it for over six months and the article still seems to serve as an unreferenced repository for people who happen to have the same last name and whose own notability isn't established, including, on one occasion, a person who was plainly not listed by the website of the university at which he was alleged to be a chair-holding professor. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a problem with many of the "clan" articles that form the castes in India. It's very difficult to say if this is a clan or a last name since there's really nothing in Gbooks, scholar etc for that. A search for "Sekhon clan" just provides WP and mirrors and one primary source which isn't RS. If anyone can unearth a couple of credible references to show that this is a clan, I'd be ready to reconsider my !vote. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Topic may or may not be notable but the article is not sourced (reliably or otherwise) and a good faith search turns up no sources in languages that I can read. Thefore fails WP:N - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:31, 8 October 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. Some cleanup is needed but this is a relevant topic. Tone 20:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of Zulu[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced list of mostly non-notable people, distant cousins of the Zulu royal family. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This info is avail in the public domain on the Royal Family... The House of Dlamini page is exactley like this, it takes info from one page. It gives information on the Zulu Royal family. The information is availible on public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuludynasty (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.219.159.13 (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a work in progress, needs some polishing, and needs to be more than a duplicate of another website. However, African royalty gets the same over-the-top, crown-sniffing, bootlicking, ooh-you're-a-Prince treatment that the European folks are entitled to. Actually, it probably doesn't get the same treatment as the white folk, since many of the distant cousins of the Windsors and Mountbattens are deemed entitled to their own article, and so are relatives of pretenders to the throne. If someone were to nominate the article about a 2-year old child who is the "fifth cousin three times removed" of the Queen, there would be a snow flurry of keep votes, but this is a list of... Zulus. The objection here is that the list has "mostly non-notable people"? Sorry, we don't redact the content of an article simply because some of the names on their wouldn't be entitled to their own page, and we certainly don't delete an article simply because it drops some non-notable names. Notability is a threshold requirement for having an independent article. Whether some of the people on here wouldn't get their own page has nothing to do with whether there should be an article about the descendants of the Zulu rulers. Mandsford (talk) 21:10, 8 October 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, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luana Lani[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO, no other indications of notability under the GNG or any specific guideline, no likelihood for substantive expansion of this generally unsourced article Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Epbr123 (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable under the GNG nor PORBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:20, 9 October 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 01:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Arnett[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 14:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Bobak (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Candidates to be candidates" need have something else interesting about them to be notable. Hairhorn (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hairhorn and nom, no objections to speedy close. GlassCobra 15:15, 14 October 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 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Nussey[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking significant press coverage. ttonyb (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not a barrage of coverage, but sufficient I think. Unsourced claims re age vs. median age make this one interesting. Article desperately needs wikifying. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh: I find articles like this have fascinating information, but its hard to justify the individual article. The town in question here has population of 668 people.[25] If consensus is to delete, I'd say merge a paragraph of her into the town article.--Milowent (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suppose that 25 might be young for a mayor, but not so young as to be noteworthy for that alone. Having been "exactly half the median age of town" is an amusing bit of trivia, but ultimately has no special significance. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Rose Blanche-Harbour le Cou, Newfoundland and Labrador, utilizing the one source currently used in Nussey's article. GlassCobra 15:15, 14 October 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, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gurtler[edit]

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

This man's only claim to notability is being the mayor of a town of fewer than 300 people. His name, in connection to being mayor of The Plains, generates fewer than 200 unique google hits, and virtually all of them are to unreliable sources and/or only contain his name to mention that he is mayor, and not to actually discuss him. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:N, assertions of notability are in question. South Bay (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked too, and like the nominator I cannot find anything that actually documents this person's life and works. Most of the things that even touch upon this person are effectively telephone directory entries, containing name, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address. The PNC is not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per unverifiable information; however, even were the article to be shown as true, deletion might still well be viable. GlassCobra 15:13, 14 October 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 00:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Codalogic LMX[edit]

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

The usual searches reveal no coverage by independent reliable sources, except for information added by the vendor. No other indication that the software is notable. decltype (talk) 07:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is a C++ XML Data Binding Code generation tool. It converts XML Schemas that describe valid application specific XML instances into C++ classes that mirror the structure of the XML Schemas. Obviously, no home should be without one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BURDEN. Miami33139 (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ihcoyc and Joe Chill. No reliable sources found to verify notability. GlassCobra 15:12, 14 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Blue 28[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM, no other indication of notability under the GNG or any specialized guideline. More like an episode of a TV show than a independent release, and the main article/overview treats the overall series that way. If there were anything noteworthy about the individual episode, it could be mentioned briefly in that main article; but this is little more than a castlist. (Note: actually third nomination, first was at VFD and for some reason not picked up, but copied to article talk page.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into the Traci Lords article--WngLdr34 (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable content. I considered a redirect to Traci Lords, but a redirect to the series page, which has some actual info about what type of program it is, makes at least a much sense. Given that situation people are probably as well off picking the article the want off a search list as being redirect where they may not want to go. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lords' appearance in adult movies while underage is already mentioned in her article, no need for this to have a separate page. GlassCobra 15:11, 14 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William E. White[edit]

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

Delete. non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Cordyceps2009 (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on basis of current information. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The sources seem too non-mainstream to pass as reliable, and a quick search didn't find any better ones. I don't think he passes WP:BIO, and I'm not sure why the nominator even mentioned WP:PROF because he doesn't seem to be an academic and doesn't look at all close to passing that. —David Eppstein (talk)
Delete per above. Probably not worth redirecting as a search term. GlassCobra 15:09, 14 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The O'Higgins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The O'Higgins

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

Unverifiable. No use of this title can be found on the O'Higgins Clan website Delete. Horselover Frost (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as even O'Higgins Clan is a redlink. Appears to be a little-used and unverifiable title. GlassCobra 15:08, 14 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter J. Singleton[edit]

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

Delete as nonnotable. This is a BLP that has been tagged as unsourced since October 2007. I have found a modest amount of information about the article subject at http://www.yaconn.org/artists/study-guides/StudyGuide-LittleBrother.pdf and other pages on the http://www.yaconn.org/ website, but nothing I found indicates to me that Mr. Singleton has received sufficient attention as a theatre professional to be deemed notable. Orlady (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found to pass WP:BIO. GlassCobra 15:06, 14 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Chandler[edit]

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

WP:BIO provides that "a person is presumed to be notable if he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". The lack of sources confirming this in Chandler's case leads me to believe he falls short of this standard; thus, the article should be deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Article seems to be primarily a CV, and the sources appear to be from his own website or blog-like sites that cannot be used as reliable sources. GlassCobra 15:05, 14 October 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sahiwal Division[edit]

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

Was nominated for speedy deletion with the rationale "Pakistani divisions were abolished in 2000. The only source given for this division is a blog". I am not sure if that rationale is correct, but I thought this merits some research and discussion, so I brought it up here. For now, I have no opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. I will also bring this up at WP:Pakistan. — Sebastian 07:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The division was created in November last year. Also see the Election Commission of Pakistan's Website (then part of Multan Division) and the Population Welfare Division Website. Rather confusingly Divisions were abolished during the Musharraf Presidency, but have been reformed, though with a different structure. Pahari Sahib 08:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the headers to this AfD, which were missing. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's treat this nomination in the same way as we would treat a deletion nomination for a county in the United States, i.e. speedy keep. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:44, 10 October 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.