< 21 December	23 December >

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sardaryzadeh[edit]

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

Non-notable family name. Although the facts in this article relating to the Sassanid Empire appear reasonable, none of the other facts in the article appear to be true (i.e. that that last king of Iran was a person named Khosru Sassani, rather than Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, or that there was ever a ruler in Iran named Ardeshir XI). The article may well be a hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; appears to be fiction. bobrayner (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Mason[edit]

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

I googled "Jennifer Mason" photographer Auckland and went to about the 7th or 8th page of results. This did result in more hits than just her website (event listings excluded):

* listing for 2009 Auckland Festival of Photography

* art magazine review of above, which was her first solo exhibition

* runner up for a New Zealand national award in 2009

* shortlisted for New Zealand national award in 2008

* online artists forum reviews a 2010 exhibit

* art magazine mentions her when she won a young artists award in 2002

The notability criteria Wikipedia:Bio#Creative_professionals say she should be "regarded as important by peers", "originating a significant new concept", "created a major body of work that is the subject of a book, film, or multiple reviews", "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition", "won significant critical attention".

I don't see how any of these apply from the sources I could find.

I understand that the deletion criteria are complicated and I may not have this right. I am happy for the experts to take it from here. The reason I'm going through the process was I came here to see if I could fix the orphan tag, but it's hard to know what other pages should point to this one. She's not a well-known exemplar of a particular technique and does not seem well-known enough to link from articles such as Auckland. Seeing that, I wondered if the article should be part of an encyclopedia at all. 207.134.250.140 (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Self-promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Borderline at best. I know that "I've never heard of her" is a poor reason to give for deletion, but as a professional New Zealand arts reviewer, I would have expected to hear of her if she had reached notability standard - and none of the sources given seem to indicate that she has (yet, at least). If she had won either of those awards, I would !vote differently, but as a runner-up or finalist, no. Grutness...wha? 21:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Alexf^(talk) 19:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

England vs Chile (1998)[edit]

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

Contested PROD with the rationale:"Non-notable football match. Nothing unique or special occured which warrants its own article". The article's creator contested on the articles talk page that it was one of the last matches at Wembley, an historic victory for Chile and Michael Owen's debut. However i still don't feel this makes it notable enough for its own article. Eddie6705 (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Eddie6705 (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This match isn't notable. Notability is established by external sources, and they did not cover this widely at the time, nor have they done at any point since it was played. All matches have basic verifiable information of people playing/goals scored/etc. but that does not mean they are notable. Trebor (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable friendly match. There is no policy that says that every match between two national teams is notable, and there's nothing apparently significant or unusual about this one. Mandsford 00:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be non-notable for British people(excluding Michael Owen's debut in national team),but fot Chileans this match is an historical match because they defeated a big team at their home stadium.This is a good reason to keep the article,along with Owen's debut.Gab 95 (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable match, and saying "keep this because Team A beat Team B in B-Land" is not a valid reason. Giant Snowman 02:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No evidence is present that there is enduring notability beyond the aftermath of the match. For such a match to merit an article, there has to be some level of coverage that goes beyond simple game previews and summaries, and I don't see that here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "one of the last matches at old Wembley", erm not exactly, there were at least five qualifying matches after that (the last being a 1–0 defeat by Germany in 2000). Michael Owen's debut - nah, he's not that important - do we have an article about Maradona's debut, or Pele's debut? England losing at home - nah - notable once upon a time, not now (ie England 3–6 Hungary is notable as it is still widely referenced today). I don't see how its that notable for Chile, either, it was only a friendly match against a country that isn't a rival (like Argentina, say). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable friendly match. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried looking for sources to establish notability under WP:EVENT, and drew an almost complete blank. Only this and this plus a few news reports from the time mention it, and none describes any lasting impact. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable event. bobrayner (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedic topic. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Alexf^(talk) 19:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montague Davenport[edit]

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

Notability and verifiability concerns on this long-arguably-sourced BLP. On my own, I'm unable to find reliable secondary sources that cover this subject, there's his book, and there's a reference here or there to him in passing (gaining directorship of the water company redlinked), but nothing significant that I can find myself.

The article claims two sources, "Who's Who" (which is the title of any number of books from any number of publishers, most of which aren't considered reliable sourcing), and The Sherborne Register. The latter is fairly ambiguous, I first assumed it to be a newspaper but now believe it's a genealogical research site, possibly opening up concerns about the reliability of user-submitted data, that site doesn't appear to contain records for a Montague Davenport in any case.

Anyway, sources as always, welcome, but lacking this, I think this article fails to meet WP:GNG. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete After searching, no reliable sources. Searches for "Montague Davenport" (as opposed to the far more famous Hayward Montague Davenport) and "Sherborne Register" or "Who's Who" bring up no relevant results. Almost all results are Wiki mirrors. - ManicSpider (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per ManicSpider Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find coverage in any reliable sources, does not meet WP:BASIC. J04n(talk page) 01:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Tooga - BØRK! 13:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to be notable (and I've never heard of him in the course of my work). bobrayner (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 4/48 Zelda Marathon[edit]

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

Non-notable event lacking GHits and GNews of substance. ttonyb (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – They trying to get the word out everywhere, especially through Wikipedia (unfortunately). The only things I could find are releases from them on other sites about this or otherwise from other forums. I'm not seeing notability established here. –MuZemike 01:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not notable. I hope they have fun gameplaying and that they raise some money for charity, but I don't see this as an encyclopædic article. bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Geomagnetic storm. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A New Theory of Magnetic Storms[edit]

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

This article was PRODed. From a cursory glance, it looks like it this is a somewhat highly-cited publication, so I'm bringing it to AfD for greater scrutiny. At the moment, I have no opinion on whether this should be kept or not. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this comes nowhere near the importance of the other items in Category:Physics papers; the substance of it would fit in Sydney Chapman. (And, of course, "113 days" was wrong.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Geomagnetic storm. This is just part of the history of that subject. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pieter Kuiper or JRSpriggs. We generally only keep the most important, groundbreaking scientific articles as their own articles. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of Christian Mystics[edit]

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

Non-notable organization lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:ORG. ttonyb (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article is essentially a biography of two theosophists, Dr & Mrs Curtiss, both of whom died half a centruy ago. My guess is that the "order" died with them. Personally, I have no time for theosophists, but that is my POV. For people who died so long ago, the lack of Ghits is hardly surprising. I have just altered the publications list to a list (rather than a series of footnotes). However cranky, the two would appear to have been prolific authors and as such entitled to an article. However, we do not want an article on each of them, and I would suggest the recreation of a redirect from each of them to here. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Peterkingiron. Edward321 (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armeniapedia.org[edit]

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

Non-notable. no coverage. delete. Merrill Stubing (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site has won a national award in Armenia in 2006, which according to Wikipedia:Notability (web) should establish it as notable for an article here. The award in e-Armenology was sponsored by the government and the private sector and included a significant prize, which was a multiple of the average national monthly salary. The site is also widely linked to, referenced and respected. I say keep. --RaffiKojian (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Errr ... the criterion states that it must be a "well-known" award, and it's tough to describe an award hosted on a now-defunct website as "well-known." (This quite aside from that Armeniapedia.org didn't win the award at all; the article states that it was the runner-up, which of course doesn't qualify.) If it is as heavily referenced and respected as all of that, surely someone can proffer sources saying so. Ravenswing 20:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this I would like to make a couple of points. First of all, the runner up award came with the large cash prize I mentioned as well. It is an award and it DID in fact win. It was also as I said, sponsored in part by the government. The award ceremony was huge and included a performance of the Armenoids. Unfortunately, Armenia is a small country, poorer and is just becoming well wired. There may not be good established award systems and much of the news at the time was not well archived, but there is nothing out there you can compare this award to. It was simply huge. The website, with about 5,000 pages may be the largest Armenian website in the world in terms of regular web content (ie. not a daily news site). It has entire books online. A large travel guide book, a large and very extensive teach yourself the language course (much more detailed than anything else out there), historical novels, the entire church service, genocide testimony, books on nature, a large cookbook, etc. The site has been used by the New York Times and by Australian courts. There really is nothing out there even close to compare it with, and I think it would be hard for someone who is not Armenian or heavily involved in things Armenian to know the notability within the Armenian world. --RaffiKojian (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is certainly hard to do so without any reliable sources attesting to the site's notability, that is true. Without those sources, however, an article cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 06:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. RaffiKojian, I do note that Armeniapedia seems to be cited as a source in several hundred articles on English Wikipedia[1], but can you provide some examples of references and uses by reliable sources? I found 2 references in New York Times blogs[2][3] but little else[4]. Well, actually, there is a 2007 article from the The Australian in which Armeniapedia is (mis)identified as "a Wikipedia website", and an Australian immigration tribunal's ruling is reversed on the ground that its "reliance on the information/material contained in www.armeniapedia.org was illogical and/or irrational and/or unreasonable."[5] --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arxiloxos - most of the content on Armeniapedia is digitized material, unchanged from the original sources. The sources are noted, and those materials are as reliable as the original source. There is selectivity involved in what goes up. Unfortunately there are not so many good, scholarly sites up on Armenia, so aside from the many links to the site and the number of sites which steal the material without any reference or link, it's hard to point to much more than the New York Times links you mentioned above, and occasional references in things like the AGBU Magazine and other Armenian publications which usually don't preserved online. The only reason the Australian court reversed the use of the Armeniapedia material was because of their inherent suspicion of wikis, not because of the material. They had originally asked questions to the defendant based on the Armenian church service which is on the site in its entirety, used with permission from the church. --RaffiKojian (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 21:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether or not the armeniapedia website's contents are accurate or wideranging is irrelevant. What's at question is the notability of the website - and I think it fails the GNG pretty decisively. bobrayner (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill McGarry (Internet advocate)[edit]

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

Converted from prodding Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unreferenced BLP. Nakon 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was prodded: "Written in 2006 by user who looks to have a conflict of interest. Article gives no evidence that subject meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. A suitable Google search yields nothing but Wikiscrapes. All "Bill McGarry" news results belong to the footballer of the same name.". But some of the matter in the article looks relevant to the disabled, even if not to fit people. This article has stood since 2 August 2006. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I prodded this with reason above. —Half Price 08:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced, apparently non-notable. bobrayner (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are a lot of keep votes but they all are asserting notability without reference to policy. Its clear the player doesn;t pass HOCKEY so GNG is the only basis we will accept notability. The sources provided clearly have neen refuted and a local consensus cannot overturn the site wide consensus of where our inclusion threashold is. Either plays and meets HOCKEY or someone writes some in deopth coverage of him. At that point he meets our policies but until then his is just below the threashold and gets deleted. I'm very happy tio undelete on the spot as soon as the coverage or gametime is there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Having slept on the close and rewviewed the discussion on sourcing on my talk page [6] I'm reclosing this as No consensusSpartaz ^Humbug! 04:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John McFarland (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Junior player who has yet to play professionally or meet any of the conditions of WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if the subject acheives notability. I do acknowledge his being the first pick overall in the OHL, however that is not notable as many people picked in that position have never amounted to anything. WP:CRYSTAL. Since it was a disputed prod claiming it that the player won a major award. The Jack Ferguson Award is not a major award, not every award given by a league is major. The major awards are MVP, Top Defence, Top Goalie, First All-Star team. (generic names to apply to any league). An award given to someone drafted first is none of those things. DJSasso (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Explicitly passes criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY. He has achieved preeminent honours by being awarded the Jack Ferguson Award, which is a major award given by the OHL. This player went 1st overall in the OHL selection draft, and this article is justified by WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Jack Ferguson Award as mentioned above is not a major award. Not every award handed out by a league is considered major. Sources on page all refer to one event which makes it a case of WP:BLP1E. -DJSasso (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Jack Ferguson Award is a major award. There is no consensus that a "major award" as given out by ice hockey leagues is limited to "MVP", "Top Defence", "Top Goalie", and "First All-Star team" as you have stated in your deletion nominations here and here. By making such a bold statement without claiming it to be your personal opinion, you have implied that your statement is a fact (i.e. support by a consensus) - but it is not as it is only your opinion. Please state your personal opinions as your opinions, and do not attempt to mislead others into thinking that this is an issue that has already been decided by consensus. I suggest that you strike your bold statements and rephrase them as your opinion. Dolovis (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus that the Jack Ferguston Award is a major award, so it would appear that that is just your opinion as well. Does anyone have any evidence that it is either a major or minor award? My own opinion is that it would be a minor award, as it appears to be awarded solely on the basis of who was drafted first that year (as opposed to being awarded on the basis of being a good player, scoring a lot of goals, i.e. actually doing something), and it is not even a national award (it's only for the Ontario Hockey League), and it is only awarded to teenagers. One thing you may be confused about is that when WP:ATHLETE says "major award", it is meant as a major award in the context of the sport as a whole, not in the context of the league in question. So, while the JF award may be a major award for the OHL, it is almost certainly not a major award in the context of the entire sport of hockey. SnottyWong ^babble 23:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussions for creating the NHockey guidelines, major award was discussed as being the equivalents in various leagues of the big 3 in the NHL. Hart, Norris, Vezina. Which my comments are in line with. So before you go spouting off that I am stating opinion and not consensus maybe do a bit of research. -DJSasso (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just to be fair and get an up to date consensus I will bring it up at the project so that its crystal clear. -DJSasso (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep I don't think the Ferguson Award is enough. There seems to be enough for general notability, but a lot of that is from websites reviewing prospects for the 2010 NHL draft and the OHL draft. Not all are specifically about him, so I'd knock them down a bit in value. He was the scoring leader for the under-17 world's, but that's not a major tournament in the overall Wiki scheme of things. Overall, I'd probably lean to 'keep'. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^yak 23:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest Keep Possible - The difference between this one and the AfD for Daniel Catenacci is that McFarland has actually been drafted into a national, professional league that is not limited to teenagers. I would prefer to have him actually have played in the league before he has an article written about him, but maybe that's just me. I think notability has not been established yet, however it is very likely to be established in the near future, so it's probably worth keeping the article. I would not be against deleting the article and recreating it once the athlete has actually played in a few games and gotten some coverage outside of the teenager league. SnottyWong ^yak 23:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are justifying keeping the article because he was drafted by the NHL, WP:NHOCKEY inclusion criteria #5 says notability is achieved if the player was selected in the first round of the NHL draft. The subject was a second round selection. Is it probable that he will eventually achieve notability, I would say yes, however currently that opinion is trumped by WP:CRYSTAL. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A first overall pick in the OHL draft does not qualify as being more notable than a first overall pick in any other junior draft just because the OHL hands out a trophy for it. This individual is, for the moment, not notable. Reso lute 23:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not yet met the standards set by WP:NHOCKEY. Being the first player drafted in a junior league does not establish notability, nor does being selected in the NHL draft, as according to standards, only first round draft picks are considered notable for players who have not otherwise established notability. Can be recreated or restored when notability is established. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is being the leading scorer at the 2009 World U-17 Hockey Challenge notable? I would say no because I don't think it is a significant tournament, but would like input from others on the hockey project. Patken4 (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tournament itself barely receives any press, so I would say no, remember these guidelines are meant to guide you as to when news articles are likely to exist to allow a player to pass the GNG. So as I said, if the tournament itself is barely covered (in comparison to the World Juniors or the U-18 even to a lesser extent) then I doubt its leading scorer will see many substantial articles about him come out of it. -DJSasso (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Okay, let me get this straight: Brock Nelson, a high school hockey player who has won no awards and has competed in no international tournaments, and who no one has heard about, is notable because he was picked 30th overall in the 2010 NHL Entry Draft; but John McFarland, who is an OHL star player, who was picked 1st overall in the OHL draft, and has won the Jack Ferguson Award, and who was named the tournament's most valuable player at the 2008 OHL Showcase tournament, and who is now playing in the World Junior hockey Tournament (which is shown live on TV in over 30 countries), and who anyone who is a hockey fan has probably heard of, is not notable because he was picked 33rd in the 2010 draft? Give your head a shake. I'll find 20 reliable and significant sources to demonstrate he passes WP:GNG if I have too, but that should not be necessary because he already passes WP:NHOCKEY (#4). If you don't like NHOCKEY then open a discussion to change it, but as it reads now this article is a pass. Dolovis (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The hockey project already has its consensus that NHL First round draft picks are notable. That line had to be drawn somewhere. I do not see anything that claims that the Jack Ferguson Award is one of the "Achieved preeminent honors" criteria, which are "all-time top ten career scorer, regular season or playoff MVP, first team all-star, All-American". He fails WP:NHOCKEY (#4) at this time. If that award establishes notability, why is there not articles on Patrick Jarrett (2000 Winner), John Uniac (1987 Winner) or Dave Moylan (1984 Winner). -Pparazorback (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dolovis I don't think you understand how WP:NHOCKEY works. Meeting any of the criteria does not guarantee an article, its just a guideline to when a player is likely to meet GNG. You always have to meet the GNG. Its not a case of this player got an award so the GNG doesn't matter anymore, what it means is that, hey this player won an award so he probably has articles about him out there so go find them. I think you significantly misunderstand how NHOCKEY and GNG work. Players who don't meet the criteria can still have an article if they meet the GNG and players who meet NHOCKEY can still have an article deleted if they don't meet the GNG. The reason we use the first round as a cut off line is that someone who is drafted in the first round is significantly more likely to meet the GNG than someone drafted in the second round. NHOCKEY is not a free pass to not having to find sources, every article has to have sources. Even an NHL player. And the burden on proof is on the people calling for a keep to prove they exist and add them to the article. -DJSasso (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJSasso, I do understand how NHOCKEY works. I also know that the burden is on the nominator to first look for sources. You obviously didn't, because the are many reliable and independent sources to be easily found. The reason that a "major award" is a criteria is because it assures us that such sources are to be found if we look. The Jack Ferguson Award is such a major award, and thus I will be able to find the sources to justify the article under WP:GNG. As I know you will not put in the effort, I will put together a list of reliable and independent sources which I will post here before the end of tomorrow (unless some other kind soul is able to do it for me before then). Until then, I hope that independent thought and common sense starts to take hold in this AfD. Dolovis (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll find 20 reliable and significant sources to demonstrate he passes WP:GNG if I have too, but that should not be necessary because he already passes WP:NHOCKEY" indicates you don't because you are outright saying you shouldn't have to find sources because he passes NHOCKEY. If you don't provide them it doesn't matter if he passes NHOCKEY because he fails WP:V which is the other criteria required. There is no burden on the nominator but a good faith assumption that the nominator will do so, as I did do. And there was nothing to be found but press releases, game summaries, passing mentions and general WP:ROUTINE coverage, none of which add up to meeting the GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I spent a few minutes of searching and came up with 227 Gnews results for the hockey player John McFarland and another 3,780 results for the hockey Player John McFarland on Google. I have taken a very quick glance at only a few of these news articles and web pages to pull out the following 20 articles (sorted in no particular order) that I believe meets Wikipedia:Verifiability and demonstrates that the John McFarland article meets WP:GNG.
TSN article annoncing MCFarland was selected 1st overall in OHL draft
Sun Sentinel, June 26, 2010 5 paragpahs on McFarland as Panther's draft pick
Bleacher Report, May 30, 2010, Feature article about McFarland
McFarland (Sudbury Wolves) was named 2008 OHL Showcase for the OHL Cup Tournament MVP playing for the Jr. Canadiens
Yahoo Sports, december 10, 2009, Full article about McFarland
The Sudbury Star, December 10, 2010 Full article dedicated to the McFarland trade
Canada.com, December 13, 2010, 3 paragraphs on McFarland
Regina Leader-Post December 14, 2009, McFarland is one of only three 17-year-olds to Few 17-year-olds to make Canada’s roster for the 2010 IIHF world junior hockey championship
McFarland wins Gold medal with Team Canada at World Under-17 Hockey Challenge
McFarland was second on Team Canada at the World Under-18 Championship with 5 assists and 8 points
NHL.com, McFarland announced to Canada's roster for 2009 Memorial of Ivan Hlinka Tournament
Paragraph about McFarland and trade to Wolves
SaginawSpirit.com December 9, 2010 Feature article on the McFarland as the centre piece of the "blockbuster" trade
The Sault Star, December 10, 2010 Full article dedicated to the McFarland trade
Sportsnet November 29, 2010 about McFarland
The Hockey news, march 18, 2008 Full article dedicated to McFarland
The Hockey News, June 26, 2010, 5 paragpahs on McFarland following NHL draft
TSN, April 3, 2008, Annoucing that McFarland was taken 1st over all in OHL draft
TSN, January 26, 2010, Two paragraph's dedicated to mcFarland
The Windsor Star, August 11, 2009, John McFarland named captain of Canada's National Men's Summer Under-18 Team at the Memorial of Ivan Hlinka Tournament

Dolovis (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read any of these? Most of these are just passing mention of him lumped in with many others or they are blogs such as yahoo sports and bleacher report. Your labels on them make it look like the articles are about him, when in many of them they are not. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew Djsasso would say that, but what he says is not true and my labels are accurate descriptions. To dismiss all such references out-of-hand demonstrates that Djsasso's mind is closed. I challenge Djsasso to give his analysis for each of the above twenty references so that we can have an insightful debate about the merits of each. Dolovis (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than willing to consider sources, but this list looks like you just grabbed the first 20 that came up. I will read them and analize them. I can say right off the bat the first one is as routine as you can get. A news organization anouncing a draft pick which they would do no matter who the person is. That reference isn't even close to being "in significant detail". It will take a bit for me to write up about the others. -DJSasso (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 is an article about every player the panthers drafted and only is a passing mention on him. (Not even close to 5 paragraphs, closer to 5 sentences)
3 is a blog.
4 is a single sentence mentioning who the tournament MVP is.
5 is a blog.
6 is about the trade and not primarily about him.
7 is again talking about the trade and not primarily about him.
8 is also passing mentions in an article about 17 year olds making the team.
9 is not about him at all and is a game summery.
10 is a passing mention that again does not cover him in significant detail.
11 same as #10, just mentions he is part of the team.
12 is an article about players being added to the team and is not primarily about him.
13 is a primary source press release.
14 is again talking about the trade and not primarily about him.
15 is an Op-Ed which is not a reliable source
16 is a blog.
17 is a blog.
18 is the same source as #1
19 is a blog.
20 is a single sentence saying he'd been named captain of a team in listing of news wire tidbits. So not even close to significant detail.

There. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, your superficial and self-serving "analysis" is inaccurate and is less-than useless. As an admin you should have read WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:SIGCOV which states that “Newspaper and magazine blogs are acceptable as sources” and “significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material”. I suggest that you simply state your argument as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and then get out of the way so that other editors have there say. Dolovis (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of newsblog. I do not see that those blogs are under editorial control. Its very rare that they are. And this isn't even remotely an I don't like it arguement. It's a source it arguement. You should probably read these various terms you throw out there. I am not remotely saying I don't like the article, I think its a decent short article, I also think he is likely to pass the bar in the future and at such time the article can be restore/recreated. At this moment I don't see enough to show his notability. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(added since dolovis changed his comment after my reply) "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" is the key, mentioning someone was part of a trade for example but then not going on to talk about that person in detail beyond their point total or whatever is not significant and is a trivial mention. You can't write a biography from two sentences that mention who they are, their position and their point total which is the whole point of ensuring that the coverage is significant. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with DJSasso on his interpretation of these sources, and will add that Bleacher Report should never be considered a reliable source. The Yahoo! and THN blogs have more clout as it is affiliated with a major media company, but overall, I'm not seeing significant coverage here. Reso lute 19:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The news articles linked to in the article, such as this one [7], give him ample coverage to pass the General Notability Guidelines. Dream Focus 21:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is an interesting case. McFarland has not passed notability standards described by in WP:ATHLETE, but I would argue that he does pass WP:GNG. For a few years, McFarland was touted as being the next John Tavares, so if you dig back, there does exist media coverage of him that would pass GNG. Obviously much of this coverage is not in the article, but it does exist. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 01:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourcing seems sufficient, status as #1 draft pick makes him newsworthy and of interest to hockey fans. Just because there is no automatic path for minor league athletes into WP doesn't mean there is a BAN on bios of minor leaguers. This article seems to be over the bar for inclusion, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think he passes GNG.

I would point out that WP:NHOCKEY says "players are presumed notable if...". No part of that guideline says that if a player doesn't meet the options in NHOCKEY, then any claim to notability is annulled, overruling GNG. (And if the wording of NHOCKEY ever did try to overrule GNG in that way, I'd correct it myself). bobrayner (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Catenacci[edit]

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

Junior player who has yet to play professionally or meet any of the conditions of WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if the subject acheives notability. I do acknowledge his being the first pick overall in the OHL, however that is not notable as many people picked in that position have never amounted to anything. WP:CRYSTAL. Since it was a disputed prod claiming it that the player won a major award. The Jack Ferguson Award is not a major award, not every award given by a league is major. The major awards are MVP, Top Defence, Top Goalie, First All-Star team. (generic names to apply to any league). An award given to someone drafted first is none of those things. DJSasso (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Explicitly passes criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY. He has achieved preeminent honours by being awarded the Jack Ferguson Award, which is a major award given by the OHL. This player went 1st overall in the OHL selection draft, and this article is justified by WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Jack Ferguson Award as mentioned above is not a major award. Not every award handed out by a league is considered major. Secondly there is nothing on the page that makes it meet the GNG. Both references are press releases which make them primary sources which don't meet the requirements of GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Jack Ferguson Award is a major award. There is no consensus that a "major award" as given out by ice hockey leagues is limited to "MVP", "Top Defence", "Top Goalie", and "First All-Star team" as you have stated in your deletion nominations here and here. By making such a bold statement without claiming it to be your personal opinion, you have implied that your statement is a fact (i.e. support by a consensus) - but it is not as it is only your opinion. Please state your personal opinions as your opinions, and do not attempt to mislead others into thinking that this is an issue that has already been decided by consensus. I suggest that you strike your bold statements and rephrase them as your opinion. Dolovis (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus that the Jack Ferguston Award is a major award, so it would appear that that is just your opinion as well. Does anyone have any evidence that it is either a major or minor award? My own opinion is that it would be a minor award, as it appears to be awarded solely on the basis of who was drafted first that year (as opposed to being awarded on the basis of being a good player, scoring a lot of goals, i.e. actually doing something), and it is not even a national award (it's only for the Ontario Hockey League), and it is only awarded to teenagers. One thing you may be confused about is that when WP:ATHLETE says "major award", it is meant as a major award in the context of the sport as a whole, not in the context of the league in question. So, while the JF award may be a major award for the OHL, it is almost certainly not a major award in the context of the entire sport of hockey. SnottyWong ^chatter 23:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that the Jack Ferguson Award it is a Major Award is that the presentation of this this award is covered in every newspaper in Canada, as well as internationally. Further the award has been deemed notable enough to support its own Wikipedia article. And as for a "regional award", please know that Ontario is larger than most (if not all) European countries, and supplies more players to the NHL than any other league in the world. Players come from all over the world to play in the OHL. Dolovis (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the awarding of this award is not covered in every newspaper in Canada (as can be seen by zero hits on google news). I would be hard pressed to find many people in the country that have even heard of it, whereas I can guarantee that the winner of the trophies I mentioned will be covered in every newspaper. As someone else mentioned, just because this league hands out an award for being drafted first over all doesn't make this player more notable than someone drafted in the QMJHL or WHL that were drafted first. -DJSasso (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot more than zero hits on GNews, and thousands more google web hits. 04:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

So 1 newspaper and a website that puts out press releases for teams/leagues. Still doesn't show that every newspaper in the country and many internationally cover it. Looks like only 1 paper has covered it. Secondly if you actually looked at the google hits you would see almost all of them are either wiki mirrors, or blog sites, which still are not every newspaper across the country. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not keep on basis of article - Like McFarland, I don't think the Ferguson award is enough. There does seem to be enough content out there on the web for general notability, but it's not sourced in the article. As a stub, it's a waste of time. I'd support a keep if sources are built up. I don't know if the media is just content-hungry but google did find 18,000 hits for "daniel catenacci" hockey. Is the media so lame that they cover teenagers this much? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that alot of those hits are WP:ROUTINE which is all you can find for most junior players beyond the ones that have clearly risen above the other juniors. -DJSasso (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^spout 23:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The main argument for notability appears to be that this player was the first draft pick in a regional, sub-national, teenage hockey league. I'm not buying it. Not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Let's keep in mind that this individual is 17 years old and plays in a junior teenage hockey league in Ontario, Canada. You're going to have to have done something pretty extraordinary to be notable for playing hockey at age 17. Playing in a regional kiddie league probably isn't going to cut it. SnottyWong ^spout 23:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A first overall pick in the OHL draft does not qualify as being more notable than a first overall pick in any other junior draft just because the OHL hands out a trophy for it. This individual is, for the moment, not notable. Reso lute 23:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being the author of the NHOCKEY criteria certainly doesn't give me more of a vote than the next editor, but it was certainly my intent when drafting #4 that a "defensive defenseman" award would not remotely be considered a "major" award; I wonder, as it happens, what Dolovis would consider a "minor" award if not that? Looking at the criterion further, I define "preeminent honors" as "(all-time top ten career scorer, won a major award given by the league, first team all-star, All-American)" To presume I thought winning a defensive defenseman award or being drafted first by a junior league to be equal in stature with being named an All-American or being the all-time top ten leading scorer in a league is farcical. In any event, this AfD has provoked consensus towards tightening the language up much further. Ravenswing 04:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not yet met the standards set by WP:NHOCKEY. Being the first player drafted in a junior league does not establish notability. Receiving an award for being the top drafted player in that same junior league is not "preeminent honors" as based in #4 of the NHOCKEY inclusion criteria. Can be recreated or restored when notability is established. -Pparazorback (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Others who know about hockey say so, and I would concur.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable athlete. The Jack Ferguson Award is not notable. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 01:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that this player meets WP:NHOCKEY. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass notability guideline. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Karp[edit]

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

Procedural listing following deletion review. The concern appears to be that the subject of the article is not notable. Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding sufficient news coverage to pass WP:GNG for him in his role as CEO of Catapult — there are plenty of press releases, and a few stories that mention him in a trivial way, but nothing that is both reliably published and nontrivial. And nothing else in the article even looks like an assertion of notability to me. There's some potential for confusion with Richard M. Karp but I don't think that's a good reason to keep in the absence of anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator's !vote). IMHO, the bit about him being CEO of Catapult isn't so much a notability claim as just a bit of "where is he now?". The reason I decided to make the article was seeing his name mentioned in RFC 773[8], and noticing that it would be easy for any random Wikipedian to confuse him with Richard M. Karp (thus resulting in misinformation in that article). I could have written a hatnote something like Not to be confused with Richard A. Karp, an implementor of TCP^cite1 and coauthor of the Stanford Pascal manual^cite2, but that seemed a little ridiculous compared to just adding a standalone article. --Quuxplusone (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Couldn't it be a section at the bottom? I agree, these men are easily confused. --Pnm (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is not covered by independent secondary sources. That he was the CEO of a company may be considered as evidence of notability, but only if the company already has a stable, acceptable article, and even then, the subject would be better covered in that article. This article has no incoming links from article space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a mere footnote in history; no need to create an entire article just so you have something to link a hatnote to. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Ged UK 19:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Tree[edit]

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

The sources on this page are non-existent, and I can find no notable sources to prove that this band is worthy of its own page. WP:MUSICBIO, Whinesilencer · talk 15:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:HOAX. Googling this band's name results in nothing but false positives, even when searching with quotes (upon quick glance, this looks like a mention, but it isn't), and the references in the article are either broken or lead to 404 errors. Erpert (let's talk about it) 10:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paula & Karol[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO, seems more like an A7. — Timneu22 · talk 19:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Lacks WP:RS to satisfy WP:BAND inclusion criteria. Happy Editing! — 70.21.16.94 (talk · contribs) _{01:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Kshir[edit]

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

Selfpublished author and anti-child abuse advocate; doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. Sources are PR releases and blogs, and don't seem to meet WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Borderline for speedy as advertising or no credible assertion of notability.~~ Sailsbystars (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it advertising? Not that I care whether it is deleted or not. I only recreated the page because when I was doing new page patrolling I came accross it and found that the original article could be improved. After being improved, it asserts notability. Even if it's not notable, the mere assertion of notability makes it no longer A7 worthy. Balloonman (talk · contribs) does a great job of clarifying what A7 means here. Therefore, when I improved the article and notability is asserted, it's no longer A7 worthy whether it truly is notable or not which is why I recreated the article. I, of course, have no personal attachment to it and I'm not going to vote here one way or the other and I support your right to !vote, I just feel your rationale that it is speedy worthy is not right.--v/r - T P 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts to source the article. However, it's borderline on the advertising since most of the prose consists of praise for her books, but you're right that would more likely tag this version with ((advert)) rather than ((db-spam)) when patrolling,, and you're correct that it does assert notability and therefore could pass a7, so I have refactored my above comment. Looking at the actual sourcing, I don't think we can trust newsblaze as a source. They have no editorial statement or even an about section of their website. Furthermore, Donna Kshir has authored several articles for the publication, thus making an interview by that publication somewhat dubious. So I stand by my delete, but I thank you for your thoughtful criticism of my hasty comments. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, glad we could work it out. You're probably right about the sources, but I feel I've given the article the best chance at survival and the fairest opportunity to develop into an article. I'm also a CSD Tagger, but I try to fight to sterotype of taggers by improving articles that seem like they might have a chance.--v/r - T P 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I generally think that pages by/about selfpublished authors are advertising for their books. But I agree that we should let the AFD discussion play out. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - yes, self-advertisement qualifies as db-spam in my book any day of the week. There's no meaningful evidence notability in this advertising blurb, obviously written by her press agent or by the subject or both. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Motion Monkey[edit]

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

Article doesn't make any attempt to establish notability and reads like an advert for a 2 man band IT firm. Lugnuts (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asciiporn[edit]

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

No third-party sources that indicate any coverage, significance, importance, or notability. — Timneu22 · talk 18:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ASCII porn.—S Marshall T/C 22:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a redirect. The author created a disambig page; these topics aren't even close to the same thing. — Timneu22 · talk 22:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know it's not the same thing, but it's a plausible typo for the notable topic.—S Marshall T/C 07:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: "No third-party sources that indicate any coverage, significance, importance, or notability."

The following edit should also be reverted since it references Asciiporn if Asciiporn is deleted. this edit Javaweb (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

Delete - Non-notable software. And Asciiporn (disambiguation) as well. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update for closing admin, if this is deleted, the following should also be deleted:
- this edit
- Asciiporn (disambiguation)
- The hatnote on ASCII porn
- — Timneu22 · talk 10:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable software. (Though I think there's no harm in this edit; just unlink it if this article is deleted. bobrayner (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. just an off topic comment to the close but surely the way to handle marginally/nn stiorms like this is a yearly list? Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Norma (2005)[edit]

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

The Tropical cyclone Wikiproject is currently in the midst of a notability debate, and the main issue is that there hasn't been much discussion from outside of the project. To test the waters, I present a short-lived tropical storm that affected no one. According to the notability guidelines, an article must have significant, independent sources. Likewise, Wikipedia is not a news source. As of now, all of the sources in the article are from the National Hurricane Center (NHC). As a little background information, the NHC issued advisories on Norma and likewise issued all significant publications on the event. As a result, it is hardly independent from the storm (which wouldn't exist, and therefore wouldn't be notable, if the NHC wasn't involved).

There are likely to be significant sources on storms that don't affect people, as tropical storms routinely get mentioned by the Associated Press and other news agencies. That didn't even happen for Norma, as there are only four news articles while it was active, one of which not even on this storm. Here is an example of a news excerpt, and notice how it says "according to the National Hurricane Center". As the storm didn't affect land, there is no way there could be any sources on the storm that don't stem from the NHC. Additionally, look at Wikipedia:Notability (events). In the context of Norma being a single event, one can tell how non-notable it was, as it hasn't been in any news articles since the year it occurred.

In all, Norma was a very routine event. It formed, and it dissipated, as many other storms do every year. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. The article/storm does not meet WP:GNG: no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This may be a very bad case of WP:NOTNEWS as the article is written with entirely primary sources from the storm warning centre. WP:EVENT states that:
Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
I would even add storms to that list. Storms are just that – routine – and shouldn't be treated as some kind of god-like thing. All in all, agree with nominator. (Can I also point out that WP:AFD isn't for merge discussion; see WP:Proposed mergers for that.) Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 00:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My whole argument about the procedural framework in the discussion linked from above was that these discussions are more about whether to delete and redirect than to merge per se. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete per nom, but won't object to the page being kept as you can argue that it passes WP:N. YE ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you argue that it passes WP:N? My whole argument above was that it doesn't pass it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Erick 07 was kept [9] because some editors (myself included) thought it passed WP:N. YE ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is that you can argue otherwise, but that argument is weak and should be avoided here. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I'm undecided on the notability of the subject, but disagree strongly on the reasoning used to dismiss the National Hurricane Center as a source. Sports magazines and columns would not exist without sports, but that does not mean they are not independent sources. History magazines and history textbooks would not exist without history, but that does not mean they are not independent sources. Movies reviews would not exist without movies, but that does not mean they are not independent sources. The National Hurricane Center would not exist without hurricanes, but that does not mean it is not an independent source. Edward321 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not dismissing it as a source, just as an independent source. Even if the storm existed, but it was not warned by the NHC, then it would not be covered by any sources today. In contrast, if Katrina wasn't warned by the NHC, there would still be tons of coverage due to the high impact. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Alexf^(talk) 19:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Screamer prank[edit]

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

Neologism for which I cannot find any sources. Prod contested by IP. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've been here before. See:
- List of Screamers (AfD discussion)
- Flash prank (AfD discussion)
- Computer prank (AfD discussion) (2nd discussion) (3rd discussion) (née prank flash)
- List of computer pranks (AfD discussion) (2nd discussion)
- User:Ganerer/List of computer pranks (MfD discussion)
Uncle G (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eldamorie (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. CTJF83 chat 22:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and all the previous discussions. JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEO. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as bad faith nomination. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J Stalin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completing incorrect AfD nom for User:Haberquepasa. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized User:Haberquepasa is blocked for socking when trying to notify them to complete this with their concern. Self-administered trout for hastiness. Feel free to close this as bad-faith nom by original user. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep All 3 previous nominators were blocked as well and consensus was clear in them all so see no need for this to stay open any more (realised I closed the 2nd nomination so am not closing myself). Davewild (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Kelly (Internet Professional)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real assertion of notability apart from minor recognition by Time. Feezo (Talk) 06:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William de la Pole (Jr)[edit]

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

Two and a half years back, I successfully nominated a similar article to this for AFD. The reason is that the person whom this article seeks to deal with never existed. The surname would be modernised as "Pool". There is no evidence whatsoever for a dynastic link between a family of Hull merchants who took their name from a nearby village or a pool in it and the Princes of Powys Wenwynwyn, who took their surname from Welshpool - so named today to distingusih it from Poole, Dorset. The alleged link, which is the sole purpose of this article, is a figment of the overactive imahgination of certain genealogists, who assume that two people of the same name and same period must be related. As the article on William de la Pole of Hull makes clear, his ancestry is not known. This is based on good published genealogical reliable sources, not the tittle-tattle of websites. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC) The previous discussion referred to is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William de la Pole the Elder. An article of the present name cannot be retained (even as a redirect) for the simple reason that a Junior can only exist where there was an "elder" or senior; in any event, "Jr" is an Americanism and inappropriate to a British hisotrical subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no additional information to be usefully merged into William de la Pole of Hull, and the existence of the redirect would be intrinsically misleading and perpetuate and incorrect genealogy, as Peter has pointed out. See also my comments at the older AFD. Choess (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in this article that is both accurate and not better provided in William de la Pole of Hull, thus there is nothing worth merging. As to preserving the name-space in the form of a redirect, it is not worth preserving, as it is inaccurate (there was no known Sr), anachronistic (not used at the time) and not likely to be used by anyone doing a search (in fact, Jr forms are almost never used for this place and period) I only say almost and not likely because obviously someone used it, but we needn't cater to the whim of every possible misuse. Agricolae (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article just confuses those trying to understand family relationships. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete Just two doubts: is the Sir of Sir William's father William accurate, and is the year 1302 and place Linby, Nottinghamshire, of birth also accurate? Konakonian (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of it is accurate - the Sir isn't accurate, the birthdate isn't accurate, the birthplace isn't accurate, the father's name isn't accurate. It is all made up, not by the editor(s) but by generations of overzealous genealogists. The Sir William Jr (sic) is the man in William de la Pole of Hull. That article says everything known about his origin. Some genealogist at some point decided it would be nice of the de la Pole family, Earls of Suffolk, could be made into heirs of Owain ap Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn, alias Owen de la Pole, ruler of Powys Gwenwynwyn. It is known that this Owen had no male-line descent, his heiress being his daughter Hawise, but why let reality stand in the way of a really good pedigree. Thus was invented a son, the entirely mythical Sir William de la Pole (the Elder), to be father of William of Hull, who then is called 'the younger' or 'Jr' to distinguish him from his non-existent father of the same name. Given that missing information is anathema to genealogists, someone then estimated a birthdate, and decided where such a William might have been born, or maybe assumed that a later landholding must have been his birthplace. It is all nonsense. Of all of the information in the article, the year of death and the names of two (out of five) children are the only accurate items, and they are already in the superior William de la Pole of Hull article, so there is no point in a merge. The only viable question is convert to redirect or delete, and that depends on how likely someone is to search for William de la Pole of Hull under the name "William de la Pole (Jr)" and I find it extremely unlikely that anyone would use this precise syntax in searching for the man. Agricolae (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of accuracy, I think I should say that a person might be described as "junior" (in Latin) or "the younger" (even occasionally "junior") in English, but only in his father's lifetime if he shared his father's name. I do not recall seeing this abbreviated to J^r and certainly not to Jr in any historical document that I have seen. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the article, since I was the one who suggested the merge. I was only unsure if those elements that apparently are false could just have been forgotten from the article, as sometimes I've seen happening. Some articles miss full dates of birth and mentions of Knighthood. But the article of William de la Pole of Hull still presents as a possibility that his father was named William. That part, apparently, is not part of the forgery. Konakonian (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content of another Wikipedia page is insufficient evidence to demonstrate anything. That statement could be nothing more than a recognition that the (forged) claim is out there. Agricolae (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP requires WP:RS, not guesswork. The name of the Hull merchant's father is not known. Even if it was William (which cannot be proved or disproved), there is no scintilla of evidence of a relationship to the Princes of Powys Wenwynwyn. I carefully researched this issue before the previous AFD (for his alleged father). There really is nothing worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (by nom). There is nothing verifiable in the subject article to merge. Any attempt to do so would render the "target" article inaccurate, by adding information that only exists as the WP:OR of some unreliable genealogist, whose construct is essentially the result of fantasy. All this was dealt with in the previous AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. bobrayner (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Nagy[edit]

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

Non-notable composer lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find a couple of local news stories about his work Telestai but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Menifee, California. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Vincent Ferrer Catholic Church, Menifee[edit]

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

Non-notable church. ttonyb (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources given to establish notability of an organization. No mention of other notability either, such as being in a nationally recognized historic building. tedder (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a short summary to Menifee, California. This is often the best solution for local churches. Omit the list of parish priests, who are all NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with Peter.DocOfSoc (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree, there's only a little worth keeping and it can go in Menifee, California. No need for this article to hang around. bobrayner (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Hetherington (judge)[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP of a non-notable judge. There is no indication that he meets the requirements of GNG - merits a mention in Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals but there is no need for a separate article. Ajbpearce (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletenon-notable judge--SteamIron 20:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calamity (band)[edit]

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

This article is about a band that has not released an album. The article is loaded with sources that have little to do with coverage of the band and its success (as no albums have been released). A recent PROD was removed. Prod was "Band has some members with a notable history, but hasn't yet released any albums. Wikipedia can't be a crystal ball, as we don't know if this band will have any success." This is grounds for this AfD proposal... in short, it's an article about a band who has released no music. — Timneu22 · talk 16:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. This is basically just a vanity page used to promote a band that not only has yet to release any albums, but yet to even be signed. The discussion on the talk page proves this, and it even goes so far as to suggest off-wiki canvassing. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it got deleted under A7 once, and seems to have barely survived it this time. Not notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'll also point out that it's too soon for a Wikipedia article on this band, and WP is not a forum for promotion via social networking. The band can promote themselves elsewhere until they're encyclopedic enough to appear in an encyclopedia. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the person who placed the PROD, I disagree with the nominator as to the need for AfD. PROD is intended for articles whose deletion is not controversial, and this is a very clear case of crystal ball. AfD is reserved for articles that have a reasonable chance of being kept. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But you can't prod twice, so AfD is the next logical step. Who doesn't do that? Erpert (let's talk about it) 09:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I'm saying is that there was no reason to change the PROD to an AfD. Don't matter now, tho. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 07:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to be notable. If they achieve notability later, a new article could be created at that point. (I typed a long rant about PROD-to-AfD but it was stating the obvious) bobrayner (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudolinear function[edit]

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

Prod was applied, prod2 was applied. Removed by user without improvement. Not much information here. Does not appear to be notable for a single article. Is there a better place to redirect this? Is there anything that can be expanded? — Timneu22 · talk 16:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I agree, too brief and could be applied elsewhere within its context. Warrior777 18:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)
Delete unless expanded, this is just a dictionary definition at the moment. Hairhorn (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The nomination really should read, instead of "Removed by user without improvement" which is a completely erroneous description of events, "Removed by user after this improvement that directly addressed the concern raised". "No sources", said the proposed deletion rationale, only five lines above text that said "Source:". It's saddening to see a list of editors accruing in this discussion (a) who clearly don't understand what a stub is and how deletion policy applies to stubs, and (b) who clearly haven't even done a minimum of research to see whether sources exist (including not even observing the source cited, by the article's creator, in the article right before them, that they are supposed to be looking at). None of you even did the most basic step of putting the article title (let alone any other keywords) into a search engine, did you? Neither AFD nor Wikipedia need zero-effort rationales like this; New Pages Patrol certainly doesn't need people who bite the newcomers without doing their research. Please put the effort in. Put into actual action the procedures that are outlined on Project:New pages patrol, Project:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, Project:Guide to deletion#Nomination, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. Uncle G (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've never seen an article like the current state. A one-sentence description with ten times as much information in "see also" and "external links"? — Timneu22 · talk 23:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again you demonstrate that you aren't reading the article that is right in front of you. This article, as I write this, has no "see also" section and has no "external links" section. This article has a good verifiable definition, a supporting reference cited by the article's creator (that you just ignored outright), and sources cited listing further reading on the subject showing just some of what more there is to be said about it. This is what we call a stub. If you've never seen a stub before, then you haven't participated in the article development process anywhere near enough. If your reaction to stubs is, as here, to ignore the sources and nominate the article for deletion over and over again, biting a novice article writer in the process, then you are no help to Wikipedia. Your approach is entirely contrary to how articles develop, and have many times (over the past decade) developed, here. Our article on banana started as a one-line stub with a technical definition and a pointer to a source indicating scope for expansion. Articles start as stubs today just as they did in 2002. Uncle G (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy. Without any evidence of what pseudoconvex and pseudoconcave might be, it has insufficient context to determine the meaning. However, some of the references might have adeqaute information to save it from ((db-context)). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tut tut! You've not read any of them, have you? The source that defines pseudoconvexity, that several of the others themselves cite for their definition, has been handed to you on a platter in the article that you are supposed to have read before commenting upon. Shame on you M. Rubin. You have made as little effort to read the article in front of you, and apply deletion policy properly to a stub with sources and a proper definition, as the four editors above. It is a proper definition, too, that accords with the sources. Valid stub, with a proper verifiable definition, the source for which was supplied by the article's creator, and with scope for expansion that is not only demonstrable but demonstrated: You know what, per policy, the answer you should have reached is. Uncle G (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speedy is no longer appropriate, but I doubt the concept is that notable. And it now has only a valid definition, and "references". Scope for expansion within Wikipedia guidelines has not been demonstrated, although I wouldn't be surprised if it could be done. Now it would be appropriate to userfy if deletion is supported. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't have access to the references at the moment; as for some other articles, I'd like confirmation that all the articles about pseudolinear or pseudocovex functions were referring to the same concept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to call the article pseudoconvex function. I am a wiki-beginner and don't have much time to deal with it. Hope someone can expand this article.
Rename to pseudoconvex function. The article pseudoconvex function currently redirects to plurisubharmonic function, which is incorrect (those characterize pseudoconvex domains). Our content on optimization and convex analysis is sorely lacking, so deletion is definitely inappropriate. However, the definition (as of the current revision) is incorrect. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The term does appear to be notable, see [10] for example. The article is basically just a definition though and my preference is to group similar concepts into a single article with redirects; better to have one decent small article than three stubs.--RDBury (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've extended it beyond a mere definition. Maybe someone should add a comment on its application to mathematical economics. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable and so the article should be retained for improvement per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsubstantiated claims of notability (and ubiquitous boilerplate reference to WP:IMPERFECT) notwithstanding, this article is simply a set of mathematical definitions, making it directly analogous to WP:DICTDEF (except there probably isn't a Wikimath to transwiki it to). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the topic is substantiated by the 10+ sources cited in the article and the discussion above. The link to WP:PRESERVE is appropriate as this policy states "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained . . . Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented . . ." WP:DICTDEF, on the other hand, is irrelevant in this context because it states "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions" and so existence of a definition is expected here. This stub does not only contain such a definition, as it should, it also contains a theorem. We also have pointers to further expansion in the discussion above - the application of these functions to economics and operational research. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) A list of largely WP:PRIMARY source literature "further reading" list does not substantiate notability. (ii) An article that consists solely of set of three mathematical definitions is not "good information". Underlining "policy" does not make the policy relevant. (iii) Your quote-mining of WP:DICTDEF is blatantly dishonest -- it goes on immediately to state "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well." (my emphasis) This article FAILS to give anything other than definitions. (iii) I take it given that you have time for such game-playing that you now have time to actually answer the complaints made against you on WP:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden, rather than simply further dodging the issues? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The acclamation of a collection of primary sources as evidence of notability is just more of Col W's never-mind-the-quality-or-relevance-just-count-the-refs approach to WP:GNG. All we have here is a list of primary source academic papers which contain "pseudolinear" in the title. And yes, it would be a good idea for CW to start answering some of the complaints rather continuing to play games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bring here unrelated disputes, thanks. I fail to see how you apply WP:PRIMARY to mathematical publications. A sensible application would be that a source is primary for a mathematical subject if the source introduced that subject, and a source is independent if it was not authored by the same persons who introduced the subject. I think this is how people view it usually. It seems to me that you are suggesting that sources are not independent if they are from mathematicians/programmers/economists, etc ? So you don't want sources by subject-matter experts ? You do realize that in this context the GNG requirements of reliability could not be met then ? This seems to me highly ridiculous. So mathematical subjects should be considered the same way as fictional subjects ? This is not how the community views this, and otherwise 99% of math articles would be gone. Also, note the difference with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (3rd nomination), where we had real WP:PRIMARY and WP:INDEPENDENT issues which made me endorse deletion. Cenarium (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:PRIMARY if it is developing news mathematical ideas, proving new theorems etc -- directly analogous to "a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors" in WP:PRIMARY. "A review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source". Secondary and independent sources are not the same thing, though they do overlap heavily. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to re-creation at a future date if a future attempt demonstrates notabilty and adds some content worth keeping. The article as it stands is abysmal. It entirely fails to make any effort to explain either significance or substance of the topic to anyone who is not already well-versed in that branch of mathematics, let alone the general reader for whom wikipedia is written. (For the general reader, this page might as well just be a randomly-generated set of characters). Those factors alone might not be enough to justify deletion if editors take the view that it's worth preserving any old junk on a notable topic, although that is not a view I hold: the fact that a decent article could be written on a particular topic does not mean what we currently have under that title is worth presenting to readers. There is nothing of substance here other than a dicdef, and per Sławomir Biały above even that dicdef is wrong. So I see no evidence that anything in this page is worth preserving.
However in this case, notability is neither asserted nor established: there is just two primary source offline refs and a long list of offline "further reading". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have created the article pseudoconvex function which demonstrates the notability of the concept of pseudoconvexity in mathematics and has nontrivial content. I suggest that, per my above vote, the article under discussion be redirected there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject well beyond reasonable doubt, cf book Pseudolinearity and efficiency, cited in google scholar by 59, articles First and second order characterizations of pseudolinear functions (cited by 33), On pseudolinear functions (29), and many others by various authors. This subject has therefore been significantly covered by subject-matter experts (mathematicians, programmmers, economists, etc), hence satisfying the reliability requirements, who are not the same people as those who introduced the concept, hence satisfying the secondary and independence requirements of WP:GNG. This is therefore a notable mathemetical subject, so encyclopedic in nature, and which has applications and uses in economics, computing, and other domains, see for example its use in Analog CMOS implementation of a discrete time CNN with programmable cloning templates, pseudolinear programming, etc, there are several variants and generalizations, see for example Pseudolinear fuzzy mappings or η-Pseudolinearity; so clearly a lenghty encyclopedic article can be written. Obviously, this is a (major) sub-subject of the very important concept of pseudoconvex function, but as shown-above it is fully stand-alone, if there is a concern that the article is in its present state is only a definition, then it can be redirected to Pseudoconvex function until such a time as a proper article can be written, but this should be left entirely at editorial discretion. Cenarium (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are more than enough references to establish notability as far as I am concerned (and as far as usual practice is concerned). The fact that the references are offline (mentioned in another comment above) is irrelevant. The current state of a stub article is also irrelevant for deletion discussions: deletion is not about the present content, it's about whether we should in principle have an article on the topic, and in this case it appears we certainly should. Editors with some math background can work out the best way to present the material. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because an article is currently a stub doesn't mean it should be deleted. The topic is notable—there's a quarter century of references from a wide variety of authors staring at all of you!—so the length of the article is irrelevant. Ozob (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: just looking at Google books, the following scholarly books all discuss pseudolinearity. These are books, not research papers, so we can ignore the issues with WP:PRIMARY above. The continued interest in the topic by many authors over decades is on its own evidence of notability, but these should clear up any doubts. It appears to me that the nominator did not make even a cursory effort to verify the material before nominating the article for deletion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Generalized convexity and optimization: theory and applications. Alberto Cambini, Laura Martein, 2008. Page 53.
- Invexity and optimization. Shashi Kant Mishra, Giorgio Giorgi, 2008. Page 39.
- Handbook of generalized convexity and generalized monotonicity. Nicolas Hadjisavvas, Sándor Komlósi, Siegfried Schaible, 2004. Page 165.

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Alexandra[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. No significant roles, only credit listings as sources. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 16:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Career does not any significant roles and so fails WP:ENT. Individual lacks coverage and so fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to be notable. bobrayner (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Alexf^(talk) 19:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Mistaken Views of Economists[edit]

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

Article is OR, unsupported by reliable sources and doesn't maintain NPOV. PROD was declined without explanation. Jimmy Pitt talk 15:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total OR. The article is ABOUT an article entitled Some Mistaken Views of Economists. that may have been published in an obscure Thai journal. Definite lack of NPOV. I can't see any way this could be reworked into a stand alone encyclopedia article. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above this is original research and/or a paticular point of view and I personally can't see how it could be made into a proper article. Davewild (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an opinion that will be usefull in science. And it need to edit, but it is short time and near long Holiday. If I can lobby, I'd like to do. And if you can help, please to do so. Thank you. Rojer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.231.176.95 (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry but it's OR, an article about an article; the editor does not seem to have understood what Wikipedia is. Articles about written works are rare here, and their subjects are truly very notable; articles which repeat what a written work says have no place here at all. DBaK (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - if this body of the article really is just an English translation of the article as claimed at the end of the intro, then that is blatant WP:COPYVIO (I see no sign of permission.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Biophys (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe, OR. Perhaps the good judge is unfamiliar with the Hand rule. bobrayner (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Qworty (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IBM and the Holocaust[edit]

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

Dubious notability and serious undue weight to the point of POV pushing - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an article on the book this is an valid topic. The review from the New York Times and the award of "Best Non-Fiction Book of the Year" are sufficient to establish notability. There are also plenty of other reviews available such as 1, 2 and 3 giving even more notability. The synopsis needs to be shortened in my opinion but we should have an article on the book and this is not a valid reason for deletion. Davewild (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I totally understand the point about POV pushing after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New York Times and the Holocaust (2nd nomination), but it was a NY Times Best Seller (#7 on non fiction list it appears) [11]. My editorial preference is that the synopsis of the book be reduced to 1-2 paragraphs, i.e., remove the thesis statement, etc.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to IBM during World War II, where most of the non-primary source references are duplicated. While NPOV is never a reason to delete an article on a notable topic--since NPOV can and should be fixed by editing--if the article was NPOV-ized and removed of COATRACK material, there really wouldn't be enough there to justify an article on the book separate from the merge target I propose. If consensus is that this book is itself notable, it needs to be seriously rewritten such that the book's arguments are presented as just that--arguments--rather than established facts. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's an article about a book. It summarizes the book. The arguments made in the book are based upon documented facts, but when one is describing a book's arguments, thesis, ideas, one should call them what they are: arguments, thesis, ideas. If I or any other editor started portraying arguments as "facts," THAT'S what would be seriously in violation of NPOV: "Black PROVES..." No. Black ARGUES... Carrite (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - once again, I am confused by a AfD such as this. The inline citations clearly show this book is notabile. The synopsis is a bit long and could really be cut down, but that is a problem for editing, not deletion. How exactly should an article about a best-selling book be merged into another article? This is an article about a book, one that should be referenced in the other article (if revelant). Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously. I am so bold that I won't even give a reason, it should be self evident. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Book has won an award and was a best-seller.Autarch (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:UNDUE refers to "minority views", and clearly is about minority views within informed scholarship, not minority views within the population at large. Baldly asserting that the article gives undue weight to the book's findings does not prove that it does - and it certainly doesn't establish a case for deleting the article! Try harder!--greenrd (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Preliminary note: I'm a primary contributor to this piece. Philosophically, I'm not in love with the notion that "every book gets its page on Wikipedia." That said, there are more and less important books, and this one tends to the "more important" end of the spectrum. It was a best seller for non-fiction, which should be a slam dunk for notability. I have done my best to make sure the coverage of the content of the book is accurate and even-handed. I wish the title was IBM and the Holocaust (book), but that has been handled via talk page discussion and the current title stands according to established WP policy. I think the book is worthy of coverage as a subject itself and that any merger with IBM during World War II would be artificial — although this well researched and exhaustively footnoted book would no doubt be a fruitful source work for that other equally notable and inclusion-worthy article. In short: pretty much a slam dunk KEEP from my perspective. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An award winning NYT best seller of >1,000,000 copies. Meticulously documented. Why is this article even up for AfD? No part of the Holocaust should be denied. - KeptSouth (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, bestselling book on an interesting subject. I think there are NPOV problems but these are best fixed through normal editing. bobrayner (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly very notable. If there are POV problems, they can be corrected, but the existence of the article isn't a POV problem. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.

Explanation for visitors to Wikipedia:

Wikipedia has requirements that apply to every article. There must be good evidence that meets our notability guideline. (Even if someone is very loved or popular, the article will be deleted if this does not exist. That is a rule for all articles.) This discussion started because a user felt that good evidence did not exist. After a week the agreement of editors is that the kind of evidence we need still does not exist. I have read every comment on this page carefully. None of the comments on this page show the kind of evidence we need. So however popular he is, we cannot keep this article.

شرح للزوار :

ويكيبيديا والشروط التي تنطبق على كل مادة. يجب أن تكون هناك أدلة قوية على أن تجتمع لدينا "notability" التوجيهي. (حتى لو كنا نحب الشخص كثيرا والكتابة كثير من الناس، سيتم حذف هذه المادة إذا كانت الأدلة غير كاف ، وهذا هو حكم ذلك صحيحا بالنسبة لجميع المواد.)

حدث هذا النقاش لأن المستخدم يشعر أنه لا يوجد دليل جيد. بعد أسبوع المحررين نتفق على أن هذا النوع من الأدلة ما زلنا بحاجة لا وجود لها. لقد قرأت كل تعليق على هذه الصفحة بعناية. أيا من التعليقات على هذه الصفحة أظهر هذا النوع من الأدلة التي نحتاج إليها. ومع ذلك شعبية هو، لا يمكننا الحفاظ على هذه المادة.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Asedullah Quadri[edit]

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

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

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

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

Simply put, there seem not be no reliable third party sources with which to construct an article - and so he may not meet notability threshholds for Wikipedia.

One editor has been trying hard and has offered 39 footnotes, but none appear to meet WP:RS. Most of the links are to Quadri's CIFA organisation (see talk). Unless suitable sources can be found, I suggest deletion. Scott Mac 15:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reluctantly. There has clearly been a real problem communicating with the editor concerned regarding what is required for sourcing. While I find some of his claims regarding the notability of the subject a little implausible, I'm not entirely sure that Quadri is entirely non-notable either. Clearly as it stands the article doesn't meet the required standards, and therefore has to be deleted, but I think we should make it clear that should proper sources meeting the Wikipedia requirements be forthcoming, it may be possible to create an article at a future date - noting of course that nobody owns an article, and that others will of course also be able to edit it, provided that they too have proper sources. I'd suggest that anyone wishing to create a future article on Quadri seeks help from someone more familiar with how Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising and promotion, unless someone can rewrite the article in a neutral fashion with independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, several different editors have attempted to help the interested parties (Guide99 etc.) come up with proper sources establishing notability, without success. No prejudice against a normal article if such sources appear in the future, but for now deletion is the right outcome. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont delete the article. This would be very bad as there are a lot of followers of Shaikh on wikipedia. Instead, I suggest we can have the same article which we have now with just one line "Mir Asedullah Quadri (الشيخ مير اسد الله قادري) is a Shaikh of Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'a, Hanafi, known for his distinct explanations of Tawheed and Ilm-e-Sahih." and the books section till we get more independent sources. Mikebauer (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC) — Mikebauer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We should STOP the deletion of this article immediately. We really love Shaikh Quadri and follow him on Wkiipedia.Please dont delete the article.I request Wikipedia owner...please dont delete the article Samueljaleel (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC) — Samueljaleel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DO NOT DELETE We are great followers of Shaikh and are joining the movement to ban Wikipedia from deleting Shaikh's Article. This is clear hatred to the person. I request the chief of the Wikipedia to look into this. We are coming forward as mark informed us about your discrimination. STOP this WIKIPEDIA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabeelzubair (talk • contribs) 06:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC) — Dabeelzubair (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
DONT DELETE - You guys have any idea how popular this man is...I will *SUE WIKIPEDIA on behalf of our community if this happens.... Ronjetsky (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC) — Ronjetsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- See No legal threats. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
stop the deletion of the article. we have been informed by mikebauer that you all need some evidences....please dont delete the account...we all are coming forward because we all want to object your decision...we all have followed Shaikh on Wikipedia...now we are signing up and raising our voice on discrimination....DO NOT DELETE OUR SHIAKH's ARTICLE Chriszuby (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC) — Chriszuby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Lobbying comments from newly created single purpose accounts are invariably ignored by the closing administrator and may only serve to give more weight to the deletion opinions here. If you are keen to keep the article, then please add some independent reliable sources rather than self-publications. I suggest calm discussion, the article can be re-created even after deletion if you can provide some sources to substantiate encyclopaedic notability as defined in WP:Notability (people). Thanks, Fæ (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Haven't seen any reliable third-party sourcing to verify the notability of this person. --DAJF (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to newcomers: since we have some new arrivals to this debate, I'd strongly encourage you to read the prior discussion at Talk:Mir Asedullah Quadri. This will explain what the current concerns are about the article. This deletion debate is not permanent, the article can be re-created if the basic standards are met at any point in the future. Further, this is not a debate about Mir Asedullah himself. This is not a debate about liking him, not liking him, or whether he's a good person. This is exclusively a discussion of whether there is available documentation of the man and his activities by neutral, third-party sources (see WP:RS). The article will not avoid deletion through voting or emotional arguments. If sources meeting WP:RS can be presented, the article can stay, or be re-created if it has been deleted. But until that point, for both the quality standards of Wikipedia, for liability reasons to avoid libel, and out of resepect for the reputation of Mir Asedullah himself as a person, it is unsafe for the article to remain. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - and probably salting as well. This is a situation where nobody outside the subject's fanbase seems to have ever heard of him. This has nothing to do with religion per se; we have and welcome plenty of Muslim editors, as well as believers of all kinds. This has to do with verifiability, a core value here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete with salting, as per OrangeMike. I would be willing to reconsider with the production of reliable third-party sources, as have been requested before. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear lack of independent reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - With all the support the editors who want the article kept seem to have, as they can't come up with better sources, and we aren't able to either, it should be deleted until and if some reliable sources can be found. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regrettably. I've done my utmost to find independent verification of this gentleman's notability. I used the search tool Copernic which correlated the results from 733 search engines. I've tried searching on both Mir Asedullah Quadri and also الشيخ مير اسد الله قادري and cannot find anything that satisfies our criteria. I searched Google Books and Google Scholar. I've run out of resources to search. I believe that those who created and developed this article did so in good faith, and am surprised that so little has been written about him outside his own sphere. However, ultimately nobody has any right to place material on Wikipedia – it is simply a repository for information that is demonstrated to conform to a set of rules. Regards, Oguk (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find anything either. The websites cited in the article confirm the English spelling of his name,[12][13] although the arrangement and usage of the terms "Asedullah, Mir, Shaikh, Quadri" seems to vary might account for the lack of reliable sources if you search only for "Mir Asedullah Quadri". However, I searched only for "Asedullah" and found one NY Times article about an ethnic Hazara baker named Asedullah. A remaining explaination for lack of reliable source material is that all the material is in a foreign language and you would need to search "الشيخ مير اسد الله قادري". While such non-English sources are fine, they have not been presented in this AfD discussion or presented in the article. When you add in editors interested in the topic who do not seem to understand the Wiki way of reliable source material and no threats, the article should be deleted until such time as both (i) reliable source material is believed to be available and (ii) editors interested in the topic come to better understand the Wiki way. He is in Hyderabad, India and the reliable source material, if it exists, might be published there. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~DO NOT DELETE~~ I have gone ahead and removed all the stuff which we cannot prove by a thrid party reference for the Shaikh Aseduallah Quadri. Ahmad Deedat's letter to Shiakh is attached and if its too big for you all to see, I can re-scan and compress the file. The article is really very small now. I am hoping you all will allow atleast this version. Please do reconsider your decision. Mikebauer (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out your second opinion here, as you already clearly expressed your preference for keeping the article earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have you bothered to read WP:RS? None of the links you provide are from third-party sources.. Instead, you seem to be trying to link images that you have yourself scanned. I can't get them to load properly, but in any case, this isn't what we require, as has repeatedly been made clear. I had assumed that at least part of the difficulty with this article was due to misunderstandings, but frankly, I think we've been over-tolerant, and need to state unequivocally that unless you provide sources in the form we require, the article WILL be deleted. Letters from outsiders, regardless of their standing, are irrelevant. Either provide proper third-party sources, or accept that we cannot permit the article. You should realise that this may well be in the Shiakh's best interest: Wikipedia allows anyone who works within the rules to edit any article, and if we were to allow unsourced contributions to this article, there is no guarantee that they would all be favourable. Wikipedia works because we have standards, and they need to be adhered to, without exceptions, regardless of the reputation of an article subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your tone here dude. This is a friendly discussion and not your blog to vent things out. I am trying to help. You dont have to yell at people just because you dont agree with someone. if you are a editor, then please go ahead and read policies on basic ettiquites on how to talk in public forums. you have been tolerant? you have been pissng me off since 3 weeks while I have been tolerant in editing my article. Make some logic when you speak or just shut up if you dont know how to talk.

^ http://www.cifiaonline.com/scan0002.tif ^ http://www.cifiaonline.com/scan0004.tif ^ http://www.cifiaonline.com/scan0005.tif If you put these urls in you browser, you will have an image file downloaded. Do you atleast know how to use a computer? How dare you accuse me of scanning irrelevant images? This is a proof of a letter that Shaikh received. If you are on a dial up connection (as I assume), please dont bother to download as its a big file. If you ahve broadband, go ahead and test it yourself.

Again, I have appreciated all the help all the time from everyone. Dont *ASSUME that you are doing a favor to me. You are doing your job and if you want to comment, make some sense.Dont make a fool of yourself (even if you are one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.63.33 (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Mikebauer (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What part of scanned documents are not reliable sources don't you understand? We just aren't interested in these. what we require is evidence from sources not connected with the Sheikh that the statements you make about him in the article are true. We don't need to see letters he has received, we need evidence from newspapers etc that we can independently check, as you have been told many times. And making personal comments about people who have shown you more tolerance than could perhaps be reasonably be expected isn't doing your cause any good either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Everyone here is an editor. And as documents can be forged (and I am not saying yours are), your scans aren't sources we can use. Meanwhile please stop these personal attacks on other editors. AndyTheGrump has explained why your images are irrelevant and you attacked him for the explanation. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reference added Take it easy everyone. Lets not fight cheaply on this forum. Btw, I was just searching for some mispronouinced terms of Shiakh and I found a third party reference who has not taken the material from Wikipedia. http://www.ark-ebiz.com/worldnews.htm. I have added the reference to the page. try searching for Asadullah instead of Asedullah or so, and you will find some more sources...Dabeelzubair (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reference removed The site said it is "TOP RATED ONLINE SHOPPING MALL" - clearly not a reliable source by our criteria at WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference looks good to me. Not sure what you are referring to , but this looks like a neat third party reference to me. Chriszuby (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how does it look good to you? What kind of site to you think it is that makes it a 'neat third party reference'? Why is a page part of which is a direct copy of one of our articles (the bit on Zakir Naik) a third party reference? Who wrote this and why is that person an expert? Who checked to make sure the information was accurate? What's the editorial policy on the website? Have you read WP:RS which explains the sort of sources we need? Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(second opinion) http://www.ark-ebiz.com is completely unreliable. The website is mostly blank with fake sub-sections and appears recently created. Whois checks on the domain show that it has been registered anonymously (on 20 Sep 2010) and there is no confirming identity published on the webpages or embedded within the html code. There is no editorial policy or any other reason to believe that this site is not compromised and self-published around the "LATEST WORLD ISLAMIC NEWS" section in order to provide a fake citation. Fæ (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Writing books is not necessarily notable. There are at the time of posting no references at all, except links to a non-independent website promoting the ideas of the subject. To those who claim to want to 'follow him on Wkiipedia' - sorry, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Try AboutUs or LinkedIn for free hosting (well, they were free last time I looked...). As to 'hating' the subject, we've seen that argument here at AfD many times (and will probably see it again). Personally, I'd never heard of the subject before, know very little about him now, and won't worry if I never hear of him again. Equally, I won't worry if you come up with a load of reliable independent references that show that he is widely known, covered in reliable sources, adviser to national presidents and well suited to having an article here. I do change my !vote, and so will most regular editors, so long as the evidence is there. Please look at WP:RS (about reliable sources) and WP:BLP (about biographies of living people). Peridon (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regrettably. I've put a lot of effort into communicating with the two main editors, giving detailed lists of why every single footnote offered has not met standards. I've also run a variety of Google searches by all possible Latin-script spellings of his name and found nothing RS. That said, I do not doubt that he is notable, with sources that simply aren't available online, but the body of editors who may likely have access to such material are simply not familiar with Wikipedia or (apparently) interested in learning to follow its standards and provide some verifiability. Lacking accessible sources, we end up with an extremely POV article that cannot be contradicted or supplemented. In all seriousness, I would change my vote if someone would scan in a couple Hindi articles from the Hyderabad Times (or what-have-you) and/or some thesis by a CompRel professor in Delhi commenting on this gent's activities, but the people placed to acquire this info don't seem to fall into line with what is needed for RS. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note The following accounts have been Confirmed as the same person and have all been indefinitely blocked:

Mikebauer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Chriszuby (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Dabeelzubair (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ronjetsky (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Samueljaleel (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 01:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Sources from 1990s and more recently indicate enduring notability. RL0919 (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, WP:RECENT and WP:PLOT ("Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events")) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable in 1996, and notability is not temporary. I realize this became a big thing in the news during the Christine O'Donnell senate campaign, but I dug into the history a bit myself and saw it had coverage then and now.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the basis for your premise that it was (or would have been) notable in 1996? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added two newspaper cites from 1997 to the article for a start. It was also profiled by MTV in 1996.[14]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can see, it received trivial coverage in the nineties, so I don't accept it was notable then, and I don't see it as having become any more so because a former director is now a failed candidate for political office in a recent election.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient coverage to meet the notability guideline with the best coverage actually from over a decade ago - the first Washington Times article especially is definitely significant coverage, I have added a little from it, but there is more about the aims and methods of the organisation. Davewild (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I should say I created this article, so obviously I thought the organization was notable. However, I want to add to this discussion by saying there were facts I came across in my research about the SALT that I didn't have time to add - for example, it was a much larger youth ministry organization than one would guess by it name only, it had at least four branches, it was in existence for many years and it may still be in existence.[15]. The basic Google search that the deletion nominator did may not do it justice. KeptSouth (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Ryan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As previous with the deletion of Linus Caldwell, this page should be moved to List of Ocean's Trilogy characters. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:00 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete, can't support a Merger at this time given the state of the List of Characters...that article appears to be a potential AFD candidate itself. Doniago (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous 2 nominations of this article should be listed here as this is a third nomination. I would add them myself but am not sure how to do so properly. Davewild (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Listed now. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Davewild (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced article per respecting the consensus of two previous nominations resulting in the article being kept. This is an iconic and major character over each of the various Ocean's film series. And as expanding him in each of the film articles would be duplicative of efforts, a separate article on this major character is quite appropriate, and both article and project will benefit from its expansion and further sourcing. And toward the nominator's thought to merge (and per Deletion policy that discussion would have been better dealt with on the article's talk page and did nor require a deletion), the List of Ocean's Trilogy characters is curently tagged for multiple issues and may well be deleted itself because it totally lacks sources. THIS one has sources... and more are available for further expansion and improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granted he's a major character in the Ocean's films, but I think "iconic" is somewhat of an overstatement of the matter. Personally I don't think his character particularly merits expansion in the individual film articles either - the sourcing for the existing article is two quotes from Jerry Weintraub that don't strike me as being particularly insightful. As with the Linus Caldwell article, I don't see anything establishing the character as being particularly notable on his own terms, nor does the article seem to provide any significant real-world context aside from the two quotes...which are both from the same person. Not really looking for an argument though. Doniago (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I invite editors to visit the article that existed up until you yourself tagged it for improvement on December 14, 2010[16] only one minute before you then removed its souracble contents.[17] Editors should judge it by what it was and its potential before you made it a stub one week ago. After a keep, I would expect that will be reverted to its earlier version and then sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its earlier version that was largely a biography of a fictitious character and included no additional sourcing? If people want to source that material they're welcome to add it back in. I'd be happy to reconsider my position at that time. I would hope that any editor who was going to revert it would add sources and cull the OR, but in that event I suspect there wouldn't actually be much notable content to re-include.

If you feel the material was unjustifiably removed you can of course add it back in now, but I don't think it's appropriate to add the material in its current state. At this point I'd like to hear from other editors as well. Doniago (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I invited editors to look at what it was before it was "trimmed". And note, descriptives of screen actions that can be seen by any viewer of the film, is not OR, and can be sourced to the film itself. WP:OR would be in unsourced interpretation or editorializing of such actions. I'll be glad to source and return, as its removal has now made this Somebody else's problem... and the ones who improve articles sent to AFD are usually those who opine a keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Extracting singular quotes about Brad Pitt is not enough to WP:verify notability because you need sources that address the subject in direct detail. Consensus can change and the previous nominations say more about a lack of consensus than they do about a firm community belief that this article is appropriate. The second nomination saw four keep !votes with no improvement to the article after it was tagged by ARS. The first nomination reached no consensus on the expectation that this article could be improved. You can see editors from the first nomination who switched from !keep to !delete as they realized that it couldn't. People have tried to improve the article in good faith but it's just incapable of meeting our guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that someone else did not add more sources to an already sourced article within some arbitrary deadline is not a helpful rationale for deletion when sources are readily available.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] And as this is not a BLP, for anyone to remove otherwise verifiable content he does not wish personally to source, to thus make an improvable article appear as unimprovable as he asserts, is not quite the way to fix things, is it? And to repeat, and specially with all the available sources to confirm the article's past content, a reader's also being able to verify the character descriptives and screen actions through watching the films themselves is not OR... as WP:OR would be in unsourced interpretation or editorializing of such actions. The existing sources and coverage of this character in context to the film series already and quite strongly WP:verify notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that you feel the article should be kept, and are willing to do the research to locate what you believe to be reliable sources, and your knowledge that the article is currently being discussed as a possible AFD, I'm uncertain why you are not taking actions to improve the article currently. That being said, I also don't see where or how it's been established that the subject of the article is notable on its own terms. Perhaps if you make the effort to improve the article that will be more apparent to me. Doniago (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - @ Doniago: Given the multiple available sources allowing a reasonable presumption of notability, you are quite welcome to yourself return the material you removed and then source it. Thank you though, for graciously suggesting that I be the one to do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - When the only person arguing that the article should be kept is unwilling to make edits that might improve it, you'll have to forgive me if I decline, as someone who doesn't believe the subject is notable enough to merit an article in the first place, to make edits myself. Put another way, if you'd like me to make the edits, persuade me that edits can be made that will transform the article into one that should be preserved. Given that anyone actively tracking this discussion is now aware of my deletions and your issues with them, it could be considered "notable" that nobody, including you, has chosen to undo them. Silence implies consent, and it's notable, to me, that you still haven't provided a reason as to why you won't make any changes yourself. If you won't make an effort to rescue the article besides your arguments here, why should anyone else? Doniago (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - @ Doniago: So far, and apparently based upon seeing a 109 word article that you personally reduced from its original 1713 words, we have 1 nominator, 2 "deletes", and ~~one~~ 2 "keeps"... not exactly a wide and sweeping consensus upon which to delete an article that was kept twice before... but I blame the holidays for the temporary lack of traffic here. And thank you for again inferring that since I opined a keep, it is now somehow my personal obligation to revert your sourcable content deletions and then source the article myself. Go and revert it yourself... and then in good faith allow those who visit this AFD over the next few days to see the original article, and then decide for themselves based upon what others saw at the previous two AFDs. And in allowing them that vision, you may well find editors with the time to use these sources.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] But remember as you claim I am "unwilling"... its not my "job", and I'm a volunteer here just like anyone else. So you will just have to pardon me... as I've been a little busy in real life, and when editing have been busy in areas other that this one improvable article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Worth noting, were this a real person, and due to his wide coverage in so many reliable sources, his notability per guideline would not even be the least in doubt. But as he is fictional, we instead look to the manual of style for fiction... which quite properly states "the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources." We're not talking about a Pokeman character. With the reams of reliable sources available, this is emminently do-able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add the new references to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 03:38, December 27, 2010

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles M. McKim[edit]

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

Searched through databases on architects,newspapers, and other sources only available behind an university paywall but could find not any reliable references that would support the claim that he was a notable architect. The only reference I found is a short biography in a book on the WWII but this does not provide any evidence that his war service was particularly notable: many individuals flew 35 combat missions and were awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal with Clusters. LittleHow (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. My research had similar results to LittleHow's. Of course the other Charles McKim was a titan of American architecture, but about this Charles McKim there is very little. (I found nothing indicating a relationship.) I agree that the sourced info about his military career--distinguished, brave, and appreciated though it was--does not convey Wiki-notability. However, I did turn up one small indication of possible notability--he appears on a list of notable architects in the World Almanac (here's links to Google Books's snippets from the 1974 and 2003 editions, and he's in both)[36][37], so evidently someone thought he was notable. I haven't yet turned up any information suggesting that either of the named buildings--the KUHT transmitter building or Church of the Redeemer (Houston, Texas) is architecturally distinguished (although KUHT may be historically significant as the first public TV station in the U.S.). I am open to changing my view, if such evidence is produced. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I qualify "weak" because I can only speak intelligently to half of his notability claim; I can't really judge if he mees WP:ARTIST or not. However, he surely fails WP:MILPEOPLE. Mere participation in battles isn't enough, and the information about his participation in the China Burma India Theater of World War II is pretty vague (doesn't cite any specific battles, etc). Even I have to admit that a DFC alone isn't enough either. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect, has already been merged. Geschichte (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Simms[edit]

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

Article about a sports agent/coach who represents some well-known athletes. At present notability isn't really established by the article and an (admittedly) quick scan hasn't turned up much. Some COI editing from the subject though nothing major. This seems to me to come under WP:NOTINHERITED. EyeSerene^talk 14:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though the sports management company does appear to be notable and should probably be redirected there if the article was created. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I had the same thought, Black Kite. I've made a start on the PACE Sports Management article so there should be something to redirect to if that's the way the AfD goes. EyeSerene^talk 16:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not really a redirect, but a merger. Geschichte (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia Shorty[edit]

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

a lot of name dropping and claims of "classic" and "legend", but nothing to point to actual notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve through normal editing. She was profiled in music critic Nik Cohn's 2005 book Triksta and her murder a few days ago has resulted in coverage in Rolling Stone and New Orleans newspapers. Cullen328 (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Direct quotation in article from regional paper of record New Orleans Times-Picayune describes her as a "legend of bounce music," article outlines her early role as one of only two women signed to Cash Money Records. Her name appeared in several places in Wikipedia before the article was created. Lil Wayne and other collaborators have spoken to the press about her work and murder. Article lists honors/appearances. Jokestress (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of mainstream coverage, certainly notable Little Professor (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. She received an adequate amount of third-party coverage both before and after her death. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Never heard of this woman however if she did some notable work in her life, which she clearly did, she is worthy of an article. If she did work with famous people, it would stand to reason they would be mentioned and therefore sound a little like namedropping. There are sources to support the article so it is all good strong material. If anything, please add to it as much as possible. Cexycy (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 - source located for the rest of the content VernoWhitney (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rehna Hai Teri Palkon Ki Chaaon Mein[edit]

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

Lacks context after copyright cleanup. Unsourced and badly-written article about a possibly non-notable TV show. The only real content at the moment are plot summaries that I think have been copied, mainly because they are written in perfect English, unlike the rest of the article. Acather96 (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Potassium iodide. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thyrosafe[edit]

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

Another WP:NOTNEWS WikiLeaks cable-related stub that takes primary sources and passing mentions in news reports to justify an encyclopedic article on a topic that is best treated as a redirect to a subsection of Potassium iodide. Article was previously redirected[38] and reverted.[39] I nominate this article and leave it to the community to decide what to do. Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out several months ago, WP:NOTNEWS is a policy which is always misused when mentioned in deletion discussions, and this is no exception. News stories shouldn't be treated from other coverage, and besides, the product really is not news. If you do a Web search on it you'll see most of the information about it predates the Wikileaks publication. The leaked cable merely demonstrates that this commercial product from Sweden, which otherwise might seem interchangeable and boring to most of us, is for some reason regarded as critical to the national security of the United States. True, I'm skeptical about that. (there are actually many competitors, even for municipal purchases within the U.S., though because there are only a few major iodine mines, also on the list, I couldn't absolutely rule out that they have impressive contracts in event of nuclear war). Still, the point is, it's notable and now more notable. It would have been a reasonable stub before the cable was published, and I honestly think it's only being nominated for deletion now due to that controversy. Wnt (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content with Potassium iodide, as that is the generic name of this preparation. JFW | T@lk 17:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a dissapointing nomination. There's ongoing discussion on the talk page of the article regarding redirecting and merging this article, discussion the nominator has not taken part in. This is not an appropiate venue for this debate. Were I not involved and I saw this nomination, I'd speedy close it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not following you at all, Aaron. Are you saying that I'm uninvolved? Looking at the talk page, at least two proponents of the current article, Wnt and Silver seren, have each requested, recommended, or advised taking this to AfD. And, that's what I've done. If you could be so kind as to show me one, single reliable secondary source about this subject and this subject alone, I will withdraw the AfD. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion lists both merges and redirects. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_article_for_deletion tells you to read the policy before you nominate something. There would be no reason for this to be admin-deleted even if we did what you nomination proposes and redirect it. This is not the appropiate venue to discuss the problem with the sourcing on the page. The article's talk page is the appropiate place to have that discussion. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - There has already been a discussion about the problems over the last week. Proponents of the article will not budge and editors who attempted to redirect have been reverted. If there aren't any good sources about the subject, then we should consider deletion since efforts to redirect have been prevented. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - This will be my last comment in this thread: The article was redirected, and that redirection was reverted. This is typical and accepted behavior. There has been little substantative discussion on the article talk page, and you have not taken part in that discussion.
        Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If that is true, then by your account, that must make me uninvolved. Great. If anyone would like to present a single reliable secondary source about the subject, I would be happy to withdraw this AfD. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Potassium iodide as individual pharmaceutical preparations are generally not notable in themselves. Mangoe (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with whether they're generally not notable, it matters whether the coverage in this article makes this preparation notable, which you haven't addressed. Silver seren^C 19:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has absolutely nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS, so i'm going to disregard that part of the nom's argument. I was the one who unredirected the article after searching for sources and finding them. I turned the article from what it was before to what it is now. The sources I added to the article discuss specifically about Thyrosafe and do explain that they are potassium iodide tablets, yes, but I believe the coverage is enough to warrant an article on this specific brand, which is used fairly widely in the US. Silverseren^C 21:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, none of the sources are about Thyrosafe, except the primary ones. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to Potassium iodide per Mangoe. Beagel (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surveillance Detection Unit[edit]

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

Another WP:NOTNEWS WikiLeaks cable-related stub[40] that is not ready for the encyclopedia. I recently prodded,[41] and it was declined.[42] I then redirected to the parent contents leak article[43] which was quickly reverted.[44] I nominate this article and leave it to the community to decide what to do. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nomination based utter misapprehension of facts as I explained to nominator 45 minutes prior to this nom being posted. This has little to do with the United States diplomatic cables leak and this scandal had begun several weeks prior to those releases. I also tried to convey to nominator that there exists prolific coverage of this organization (actually these organizations, as they seem to have been created using the same mold in a plethora of countries) in a number of countries (see e.g. Google News search for brief impression). For some reason that also did not register. __meco (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those links indicate a breaking news story that does not support the claims in the current article nor enough content for an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia, hence the redirect to contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak. Another possible redirect might be Norway – United States relations. However, you may be interested in writing an article for Wikinews. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are lots of things I might be interested in, but why bring them up here? This is not an article of my creation. __meco (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Waek delete At this time no evidacne of any real notability. If more sources come forward I would change.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Norway content has been presented to more depth since the the version you presumably looked at and SDU reports from four more countries (with various degrees of acceptance or controversy) are included now. Boud (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is getting a large amount of press in Norway alone; I haven't even looked for sources in other countries. It's likely that the nomination is based in part on the fact that few editors on en.wikipedia can read the Norwegian-language sources, or the German-language one that was in the article. I have expanded these, including finding the online version of the initial TV 2 (Norway) report referenced in the text, and also added 2 English-language reports. I'll be happy to translate the Norwegian and German sources if requested; I imagine the article creator would also gladly provide translated quotations. The other issue appears to be confusion with the Wiki Leaks release of diplomatic cables, but that story broke on November 28; this broke on November 3. Viriditas appears to have misinterpreted this story in The Foreigner, but it is not saying Wiki Leaks broke the story of the SDU in Norway, just the opposite: "Some of them may provide insight about the controversial Surveillance Detection Unit (SDU), stoking the fire over US spying practices in Norway." So this should not be merged, and does meet notability criteria - what it badly needs is expansion to cover other countries. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said WikiLeaks broke the story; as you show above, they did not. However, it recently received coverage in the The Foreigner with the anticipation that a new WikiLeaks cable would shed light on the topic. Now, with that said, what good sources do we have for an encyclopedic article on the subject? None, as far as I can see. What we have is a lot of speculation and plans for investigations, which would be better off in other articles such as those listed above. Again, WP:NOTNEWS comes into play. This is a breaking news story that does not have enough information for an article. If the WikiLeaks cable article is not the appropriate place for a redirect, then Norway – United States relations should suffice. We simply do not have any good information yet, and the claims made in the current stub do not have good sources supporting them. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misunderstood your argument then; the Foreigner article that you cited clearly demonstrates that this was already a big issue in Norway - they felt the data in the leaked cables were going to add fuel to the fire, a pretty clear demonstration that this story precedes the Wiki Leaks one. I'm also not sure what your standard of sufficient information is: the articles I've cited name names, name the building (with photos and floor), give a year for the program's inception, say how many people were involved, and refer to the database used and the kinds of data entered. Would you like more of these specifics added? I thought a summary was more encyclopedic, but there is no lack of material. (The investigation was mentioned in only one source, I cannot guess whether it was quashed or is simply not being made public at this point; but I don't believe this requires an investigation, or published results of it, to be notable.) This has been in the media for a while now, it's far from "breaking" at this point. Would it be helpful in demonstrating notability if a section on Germany or some other country were researched and added? In my view the coverage of the Norwegian report and the fallout from it suffices to establish notability, but the article will need to cover other countries to be adequate. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It reads as a speculative Wikinews report, not an encyclopedic topic or article. I'm not seeing any good sources about this subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (1) This is clearly a major scandal in Norway of sociopolitical importance across the political spectrum. This Wikipedia is not the UK/USA-Wikipedia, it's the English-language Wikipedia about World-wide knowledge. Weak coverage by the NYT, Guardian etc. does not make the subject non-notable. (2) The SDUs have been uncovered in ~~four~~ five different countries: this is now an international issue. This would not have been reported in the ~~three~~ four other countries if it were not Notable. Boud (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Numbers updated. Boud (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timed expiry date[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a term, for which I can find no documentary support of significance. The technical descriptions do not ring true. Article is not verifiable. Peripitus (Talk) 10:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This, and timed destruction by the same author(s), appear to be attempts to write about what is actually known as planned obsolescence without, apparently, knowing before writing either what it's actually called or what it really is. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources to show that this is a real concept. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. (Or possibly merge content with planned obsolescence.) Does not appear to be notable as a term. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 00:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus as to Abdul Hafiz (Guantanamo detainee), delete the rest.. Courcelles 05:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Nasim (Guantanamo captive 849)[edit]

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

The article fails WP:BIO as the sources are either primary documents dealing with the subject in an insignificant and routine fashion or secondary sources dealing with the subject in a routine fashion. Not notable other than be for being a detainee at Guantanamo, and fails WP:MILMOS/N for lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - similar articles have already been deleted, please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esmatulla (Guantanamo detainee 888) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faizullah (Guantanamo detainee 919) for two such examples. Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: these subjects don't seem independently notable beyond being a detainee at Guantanamo and ultimately I don't believe that in itself is notable enough for each individual to warrant an article. There is a list of detainees, but is there really a need for each detainee to have an article? This seems excessive, particularly when most of the articles seem to share the same information (Combatant Status Review, Admin Review Board, etc.) and many have very little biographical information. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am mystified by the assertions in this nomination that these individuals lack coverage in non-DoD references. Further I am very concerned by the way this nomination merges former captives who are apparently recidivists with those who were apparently US allies, or innocent bystanders. Geo Swan (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mohammed Hashim, faced charges before a Guantanamo military commission, and was reportedly "the first about-face in a military commissions prosecution that was not mandated by a federal judge."
- Bismullah (Guantanamo detainee 968) Most references that cover the captives who were determined to be "no longer enemy combatants" (ie recognized to have never been "enemy combatants" after all) report the 2004 CSR Tribunals made this determination for 38 men. Bismullah was the 39th. He had claimed he was an official of the Hamid Karzai government, a good guy, on the US side, who ended up in US custody based on false denunciations. He was released in the last days of the Bush administration, in January 2009, as the CSRT process finally confirmed his account, after eight years of detention.
- Abdul Hafiz (Guantanamo detainee), described by Liz Cheney as "Obama's first recidivist". [45], [46], [47], [48]
- Norullah Noori -- As a former governor Norullah Noori is notable as per WP:Politician. Further the United Nations asked member states to freeze his assets. Further, Abdul Salam Zaeef recent book places him in a secret interrogation center in the USS Bataan in late 2001, an honor reserved for the most prominent captives.
- Abdul Razzak Hekmati, Hekmati was a hero, on our side, who lead a daring rescue of three prominent Northern Alliance leaders from a Taliban prison in 1999. As with Bismullah, above, his CSRT President had ruled that the witness statements from the three men he claimed he rescued were not reasonably available, even though all three men had been appointed to high-profile posts in the Hamid Karzai government. The most senior of the three men was the Minister of Energy, and told NYTimes reporter Carlotta Gall that he had personally sought out and told the American ambassador that Hekmati was wrongfully detained.
- Mohammed Nasim (Guantanamo captive 849) -- was sought out and interviewed by the BBC, and by the McClatchy News Service.
- Nasrullah (Guantanamo detainee 886)
- Rahmatullah Sangaryar
- Abdul Ghani (Guantanamo detainee 934)
- Abdul Bagi (detainee)
  - Geo Swan, surely if I had only nominated one group - i.e. "former captives who are apparently recidivists" or "those who were apparently US allies, or innocent bystanders" (to use your words) then you might say that I was pushing some POV in nominating them, but as you say I did not. I came accross these articles as they were listed as members of Jihad Kandahar (except for Norullah Noori), a previous AfD which was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad Kandahar), and after reviewing them I all I formed the opinion that they did not meet wikipedia's notabily requirements. Its that simple. Anotherclown (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In describing your conclusion you use the phrase: "Its that simple". Unfortunately you seem to have neglected to address key points. Consider Hekmati for instance. The Taliban placed a one million dollar bounty on his head. You haven't said why you don't recognize a one million dollar bounty as showing notability. He had an iron-clad alibi, one that could have refuted or confirmed with trivial effort -- which US intelligence analysts never bothered to refute or confirm. You haven't said why you don't recognize this as showing notability. He had very senior character witnesses, including the Minister of Energy, who personally button-holed the American ambassador, to recommend his release. You haven't said why you don't recognize this as showing notability. No offense, but I think our deletion policies require more effort on the part of those making nominations than you are showing here. As I have already written here, our coverage of topics is supposed to be sober, and measured -- our coverage is not supposed to emulate tabloids. IMO this imposes a requirement on our quality control volunteers to read our articles closely. I acknowledge that I did not play up the potential sensationalistic aspects of Hekmati's case. This is what I believe our standards require. Was it a mistake, on your part, to justify deletion because you found the description of the potentially sensationalistic aspects of Hekmati's case as "routine"? Yes, I think so. Geo Swan (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as per nom and AustralianRupert. Misuse of primary sources WP:BLPPRIMARY Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.. Almost all content in these articles come from primary sources what is simply a no no in writing BLP's. IQinn (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Response immediately above is boilerplate. Iqinn has posted identical responses in other recent ((afd)). This response appears to have been written without bothering to actually read the articles in question or to have read my responses, to these nominations, which listed multiple press reports, [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], showing the claim these articles haven't cited press reports to be false. I request closing adminstrator discount this response as a lapse from WP:NOTAVOTE. Geo Swan (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There has been a long history of uncivil responses and personal attacks by a small group of people in almost all Guantanamo related discussion of articles that has been written by Geo Swan. It might be time for a RfC/U to stop this undesirable behavior like here uncivil ad hominum arguments.

To claim i would not have read the nomination and i would not know the articles is laughable. I extensively worked on all these articles as user Geo Swan knows very well. They almost all have the same problem:

Delete -- as per nom and AustralianRupert. Misuse of primary sources WP:BLPPRIMARY Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.. Almost all content in these articles come from primary sources what is simply a no no in writing BLP's. IQinn (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's deal with the issues. You asserted that the articles in this deletion relied on government sources -- even though simply reviewing the references, or glancing at the references I included above, show

Seems like that this is ending up in another unproductive discussion where one editor writes filibustering walls of words and keeps ignoring the point he seems not to like. So let me repeat it again:

Almost all content in these articles come from primary sources what is simply a no no in writing BLP's. Misuse of primary sources WP:BLPPRIMARY Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.. Almost all content in these articles come from primary sources. IQinn (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator is 100% correct, and if the response by Iquin is boilerplate, it shares the characterisitics of these articles. The sources for all of these articles are, for the most part, primary sources. If these sources can be eliminated, and the articles can stand on their own merits using reliable secondary sources, then my feelings might be different. The subjects also fail notability requirements. Simply being a Detainee in GTMO does not make one notable. I would also ask that we keep this a civil discourse. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am on the fence about the notability of this article but I am a little concerned about the recent wave of deletion requests regarding the detainees, the lawsuits they filed and the other various articles surrounding and discussing the incident at Guantanamo. In the last couple weeks I have seen more than 50 articles, some better than others all submitted for deletion on this submject. It seems a little suspicious. regardnig the use of Primary and secondary references I think I am a little confused. This article has reference from various places including the New York Times so I am not sure what the issue is with the references. --Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you suspicious about in particular? I have nominated these articles for deletion because IMO they fail to meet the notability requirements of the encyclopaedia and I have cited recent precedent to support this argument. What are your concerns with that? Anotherclown (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You wrote: "...or secondary sources dealing with the subject in a routine fashion..." We don't emulate tabloids. These articles could have been written in highly sensational terms, because the detention of these men is literally unprecedented. Never before, since the Geneva Conventions were first signed, has a signatory nation declared that alleged combatants would not be treated according to the Geneva Conventions. "Written in a routine fashion" is not a deletion criteria. If someone were to take your complaint at face value, and rewrite these articles in a more exciting, sensational, tabloid manner, then they would be lapsing from policy and longstanding convention.
  - I disagree with your characterization of the references as "primary sources". Documents where an independent party collates multiple earlier reports, reconciles discrepancies, strips out duplicates, and summarizes their own conclusions, are "secondary sources", by any reasonable definition.
  - You asked Kumioko for the grounds for their suspicion. The opposition of some of the contributors have opposed covering material about the Guantanamo captives based on misconceptions -- they were simply misinformed. One serious misconception is that the detention of these men is routine, mundane, totally unprecedented. I have been asked how their detention differs from that of "other" convicted felons in the US penal system. Of course as of about a month ago exactly two of the captives could be described as "convicts". And even those two men were not convicted in a traditional court of law. Of the remaining 777 men, about two dozen have faced charges, but only two of them, Ahmed Ghailani and Jose Padilla, in a US court.
    The rest have been held, without charge, for years. Another misconception is that the detention without charge of these men is routine for "POW"s, prisoners of war. Under the Geneva Convention POWs can be held, without charge, "until hostilities cease". But the George W. Bush administration announced, by executive order, that these captives were not protected by the Geneva Conventions. If the men don't have the protections of the Geneva Conventions, then the USA can't claim holding them for years, without charge, is a legal act.
    Some have gone on, and while acknowledging that the captives are not being held in a manner consistent with the USA's international obligations, they have claimed that this too is routine, and that one hundred million individuals have been seized, and held without charge, in secret camps, all over the world. That is true, up to a point, if we count the Nazi concentration camps, the old Soviet Gulag, similar Gulags in other communist states, Cambodia's "killing fields", and similar facilities run by right-wing totalitarian states. With the exception of the Guantanamo captives, 99,999,000 of those individuals held in secret, without charge, were held by countries that did not (usually) respect the rule of law. The USA normally respects the rule of law. So holding 779 in the same conditions that totalitarian states hold their victims is literally unprecedented. No other democracy has done this. Geo Swan (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't exactly share Geo Swan's views on the matter I also don't think that the described lack of notability and references is a dubious one as well. The problem with lack of notability is how to quantify it. I don't follow soccer so if WP didn't have one biography about a soccer player wouldn't be offended, others would argue otherwise. This is one of those cases were, people could and are interested in the subject of these cases and what seems to be a mass deletion campaign of the articles on the subject gives the appearance that we are trying to white wash the issue by delting all the articles abot it and thereby pushing POV. I personally think that the references are find and the notibility, although unclear, is probably ok too. --Kumioko (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is first time I have done an AfD for such an article I am at a loss to figure how I could be accused of POV pushing but I guess I should have expected it. As I have said above I nominated these following similar outcomes at previous AfDs I have participated in (and have provided the links to these discussions). IMO none of these individuals is notable and we have literally deleted hundreds of articles about people with far more biographical information and coverage in secondary sources (the Silver Star reciepients is one prominent example IMO). 90% of the articles about Guantanamo detainees appear to duplicate infomation in other articles and add very little. Of course some will undoubtably be notable due to significant independent coverage (for instance David Hicks etc who have had books written about them and hundreds of news articles etc), but most will not even come close and are only mentioned in passing in most references. BTW this is the last time I will respond to editors questioning my motives. I expected better but I shouldn't have. Anotherclown (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I called the nomination mysterious, I never said I thought you were consciously pushing a POV. Personally, I think you are misinterpreting Kumioko's comments if you think he or she has accused you of consciously pushing a POV. Realistically, good faith contributors innocently lapse from WP:NPOV all the time, due to unexamined biases they are unaware of, or from focussing on a task so long they get tunnel vision. I acknowledge when I realize I have lapsed. No one has questioned your motives. I have merely disagreed with you, I don't think I have gone as far as suggesting an unconscious bias on your part.
You write: "IMO none of these individuals is notable..." I pointed out that, as a former governor, Norullah Noori is a clearcut WP:POLITICIAN. Governors of states or provinces with on the order of a million citizens are notable, even if the regime was unpopular and it is a backward region on the other side of the world. I would appreciate you responding to this point.
I am not aware of the discussions you refer to about receipients of the Silver Star. Are you saying that opponents argued that our convention that while merely receiving a Victoria Cross, or Congressional Medal of Honor has conventionally been regarded as sufficient to make someone notable, merely receiving a second rank, but still prestigious medal, like the Silver Star is not? And how is that like the Guantanamo captives? Cast your mind back, weren't those opponents arguing some variation of ((blp1e)), where receiving the Silver Star was merely one event? Did anyone argue that if the receipient was known for something else: like being a childhood chess prodigy; or inventing something; or publishing a well-reviewed memoir; or being involved in a sex scandal; or running a Ponzi scheme -- then that particular Silver Star receipient would be notable, because they weren't a ((blp1e)), but they were a ((blp2e)) or a ((blp3e)). 200 of the Guantanamo captives were released prior to reviews required by the SCOTUS in 2004, and we know essentially nothing about approximately 150 of them -- they have dropped from sight. We have no articles on them. Those 150 about whom we know nothing beyond when they were held in Guantanamo are the equivalent of the Silver Star receipients, about whom we know nothing except that they were awarded a Silver Star. There is no value in having articles on individuals in either of these groups. But the Silver Star receipient who is also an inventor, or writer? The Guantanamo captive who is also accused of being trained in assassination techniques? They are not candidates for deletion under ((blp1e)).
You write: "Of course some will undoubtably be notable due to significant independent coverage (for instance David Hicks...)" Do you realize it looks like you are suggesting that we should only have articles on individuals who have been the topic of an entire book, or hundreds of news articles? I suggest this is far too high a bar, by several orders of magnitude. Do you realize that the wikipedia has more than one million biographical articles? Do you think one percent of those one million article would qualify for inclusion because they had a book written about them, or were the subject of hundreds of newspaper articles? I am going to ask you to consider "false Geber" -- a scholar from the 12th century who might be the first sockpuppet. We know nothing about him. Up until recently we didn't know where he lived, his occupation, his name, religion. All we knew was that he was the first individual to describe the process of purifying and using Sulfuric acid. This was enough for Isaac Asimov to include him in his list of the 1000 most notable scientists. Whether we have an article on an individual should be guided by common sense and collegiality. Is it useful to have articles about them? For false Geber the answer is clearly yes, even though we know nothing about his life. Do not interpret this as a challenge to your movites, but I believe you are overlooking significant differences in these individuals. We have shortcuts we use in ((afd)) discussions we use, which link directly to metadocuments like Arguments to avoid. Can you please tell me whether I need to avoid using these shortcuts, so I don't trigger in you the feeling that your motives are being challenged?
You write: "90% of the articles about Guantanamo detainees appear to duplicate infomation in other articles." And, someone with little background in chemistry, and no interest or tolerance for those who are interested in chemistry, could write something similar about the elements on the periodic table. Heck, those articles are full of duplicative information about Atomic Weights and Atomic Numbers, and valence electrons. Do we really need 92 articles that all appear very similar? Couldn't the same kind of argument be applied to many US Congressional Representatives, or to most sport stars, if you aren't prepared to recognize how those individuals differ? Could you please explain how this is different from the arguments you have offered for deletion of the articles on these individuals? Geo Swan (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my comments offended you AC or sounded like they were directed at you because they were not but between these and others (such as the very long list that Fram submitted) it gives the appearance that there is an effort in WP to suppress this from the public eye. I would be interested to know how many "hits" these articles got before making a complete decision. If they got zero or a low number of views then I might be more inclined to vote to delete them. IRT Geo Swan yes, the determination was made that a nations highest award, such as the VC or MOH is sufficient in itself to make the member notable but that second and third level awards are not. Although it was also determined that if someone had multiple secondary awards that might make them notable. --Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. The articles are reliant on primary sources and brief mentions in media articles so WP:BIO isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, a distinct lack of non-primary, non-potentially-biased sources are available, don't meet WP:BIO, delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider the least notable ones separately. This is an abuse of AfD policy about group nominations--the people are not of the same degree of notability It is better to have separate discussions that to try to sort it our here. I do not want to consider the possible motivates for such an indiscriminate group of nominations, but regardless of the motivations, it was not a good approach. Hafiz at least has excellent additional RSs, and is clearly notable--inclusion of him among the others shows either no attempt to actually even read the articles and look at the sources, which is at best careless and unhelpful behavior, or a stubborn insistence that nobody ever incarcerated at Gitmo can possibly be notable, regardless of third party sourcing. The sources otherwise are the best that can be expected, and they are sufficient. The BLP concerns are met by a/the articles do the subject no possible harm b/the presentation of the evidence shows it objectively for what it is , and people can judge. But if we are going to consider them here , DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above all the nominees (bar one) were listed as members of the same organisation - Jihad Kandahar - an article that was also deleted for the same reasons (please see the afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad Kandahar). As such it is by no means a random sample, that is how I came accross the articles and after reviewing each one I formed the opinion that they all suffered from the same issue (even if you disagree with that opinion which of cause is why we have AfDs). Given this I felt that a group nomination would allow us to discuss a group of articles with the same issue, rather than doing 10 seperate AfDs (which would clearly be unhelpful IMO). I note however that four similar articles have gone through afds in the past week and been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Jabar (Taliban leader), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Haq (Taliban leader, 2008), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Aziz (Taliban leader), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Ghafar (Afghan mujahideen fighter). Likewise for the following two the week before that: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esmatulla (Guantanamo detainee 888) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mullah Rahmatullah. Also I wish to make it perfectly clear that no one is attempting to prevent this information from being included on Wikipedia, it is simply that many of these individuals are not individually notable enough to have a whole article themselves IMO. The bulk of this information could easily be included in List of Guantanamo Bay detainees or a similar article without the need to repeat huge paragraphs on the same thing. Anotherclown (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Europeada 2010[edit]

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

This edition of the tournament never took place. Notability of the tournament as a whole is probably questionable. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: probably seemed like a good idea whe it was created, but even if plans had come to fruition, highly doubtful that either depth of coverage or standard of play would have made in notable. Kevin McE (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The standard of play doesnt bear relevance for deletion (many other non-FIFA intl tournaments exist with notability for countries not in FIFA.

That said its clearly an easy delete now (unless a tournament will start in the next 1 week), even though as you say it may have been a good idea at the time

And kudos on spotting this, i forgot about it ;)Lihaas (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

So if there is no independent coverage, and the players are park standard (the whole point of Europeada, as opposed to FIFI/ELF is that they are not countries), what would be the grounds for keeping this even if the event had gone ahead? Should Europeada 2008 also be up for deletion? Kevin McE (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tournament that never happened; notability a doubt even if it had. Giant Snowman 13:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Delete of something that never took place. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as hoax/fraud/likely copyvio. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas trust[edit]

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

VERITAS ~= Veritas trust. (See also Veritas Trust Seal) Elvey (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I guess we could simply replace 2 of these with a redirect to the third.--Elvey (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VERITAS is a telescope array, whose article had been overwritten wholesale as part of the same hoaxing campaign that got us this article and Veritas Trust Seal. All of this content, at VERITAS (now reverted), Veritas trust, and Veritas Trust Seal is a hoax. It's a simple copy of VeriSign (which is the actual company providing ICANN root domain name service) with some of the names changed and some minor additions.
Given that the creator's account is Auroxy (talk · contribs), and the supposed "veritas" corporation whose WWW site is externally hyperlinked-to is run by an "Auroxy Corporation" (of Singapore), and given that the WWW site is advertising the sort of digital certification services offered by VeriSign, I have strong suspicions that this hoaxery is a malicious hoax, too, intended to fool people into using these services by dint of a Wikipedia article lending an air of legitimacy to the WWW site. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. If not all hoaxes are vandalism, hoaxes with a fraudulent intent certainly are, and Uncle G makes a compelling case that's what we are dealing with. So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Music vs Rock[edit]

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

Unsourced essay replete with original research, personal opinions, and so on. Three sections are covered by extant articles classical music, rock music, and polystylism, and the last appears to be an original essay. Feezo (Talk) 08:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay based on author's own opinion. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. unsourced POV article.Moxy (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear violation of policies on original research, point of view, and lack of reliable sources. Probably someone's school term paper, which by the way would also need reliable sources. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 22:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Poppycock[edit]

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

Delete. The artist in question does not have notieriety outside of Americas Got Talent. Per my understanding that makes him fail GNG as he doesn't have anything other then being a contestant on the tv show Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep widespread coverage in news supports notability through WP:GNG (click the "news" link above) in highly regarded widely read news sources. CBS News, Forbes, etc. meets requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Poppycock's making the Final Four of America's Got Talent makes him more notable than many individuals who grace the Wikipedia. And per Wikipedia policy, notability is not temporary. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For one that's a invalid argument. He is notable for one event, he fails the guidelines for artist notability and is only notable for one thing. We have loads of other shows on here and from what I can tell from looking at Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 8) none of these contestants have their own page, neither do the contestants here The Amazing Race 17. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know why Jackie Evancho has a page? She has done something outside the AGT show. She has a contract with a major label, she is doing things. Poppy cock is obviously not and the only claim to fame he had was agt.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please research the subject matter more--you'll find a wide array of articles in reliable sources and notability for his career inside and outside the "one event" that you hold out. I wonder if this is a personal issue and it's just that you don't like the performer?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I could have chosen words better methinks! I should not have wondered aloud and left impressions that Hell in a Bucket was making bad faith nominations.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Based on the statements made by Hell in a Bucket, i don't think he actually read the article. Prince Poppycock was notabile before American's Got Talent. He was a stage performer. He released an album. He had multiple newspapers write articles about him. After AGT, I am surprised this is even in question. Turlo Lomon (talk)

Keep - he may be a D list celebrity, but he's still a celebrity. It extents beyond simply america's got talent and goes into his stage performances too. GrantBud (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 05:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Warner[edit]

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

He seems to have an impressive resume, maybe he deserves a spot here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Probably an impressive guy, but impressive is not notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm buying!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current version of the article does not make a strong case for his notability: an assistant curator doesn't seem like the sort of museum position that has "innate" notability, and the sourcing is minimal. The cited Glasstire interview[59] mentions that he was acting director of the Kimbell for 18 months and that a recent exhibition he curated got a nice writeup in TIME--however, he's not mentioned by name there[60]. There are more than 200 hits at Google Books [61] and more than 100 hits at Google News [62] including a number that cover him directly, such as [63][64][65] Probably enough here to support an article, but I'd be interested in other opinions.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add information: It should also be noted that Warner has authored or co-authored several books[66]; his The Victorians: British painting, 1837-1901 received a positive (albeit brief) review in The New York Times[67] and his co-authored James Tissot: Victorian life, modern love received a positive review from Cahners.[68] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether or not an individual has an impressive resume or not is rather subjective and not applicable to this discussion. Additionally, whether an individual is "deserving" or not? This is not the place. The subject is an art curator and museum director and receives publicity accordingly. GHits about art exhibits and openings are appropriate and to be expected. Additionally any museum would be remiss in not reporting the employment status of a nonprofit executive employee, regardless of the identity of the individual. This does not equate to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse 12:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. Those favouring deletion have clearly never looked at Category:American curators, most of whom have far slimmer credentials. He has been an author of books for Yale UP & other top publishers, as well as many catalogues, & deputy Director of the Kimble is a senior position. The notability criteria for curators are the seniority of the positions they have held and the importance of the exhibitions they have curated, which are rightly or wrongly treated as "works" they have authored. He easily passes these, especially the latter. He is also frequently cited and his views discussed by other scholars, mainly on the Pre-Raphaelites and Millais in particular [69]. I have rejigged the text somewhat. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending on going clean up. Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Malcolm is the world's most important expert on Millais. He's also a very impressive curator. As you will gather from my use of his first name, I know him, so I am biassed to an extent, but he has written a significant number of impressive books on Victorian art. Paul B (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above particularly Johnbod. There are multiple reviews of his exhibitions and books . Here's an example excerpt from the Contemporary Review re the National Gallery Exhibition:

"The descriptions of the paintings by Malcolm Warner, assisted by other scholars, provide a model of the way to explain the symbolism and significance of works of art in a detailed but easily understood manner. Thus we are given a two-page essay on Holman Hunt's painting The Awakening Conscience (normally at the Tate in London) which shows how Hunt used the Thomas Moore Poem 'Oft in the Stilly Night' in this painting. We see a' fallen woman - a favourite Victorian theme - suddenly struck by a pang of conscience as her wealthy lover sings that Moore song. In a skilful manner Malcolm Warner shows all the intricate symbolism in the painting ranging from the dropped soiled kid glove forecasting the woman's ultimate fate to the few pieces of yarn on the floor suggesting the ravelled state of her soul."

His books, catalogues, and exhibitions have been reviewed not only by the NYT and Contemporary Review, but by The Spectator, Washington Post, Birmingham Post, New Statesman, Apollo, etc. etc. Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy prog[edit]

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

Dubious genre with non-notable secondary or third party sources [70], [71]

Most references are from progarchives, a fanbased website. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Prog Defender Wait! What? C'mon! Why are you doing this? Please! Don't delete my article! I promise I will get some more information, starting today! --69.244.139.166 (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)unknown user[reply]

And progarchives is NOT a fanbase website. Infact, it carries a lot more useful imformation than Wikipedia (no offence). Just let me keep on adding and changing a few thing to convince you to change your mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.139.166 (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take personal offense at nominating an article for deletion. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not nominating an artice, I'm trying to defend it so you won't delete it!--69.244.139.166 (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - as someone who is knowledgeable on this topic, I believe that the term "Heavy Prog" does have some viability and was common in books and magazines of the period. Unfortunately, that's dead trees stuff that will make it difficult to find useful references for this article. Meanwhile, ProgArchives can be considered a reliable source (it's not user-generated overall), but this article will definitely need more than just band pages from that particular website. I'm Undecided for now, and I know that's not really a useful vote, but I do think this article has some potential if reliable sources can be found. But if that cannot be done, allow me to raise the possibility of a Merge to Progressive Metal because Heavy Prog can also be considered an early manifestation of that genre. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, everybody. I have been editing my article! I was wonering if any of you people would like to see some of the improvements I've made? --69.244.139.166 (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you still need more references beyond band pages at ProgArchives. Those pages can be used to support the Wikipedia articles for those bands (even the fact that someone called them Heavy Prog) but the article under discussion here needs to show some evidence that the term Heavy Prog enjoyed widespread usage as a stand-alone genre. Meanwhile, the article as it stands now is getting closing to running afoul of the WP policy on original research. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNews gets two hits, GBooks gets lots of false hits. I think a few people used such a term here and there but if they did it didn't catch on generally. Mangoe (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOT Delete Well, edited the article some more. And to be clear with you guys, I borrowed some information on other articles so that it doesn't "run afoul on the WP policy about to never make original articles". Even though that's the STUPIDEST policy I've ever seen on this website.--69.244.139.166 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Wisconsin Wolfpack, delete the rest.. Courcelles 05:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Gladiators[edit]

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

Semi-professional football team of questionable notability. Fails WP:N and WP:NSPORT, potential COI/POV issues, possible ADV issues, primary sources are league website or team website, and league page was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mid Continental Football League. It seems the league is using Wikipedia as a free webhosting server. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related in the same league and suffer from the same issues:

Additionally, there is some discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject American football/Semi-professional football discussion that may prove helpful.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for all Notable pages. I have already stated my case on why to keep semi pro pages, is no one listening to me? Rick lay95 (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)rick_lay95[reply]
- Actually, I have listened. You stated here that you're an active member of one of the semi-pro leagues; and here where you agree that the pages generally are not up to standards but should be kept anyway because the teams deserve the recognition. I don't question that they deserve recognition-I question that they deserve recognition here in this encyclopedia. Further, you do have a conflict of interest in editing many of the pages. And finally, the pages do not have independent third-party reliable sources and are largely (if not sometimes entirely) dependent only on the league website, team page, or unreliable sources like message boards. Many of the articles in the semi-pro world have no sources whatsoever. I get what it's like to be emotionally attached to articles because I've done it--but we can't do that here. We have to be as objective as possible.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. The article in question was significantly altered from my original version and would require a complete rewrite to be brought back into standards. However, I would disagree with the non-notable part. The Buffalo News and Olean Times Herald have covered this team extensively, and several other papers of teams who have also played them also have mentions. The team is notable, even moreso than most minor league teams, but this article isn't worth saving in its current incarnation. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Side comment. The previous comment refers to the Buffalo Gladiators article alone. I have no comment on the others. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with the others. Lack of independent sources to indicate notability. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fail to show notability with outside sources. Reywas92^Talk 20:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wisconsin Wolfpack should not be removed The Wolfpack was also a Professional Indoor Football team in the CIFL, and a large part of the article is about this Indoor team. Because of this, I believe it should be left out of this discussion. I can not comment on the rest of the topic, but I feel they should be left, or at a minimum the two different teams sharing the name Wisconsin Wolfpack should be separated into different articles. Micah008 (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Computer Solutions[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:CORP and appears to be spam Nakon 04:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely looks like spam. Rabbabodrool (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep per WP:LISTED. Has enough secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG.[72][73][74] --Nayvik (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed some of the promotional jargon-speak ("competencies", "client verticals" or whatever) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 02:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It looks okay...spam sentences are gone...--...Captain......Tälk tö me... 16:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — neturality issues have been addressed, and it meets WP:CORP. Feezo (Talk) 08:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; satisfies WP:CORP. bobrayner (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STNNNG[edit]

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

Non-notable, ((db-band)) declined. See also Fake Fake and Category:STNNNG albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per WP:BAND. No releases on a major label, and has never charted. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STNNNG is one of the most notable active bands from the Twin Cities. They have released three full-length records on the Modern Radio Record Label, which has also released over 50 recordings since 1999 from bands and artists such as Deerhoof, William Elliott Whitmore, Yellow Swans, Selby Tigers, and Motion City Soundtrack, among others. The band finished first in the annual Picked to Click music poll in the Minneapolis City Pages, and were voted the [[75] #1 live act] in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune in 2005. STNNNG has received much national and international acclaim, including many reviews of their albums throughout the United States and Europe source. Most recently, they were featured on "All Things Considered" on Minnesota Public Radio (source), which profiled the release of their latest album, "The Smoke of My Will". I believe these are ample reasons why their Wiki should exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Congress (talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC) — Congress (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete They have had some local interest, but there is nothing beyond that.~~ Modern Radio Record Label is not good enough four wp:music, three notable bands (being nice to Selby Tigers) (not counting Motion City Soundtrack and Yellow Swans (an appearence on a compilation or a split 7" does not part of their roster make) is not "a roster of performers, many of whom are notable" duffbeerforme (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck due to further info below. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Radio released a 7" - not a split - from Motion City Soundtrack, before they went on to sign with Epitaph and later Capitol Records. Yellow Swans have released a full-length CD and a split 7" on Modern Radio. In addition, Mirah has released a 7" and a CD on the label, The Plastic Constellations have released two (one in conjunction with Frenchkiss Records, and William Elliott Whitmore appeared on a "compilation" of bands that he toured with, including Jenny Hoyston from Erase Errata on the label. While Modern Radio might seem like a novel, boutique interest outside of the Midwest, the label has existed for over 11 years, has released over 50 records, and is considerably reknowned in and around the midwest. STNNNG, having released three full-length albums on the label, could be considered their flagship band. As previously mentioned, their fanbase extends far beyond Minneapolis, and many reviews of their latest album in France1, 2, 3, 4, and Germany support that. Of course, there's still plenty of interest nationally, too (1, 2, 3 as some examples). Even Allmusic.com, a widely-recognized source for music knowledge, has a review of their last album, Fake Fake. All this said, I think there is sufficient evidence online that STNNNG is a band that generates more than mere local interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Congress (talk • contribs) 21:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note User has only made one edit not related to this article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The band has been covered in numerous articles in City Pages, St. Paul Pioneer Press, and the Star Tribune with articles from 2004 to the present. They have been featured on Minnesota Public Radio. They've toured beyond their home state: for example, I found a review in the San Antonio Express-News. The review in Allmusic is helpful towards establishing notability also. The subject meets WP:BAND criterion #1, and possibly #4 as well. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage detailed above is sufficient to establish notability. This debate has, incidentally, made the news.--Michig (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ If there is notable coverage lets actuly see it, not just be told its there (by the wat sources have to be RS). We need inline citations demonstrating notability, also see wp:music. Also the artciel about this is blatant off wiki canvasing. I sugest that some admins look into this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Minnesota Public Radio coverage.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like two RS (I am assuming that MPR is considerd RS< i have no idea about a local radio station in the US) Sp I will change to *Waek keep.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely call Minnesota Public Radio an RS -- they're a large network of stations, not just a local station, and they're closely associated with American Public Media. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Source noted by SoV looks very solid.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Paul Erik's point above, I found a write-up of a show they played in Denver in Denver's Westword weekly newspaper. This source provides additional support that they've toured beyond their home state of Minnesota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Congress (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, considering the improved sourcing. bobrayner (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegram Man[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Don't believe this short film fits the criteria for notability for films. —Mike Allen 04:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as slightly too soon. Its a new film, only recently released, and is only now beginning to receive coverage.[76] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ghafour (Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin leader)[edit]

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

Fails the most basic requirements for biographies WP:BASIC , WP:BIO, WP:BLPPRIMARY. First part is the interpretation of a primary sources document followed by speculations and OR about other individual with the same name or similar name. IQinn (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the nomination. The subject of the article appears to lack significant independent coverage like similar articles, and therefore fails WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Notability requirements.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. lacking sources and none provided.more then enough evidence that a reasonable search has been done so umnder policy this is an unsourced BLP and therefore fails N Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Martin (actor)[edit]

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

Prod declined by COI author. Article tagged for notability since April. No sources found or forthcoming. Article is a big list of trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been updating and editing the page for Gary Martin (I know someone else has also but don't know who), I realise I wasn't explaining my edits or putting my name in (cite yur source), is that the reason you wish to delete the page? I am in contact with Gary Martin and we both realise we need to sit down and sort the page out properly.
I spent 3 hours on the page yesterday updating and editing, explaining what I did and leaving the name Gary Martin as a ref (cite your source) after each edit, but all the work I did yesterday has now gone and the deletion message has now come back.
Please do not delete the page, if there is something you'd like us to do in respect of editing, please explain.
Shelley Williams* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyfan (talk • contribs) 12:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Direct conversations with people, that readers obviously cannot check out for themselves, are not acceptable sources for a verifiable encyclopaedia. You've been told with every edit page that you've seen here that your content must be verifiable by readers. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I really am not undersatnding where I have gone wrong or what I need to do to rectify the situation. What do you mean by your content must be verifiable by readers? I have placed links with this I edit, Gary Martin's official web page etc. Please explain where I have gone wrong, I fully believed I have done nothing wrong.

Shelley Williams for Gary Martin LondonGal 13:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyfan (talk • contribs)

I also don't understand where I have had 'direct conversation with people, that readers obviously cannot out for themselves', I haven't had any direct conversations with people other than what I have been writing to you today. I have left links of reliable sources, Gary's offical web site etc.

Shelley Williams for Gary Martin LondonGal 13:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyfan (talk • contribs)

I have just seen this message ***Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( LondonGal 14:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC) ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC*** I've seen the 'talk pages' & don't believe I have ever wrote on them. I didn't know about having to put the LondonGal 14:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC) on the end, but where do I place them? After which comment? Apart from updating and editing on the page for Gary Martin, I have never wrote anywhere else on the site, I have never noticed the signature symbol either.

Shelley LondonGal 14:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyfan (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a bit of a mess but the subject matter is valid. --Warrior777 16:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)

comment I hope the changes meet everyone's needs. --Warrior777 16:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)
comment IMDB (the Internet Movie Database) is a very reliable secondary source for information concerning Mr. Martin. Further resources could be provided however to prove the voice work he's done in animation work. Those sources need to be provided quickly.--Warrior777 16:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)
Weak delete. Gary Martin has a lot of credits to his name, but WP:NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple films / TV programmes etc. I looked for coverage in third-party reliable sources and found this article, but that's not enough for substantial coverage in multiple third-party sources. Might qualify for a redirect to Honey Monster should someone ever create a full article for that, but at the moment it's just a redirect. Anyway, Shelly Williams, creating a wikipedia article for someone you isn't outright disallowed but it's generally a bad idea. WP:COI, WP:LUC, WP:AUTO and WP:PROUD give good reasons why. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior777 - Thank you for what you have done. I will see if I can get further resources to prove the voice work he's done in animation work, but what if I cannot, what if there is nothing or very little available?
Chris Neville-Smith - I understand what you are saying, I originally set this page up as there wasn't one & I did it as a favour for him, although I understand it's generally a bad idea to create a wikipedia article for someone I know, it could easily be Mr Martin who could update this page, would that be wrong for someone to create /update their own page?

Shelley Wiliams LondonGal 22:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

- Creating or editing an article about someone you know is a bad idea, Creating or editing an article about yourself is even worse. There are very limited circumstances when editing an article about yourself is a considered acceptable (see WP:COI#Non-controversial edits, but my point wasn't that it's not allowed, it's that you may bitterly regret it later. If the first major piece of media coverage about Gary Martin is something negative, that may find its way into the article and you may be powerless to stop it. Don't say I didn't warn you. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Journeyman performer with lengthy roster of credits who clearly meets WP:ENT. Other issues easily resolved by routine editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how "routine editing" will make sources magically appear. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling me you AfD'd an article to make a point that the article is not adequately referenced? Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that I looked and FOUND no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Hughes(aka epredator)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Nakon 04:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - Article is extensively sourced to significant discussion in reliable publications, and was at the time it was nominated. The writing style is confusing and promotional, but there's no question that the guy passes the general notability guidelines. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Snow keep is only supposed to be used when it's clear consensus is going that way. One vote of one isn't really clear consensus. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's meant to be used when there's no reasonable chance of it going the other way, which is the case here. There are a great many reliable independent sources in the article; there's no basis whatsoever for arguing he's not notable. I would have gone as far as Speedy Keep but there's no evidence that the nomination was malicious or disruptive; it's just careless. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources vary from definitely reliable to questionably reliable. Out of the reliable sources, the coverage varies between the entire article and a mention in an article about something else. I don't have time to go through every deletion discussion and decide whether or not the coverage is sufficient, but I would definitely say that anyone who thinks this coverage isn't enough to qualify as significant is entitled to their opinion. WP:SNOW gives a good snowball test: if (as you seem to be advocating) we close the debate now based on one person's assessment of the sources, I'd say there's fair chance that someone will later raise a reasonable objection that could change the outcome. Let's wait and see what other people say. If it's five or six consecutive keeps, fair enough. If there's any more deletes, they deserve to have their say. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable --Jeffmcneill (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept, this article should be moved to Ian Hughes (media personality) or something. JIP | Talk 05:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Well sourced.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I'm confident that he passes WP:BASIC. bobrayner (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 22:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Soap and Water[edit]

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

Article about a 6 minute animated show. A search for references found a few minor mentions, ~~fails~~ appeared to fail WP:V and WP:N Jeepday (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update language based on comments and references supplied by User:MichaelQSchmidt, Jeepday (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Article has been tagged as unreferenced since October 2006. Article prodded on 31 July 2010 Prod removed on 4 August by IP, no explanation no improvement. I Prodded it on 16 December 2010 (did not notice the original prod). Prod removed with comment "remove WP:PROD tag - deletion has previously been contested". Article has been deprodded twice without improvement addressing concerns, nor with any statement of potential notability. Jeepday (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think that the second de-prodder, fixing your error, was under any such obligation to do that? Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I made no statement of obligation, only facts. Jeepday (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs sourcing... not deletion. Verification is eminently available, and notability is found through its history. This is not "just" a six-minute animated show, but rather a piece of American cinema from 1935... an early Betty Boop cartoon whose existance has made it into the enduring record of early American cinema[77] Anyone want to bet that this is not in national archives? Or wish to bet it is not used someone in teaching animation history? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN the burden to supply references is on the person wishing to keep or restore content. A stronger argument for keep would be the addition of WP:RS that show WP:N. WP:V is not about betting if sources exist it is about adding them to the article. Jeepday (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. WP:V is NOT about adding sources... it is about the topic being verifiable... which it is. And I am surprised that you flatly stated the topic fails WP:V even after having written that you found a few references. So feel free to strike the claim that it fails WP:V from your nomination. And note, for a 1935 film to meet WP:NF, the GNG is not the mandate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found minor mentions, which do not meet significant coverage as required by WP:NF, nor did what I found verify a significant portion of the article, Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. If I look for references and can't find support for the majority of the content it fails WP:V "readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". I am glad that you found reference and added them to the article, thank you. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome... and please note for the future that significant coverage is NOT an absolute mandate of WP:NF, and meeting the GNG is not the only criteria that is to be considered, specially as it is often totally inapplicable to pre-WW2 films whose sources have evaporated. And also note, that per WP:V, and even without their checking the information about the film as found in multiple reliable scondary sources, readers can also check the film itself as an aceptable primary source.[78] So again, please feel free to strike your incorrect claim that the topic fails WP:V, as that is patently not the case. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep glad you found some references, why not add them to the article rather than trying to delete it? As an aside, there is no requirement on deprodders to explain why they have declined a prod, and if an article has been deprodded then it is not supposed to be prodded again. Ϣere SpielChequers 02:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per deletion policy and WP:BEFORE, expansion and sourcing has begun. Merry Christmas. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search for the title and "Betty Boop" show a reviewer in a major newspaper saying it was his favorite. [79] Unfortunately I can't read what else is in there. This is mentioned in various books though. MichaelQSchmidt's argument is quite convincing, this a notable work. Dream Focus 04:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided demonstrate that the article passes both WP:V and WP:N. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Proposal was based on article being unreferenced, it now seems adequately referenced.Opbeith (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The first mention of Fleischer Studios in the article should have been enough to stay the nominator's hand (not to mention Betty Boop), as it was one of the most historically significant studios in early animation. The bland description above of the subject as merely a "6 minute animated show" is misleading if not completely inaccurate. Per WP:AGF, we should assume that the omission of the subject's defining elements was due to ignorance, not intentional. It's usually not good practice to nominate articles for deletion when you have no familiarity with the subject matter. postdlf (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USU Software[edit]

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

I marked this page for deletion. Sources are not in English (this is the English Wikipedia), the article is disjointed and has missing information, and is written like an advertisement. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhunt47 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the Reuters reports, one of which is used as a reference in the article, I found this in Stuttgarter Nachrichten, which quotes the company head on the economy: the last of 3 such quotations illustrating a range of views among business leaders in the region. That's a good start on independent press coverage, and the company is listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. I would like to see the creator find more independent press coverage; many newspapers are now behind paywalls and Google News' coverage is spotty, and as the notability policy for companies states, companies listed on the major stock exchanges almost always have adequate sources available in the press. However, references being in languages other than English is immaterial under policy, except that relevant citations must be translated on request. (And the creator has referenced the English-language version of the company website and cited other English-language sources. To make notability clear, any foreign-language independent press reports that were held back in deference to English-language readers should be mentioned here and/or added to the article.) Also, what information is missing? I am unfamiliar with the field but gaps should be specified so that someone can find and add the information. In any case missing information is not per se a reason for deletion any more than is disjointed writing; the relevant criterion is notability, which the press coverage and stock exchange listing demonstrate. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per yngvadottir.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam and meaningless text:
- an internationally active software and IT solutions provider for knowledge based Service Management....
- Valuemation is an integrated line of products for business service management conforming to the guidelines of the IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL). The USU Product Line Receives the International ITIL Certification from PinkVERIFY™

Also note that trade analysts (Gartner, Forrester, ECPweb) and minor trade website coverage do not confer general notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I think the sources are sufficient to pass WP:CORP. Service Management and ITIL are very real concepts rather than wordsalad; if you think the wording around those concepts has a promotional tone, feel free to improve the wording. I would remind the nominator that foreign sources are quite acceptable - otherwise this encyclopædia would have an arbitrarily narrow focus. Wikipedia should have articles on more than just the anglosphere. Of course, English-language sources are preferable, where there's a choice. bobrayner (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Master Navigator Software[edit]

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

Currently the sources in the article do not establish notability. The current sources on the article include 2 references to the company's website, a youtube video demonstrating the software and a google map that show where the company is headquartered. In my searches through google I could not find any reliable sources to add to the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MNS has steady and constantly crowing list of users all over the world. It is a special commercial navigation software and has been 4 years in Wikipedia now (since 13:05, 5 August 2006). There is also a book about MNS coming from an independent writer. Jannej (talk) 16 December 2010
- None of above shows notability. What we need to show that the software is notable is significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Up to this point I have looked a couple of times and have not been able to find any sources. You have been working on this article for 4 years and haven't come up with a single reliable source. There is nothing here to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a new article by "Exo Cruiser" who has been using MNS for years. And the book is coming soon. That is notability! Maybe some other MNS user wants to write about it also? I have to check. I think I have been in Wikipedia twice as long as you have and probably been using computers long before you were even born. I built my first computer 1977. Jannej (talk) 18 December 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    - To begin with, our respective ages, how long we have editing Wikipedia or using computers have nothing to do with whether MNS is notable software. The book while it may help show notability in the future, currently it does not show notability. The new article by "Exo Cruiser" is a possibility. Can you add the article as a reference in the article? If you can that might help show notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 04:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, I did that. Jannej (talk) 20 December 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
        I looked at the new source and it doesn't help establish notability of MNS either. The article is about XTE. It only uses MNS as the platform to show what XTE means. We really need independent sources where the subject of the article/book is MNS. ~~ GB fan ~~ 06:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I can put more references as soon as I find them my self and they are available. Maybe we should put there a message that any help to improve the article is welcome? Let's take an other example.. what notability has the following article? Repeater? I would say nothing more than what I have written! You make an album maybe in 2 months time or a book in one years time but to make a program like MNS is must take at least 10 years! That is the difference. Nowadays when living the computer and Internet age you can not say that printed material only adds notability. BTW, MNS uses proj.4 which is very well known projection platform. Maybe I should put some references to it? Jannej (talk) 22 December 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  - We don't need to add a notice that help is appreciated because that is wikipedia ia about that anyone is able and encouraged to update any article. Examples of other articles that do not show notability existing on wikipedia is not a reason to keep this article. You should probably read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The sources do not need to be printed to be acceptable as evidence of notability, the source can be in any media as long as they comes from a reliable source, provide significant coverage and are independent of the subject. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Examples of other articles that do not show notability existing on wikipedia is not a reason to keep this article." - you are telling - of course it is! This proves exactly that you are just hunting this single article due to some of your personal reasons which are not known to me. If something is to be deleted then the deletion needs to have some common rules. You seem only to be willing to do sabotache? This article has at least as much notability as the other article referenced and should be kept if that and thousands of other articles should be kept. Me it is clear that you are just hunting this single article due to some personal reasons or to a random vandalism syndrome (RVS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannej (talk • contribs) 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have no ulterior motives. I suggested before you read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, but you should pay particular attention to WP:OTHERSTUFF. This discussion is about the article not about anyone's motives. I am now going to disengage from this discussion and let others comment if they want to. Good luck. ~~ GB fan ~~ 11:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Since I don't know you well I have to just make assumptions: It is for example possible that you are some kind of a GB (Great Britain?) fan (fanatical enthusiast or supporter?) and that maybe you are somehow connected to some competing navigation software (in GB?). And of course it is then very understandable why you would like to delete this particular article. Deleting this would then do a favor to the other navigation software. And fans usually do like that when they fanatically support something and that would then be your motive. But I understand that Wikipedia tries to give people neutral information based on facts and not on personal likes or dislikes and this article should then be kept. And of course the book will soon add more to this and there are other reasons also. Jannej (talk) 26.12.2010 —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
        You are right since you don't know me you need assume something. You can assume I have ulterior motives (as you did) or you can assume good faith. If you want to see what the GB fan is about you can look in my 1st talk page archive where someone asked the question and I responded. Just to let you know it has nothing to do with Great Britain and I have no interest in any other mapping software, I came across this article and tried to provide sourcing for the article to improve it but could not find any so I nominated it for deletion according to Wikpedia policy. ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not notable. Apart from content written by the software distributors, I can only find one passing mention in a blog, and the briefest of namechecks in lists of navigational software. Those are not enough to establish notability for software. bobrayner (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge bits and pieces with Middleton, Wisconsin. Individual restaurants such as this one aren't generally notable, but there's no reason a mention can't be placed in a related article, to be spun out into a new one when the restaurant is notable enough. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Garden[edit]

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

nn unencyclopedic advert Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a new article (created on 14 December 2010) and clearly under construction, albeit by a brand new editor. A brief Google news search reveals one 2008 newspaper article that obliquely mentions the restaurant and a Milwaukee Sentinal review from 1991 ($). That suggests, though not conclusively, that notability is capable of being established using verifiable, third-party sources. I'm for letting these new articles 'cook' just a little before we flush them, if they seem to have any potential. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 19:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources only establish existence, not notability. Reviews are not stories but an opinion column of sorts that are not rigorously checked for factual accuracy. The 2008 article you point out is about the Beijing Olympics and not the restaurant. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am new to this, so I am not sure if posting here is correct. Let me know. I think winning a magazine award 28 straight years (especially for how many Chinese restaurants are around) qualifies this restaurant as notable, at least here in Wisconsin. For the record, I do not work for the restaurant, I am a customer, but that's it. I was just trying it out as something to create an article on (that I thought met all the criteria) as I learn more about Wikipedia. Feel free to give me tips on how to make the article better. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noflowerchild (talk • contribs) 19:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the Best of Madison is a readers poll and does not establish Notability per WP:Notability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it to Imperial Gardens. Plausible search term.—S Marshall T/C 22:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've gone ahead and added a mention of the restaurant to the article about the Madison suburb of Middleton, Wisconsin. Whether it stays there is up to the people who maintain that article. There's only so much you can say about a locally popular Chinese restaurant. This one goes "over the top" in its description of items on the menu. Mandsford 18:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the place might have a strong reputation in its local area, but notability would require that the place be known to a much wider area. Comment - if the article is kept, it needs grammatical cleanup (of course) and it should be renamed to specify that it's the Imperial Garden in Madison, Wisconsin. There must be hundreds of Imperial Garden restaurants in the world. PK T(alk) 23:03, 1 January 2011 (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. L Faraone 00:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super OS[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is a fair amount of consensus now on the article's own discussion page. This article does not meet the criteria for notability, and most of the supporting links have had to be stripped out due to being of dubious neutrality. While I accept the original editor's claim to be acting in good faith when creating the article, s/he's been unable to support any claim of it being noteworthy enough to remain. Time to put this one to bed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2p0rk (talk • contribs) 2010-12-15T11:59:11

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existing sources are not reliable and I can't find any that are. (If any mention is found in a reliable source, merge to List_of_Linux_distributions#Ubuntu-based instead.) --Pnm (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think that a couple of substantial articles in sources like [80] and [81] are enough to establish notability of software (though I'm open to persuasion). bobrayner (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bobrayner. Sources are not wonderful but are enough to pass WP:GNG, content seems verifiable, let's err on the side of preservation. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 05:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Kober[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP tagged since July 2010. Unremarkable person - leader of local council which is just one of 32 similar councils in London and one of hundreds across the UK. No national achievements, nor any achievements outside the borough she represents. I believe she fails the general notability guidelines and therefore propose this article be deleted. Simple Bob (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I won't express a !vote here, because I've previously dealt with her when I was involved in NUS. I do however, want to make a few points. Firstly, although WP:POLITICIAN does not give automatic notability to council leaders, I believe they are the senior most elected politicians who don't automatically qualify for notability. She was frequently quoted in the national papers when the was the NUS Welfare Officer (as the position was called back in my day), although so were all the NUS full-time officers. She has also got a lot of attention as the leader of Haringey Council in the aftermath of Baby P. I won't takes sides because of a conflict of interest, but she's got a better claim than most council leaders. Only warning I will give to any SPAs with a vested interest in this page it that if she cocks up as council leader, the third-party coverage won't be nice. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At most, weak keep -- I doubt that we need articles on council leaders, except possibly the greatest city councils, but I do not feel strongly enough about this to vote for delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Peterkingiron. Council members of large cities such as London are sometimes kept. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I think she passes WP:BASIC, but only just. I added 3 refs; the article needs more. bobrayner (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 05:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Risk and Insurance Management Society[edit]

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

Non notable organization, only references are to their own website WuhWuzDat 06:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Google Books shows many references, such as in "Terrorism and Homeland Security" by Philip Purpura. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very well known organization in the risk management and insurance industry, [82] and [83]. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; appears to pass WP:ORG. bobrayner (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the organization is notable, I could not find any proof at Google or Google News. The article itself offers no support for notability since all the sources listed are self-referential. So are the items I saw in a quick look at Regent's two links. If either of you can show me some "significant coverage by independent reliable sources," as Wikipedia requires, I am open to changing my opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlia Wasfi[edit]

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

This peace activist has a few mentions in smaller newspapers and spoke to a Congressional forum, which to me seems to be rather light on notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I atleast see the minimum requirements for inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which requirements? LibStar (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin according to this user's log, this is the part of 5 keep !votes undertaken in 5 minutes. LibStar (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you know that I didnt read trough them all before? and then proceeded to write them down in this period only. Assume good faith.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

turning up and voting with minimal explanation like "meets minimum requirements" or "as per reasons above" doesn't seem you even read the AfD and article. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I find news coverage about her in several Reliable Sources including the Denver Post, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Arizona Republic. --MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The sources I see are background to quotations or passing coverage. Does not indicate, to me, the "significant coverage" necessary to create a meaningful, verifiable biography.--Danger (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poweredge Magazine[edit]

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

Contested prod. I am not sure of the magazine exists or not. If its not, then its a hoax. If the magazine exists, the article is currently non-notable. JJ98 (Talk) 08:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I contested the prod because the reason was "Hoax magazine, no sources to establish the notability" and I found the website [84] which appears to support the article. That doesn't mean that it isn't a hoax, of course, but means that there is at least some reason to believe that it is authentic. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it may exist but it fails WP:GNG. hardly any coverage [85]. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have included source citations to show notability. Should I include more external links? Twenty3twenty (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided ISSN, publishing information, and source citations. Please advise what else is needed to close this contestation/discussion. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.155.193 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what's needed. Are there any other independent sources which discuss the magazine? Preferably in some depth. bobrayner (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of mechanical colored pencils and leads[edit]

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

Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion or sales directory to present product lines. See WP:promotion and WP:NOTCATALOG. PROD declined. Respectfully submitted. Cind.amuse 12:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is really only a very rough draft at this point, and I admit that I should have worked on it for a few days or weeks first. I mean this to be a resource to artists, not product promotion. Admittedly, the two are somewhat intertwined, since the products artists use are, after all, products... I meant this to be similar to the many software comparison lists which are already present on Wikipedia, for example this one for digital art programs. If it's judged non-worthy for Wikipedia, that's okay, I'll just take it offline and keep maintaining it on another wiki. Esn (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, can you list the specific sentences in those pages you linked to that my article does not follow? I can't really find them. There are things there about not mentioning prices, which it doesn't, and about "loosely-associated" topics, which this isn't, as the topic is quite clearly defined... Esn (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Esn (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is a sound subject area covered by this article. Mechanical pencils are understood by those who use them to be a distinctly defined area of tools for making marks, generally on paper. Those who use these tools often familiarize themselves to the best of their ability with the various brands and their capabilities. It seems like a reasonably good resource. Bus stop (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. There are still a number of issues that I haven't figured out yet with the article. For example, the list of colours for each brand, which I feel is important but which takes up too much space in a table when there are more than a few of them. If only Wikipedia had a "HideableNotes" template like the PandoraWiki does, long information could be hidden in a table if it takes up too much space. But I have no idea about how to do something like that on Wikipedia - doesn't that require changes to common.js?... In short, this isn't my area. I left a comment about this at the NavFrame talkpage. Another issue has to do with the long history that colored mechanical pencils have: there are a fair number of them that were manufactured decades ago but no longer. Many of these are listed on this page. Also, this is a pretty niche area, so there isn't much information in major publications that I've found - most of the information gathering about these I've seen is done on a number of blogs and enthusiast websites such as the link above, penciltalk.org and Dave's Mechanical Pencils. Esn (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see this necessarily as intended to promote any one product line, given that it compiles information about several competing products. It seems a very reasonable break-out article from the mechanical pencil article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. This is not what Wikipedia is for, it may be appropriate for some other website but it doesn't belong here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The WP:PROMOTION claim in the nomination doesn't really deserve much discussion given that it's about style, not subject matter, and this list cannot reasonably be read as promotional material (and if it did, that would be an issue for cleanup, not deletion). WP:NOTCATALOG is also not applicable, as it only says don't list sales prices. Which this list doesn't (and if it did, that would be an issue for cleanup, not deletion). It doesn't say anything about not listing or comparing commercial products, which is quite common on Wikipedia and well-tested by consensus. So it's purely a question of whether it's appropriate to list and compare examples of this particular product, which neither of the deletion !voters have actually discussed. Acronyms are not arguments (unless WP:NOTMECHANICALCOLOREDPENCILLIST existed).
My concern is that none of these models apparently merit their own articles, and apparently only half of the brands of the models included are notable, so the notability of this list's entries gets rather attenuated. There is a paragraph at Mechanical pencils#Pigments that summarizes the available products and who makes them, so I wonder why that (whether as is or if somewhat expanded) is not sufficient detail to cover the subtopic. Particularly since I don't see a single reliable source in the list that is about the topic as a whole (I am skeptical that the website "Dave's Mechanical Pencils" counts). Instead, it's mostly cited to company pages. And so aside from concerns about the notability of the list's topic and entries, and aside from concern about going into unnecessary detail, there is also the concern that I can't tell why these colored pencil models were listed and compared and not others. If I don't see adequate answers to these questions, then I would support deletion. If the editors of mechanical pencil still want to include this table in that article, however, that is a matter for discussion on that article's talk page. postdlf (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the reason why "these colored pencil models were listed and compared and not others" is that there aren't really that many companies that make or have made mechanical coloured pencils, which is why this comparison list should remain manageable. There are still some historical ones to be added from the link at the bottom of the article. Finding unquestionably respectable, non-internet, non-company-linked sources is a bit tricky since this is a niche market - they may exist, but I haven't had the chance to look very carefully. The companies making them are notable, though not all have Wikipedia articles yet. There are a lot of software lists (I'd say the vast majority) who use mainly the official sites of the software as the reference for their features. Also, though the sources are blogs, they do post pictures of what they're reviewing - which I think are fairly objective "proofs" that the items do exist. Esn (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In answer to another criticism, I've just added some wikilinks for articles to the company pages; they existed, I just hadn't done it before. The only one on the list that doesn't have an article at the moment is Kaweco - though it probably should, since it has existed since 1883. Esn (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief kill it quick before it multiplies If ever an article justified WP:NOTCATALOG, this is it. Leave the comparison shopping guides to other sites, please. Mangoe (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I stated before, I can't find which part of WP:NOTCATALOG specifically this doesn't follow. Also, Wikipedia already lists plenty of "comparison shopping" guides - see all of the software comparison guides. Since you pay for your internet and storage medium, downloading even free software costs you money, probably comparable to the few dollars that most of these pencil leads would cost to buy. Just because something's "virtual" doesn't mean that you're not shopping for it. Esn (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not do shopping guides! Comparison lists are intended to show the differences between notable items that have their own articles. They are not a shopping guide. There may well be many other products that are of equivalent quality but which are excluded for lack of notability. This is a widely misunderstood aspect of Wikipedia. I have had to explain to people many times that their non-notable products should not be listed alongside their more notable competitors even though they were comparable in scope and quality. We need to do more to make it clear that we do not offer shopping advice in order to discourage such misunderstandings and to be fair to the very many manufacturers and vendors of perfectly good products that can never have encyclopaedic articles. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not looking at the software comparison articles; I'm looking at this one. Saying "but what about those articles?" is not a substantive argument, especially to a parent. Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't think it fails either WP:PROMOTION or WP:NOTCATALOG. Now, if the article went on to make subjective comparisons of different things, or if it listed prices or made it easy to click through to buy a product, then I'd have real concerns; but at the moment it's only listing readily verifiable characteristics of things that exist in the real world. If anything, my concern is that the list is likely to be incomplete - different pencils/leads may be available (or may have been historically available) in different countries... bobrayner (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, what still needs to be added are the historical models on that page linked on the bottom. There should be 5-10 or so, so this won't be a very large or unmanageable list. Esn (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be well intentioned but it is completely misconceived. I see no encyclopaedic subject here. It is something that the author might wish to publish elsewhere, as it might be useful information, but it does not belong in an encyclopaedia. As I see it, these sort of comparison articles are only valid when comparing items that are notable and each have their own articles. Red links routinely get removed from these list and comparison articles. These pencil leads are not notable individually (what is linked is their brand articles) and we should not be comparing non-notable items. By focussing only on brand name products it also serves slightly to promote brand names over generic supplies of pencil lead (although I am not suggesting that the author has done this intentionally). We really don't want thousands of long articles comparing every brand name and generic variety of every type of product from printer inks to fish fingers. Such comparisons belong on consumer information websites not in an encyclopaedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a bit OT, but does "generic" colored lead even exist? I've never seen such a thing. I would say that List of Crayola colored pencil colors comes close to being an article about a specific product on the list. Judging from WP:LISTV#Wikilinks, though, not every item on a list has to be wikilinked; actually, it recommends not to. A topic may merit being put into a list, but not merit an article. Esn (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point about the Crayola leads but I think that is the exception here. The other brands do not have that sort of article (and I am not sure that they should have). As for generic leads, I would be amazed if they are not available somewhere in the World. This is another problem with these comparisons. The details may change with time and location making the list unmaintainable in an accurate state. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence that the comparison that is the topic of this list is notable. The sources used are blogs and company product pages. --RL0919 (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lite Feet[edit]

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

Although a google search for this term turns up many hits, a total lack of reliable sources for this dance form means that a mean no verifiable article can be written about it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a game, but I'll give it a shot. The only RS I can find is: [86] defines the term (behind the pay wall) "In Lite Feet dancing the name says it all Dancers move every which way looking seemingly weightless." Nothing in google books or anything else meaningful in an news archive search. That said, it's clearly real and widely used. weak delete unless someone can find a better RS. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, my weak delete is indicating this is something I think we should have an article on, I just can't find enough RSes with which to write said article. Hobit (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That was my dilemma when nominating the article. It seems that there should be an article on this topic, but there are no RSes to draw on to create the article. The term may be used quite differently by different people and without a definitive source, there's no way to write a correct article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Understand~~ Understood, I'm just making sure my !vote is clear on the off chance someone finds a good source and I don't make it back to this AfD before it gets closed. :-) Hobit (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs a lot A LOT of cleanup and many more sources, so perhaps should be put on the back burner until more facts are available. The subject definitely has potential, however. Cactusjump (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as above; I don't doubt that the term is "real", but it seems impossible to source properly at this time. bobrayner (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl of Vermillandia[edit]

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

This is a madeup name. Nobody has ever been referred to by this name, certainly not these fellows. Fences&Windows 01:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not so much made-up as very outdated: 14th-century latinisation, as the supplied source indicates. Unless someone can find reputable English-language books or other media in the last 3 centuries using Vermillandia for Värmland, it isn't current enough to be useful as explication. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vermillandia is apparently a Latin exonym for Värmland, not an English exonym. There are no Google Books or Google Scholar hits for the name "Carl of Vermillandia", and all the Google web hits appear to be derived from Wikipedia and mirrors. Since this name is not used in English as far as I can tell, it does not need to be a disambiguation page. We already have Carl of Sweden which apparently includes all of these people and others. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if this was dug up from a dusty Swedish book, WP:MADEUP applies; also delete the redirect Vermillandia, etcetera, especially Carl Philip of Vermillandia, which is a BLP problem because it gives rise to pages like http://www.facebook.com/pages/Carl-Philip-Duke-of-Vermillandia/153752801302994 /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Made up" and "BLP issue" are continued personal attacks against me by Kuiper, which is his main objective with all this activity lately.

This disambiguation page causes no harm whatsoever, in my opinion. The exomyn exists and has been used in English. I am researching sources for this this week, as he knows, but may not have time to get them, since Kuiper has made this such an urgent matter and is in a big rush to win here. Do what y'all want with it. To me the only important thing now is to be rid of Kuiper's antagonism. I am so tired of all this harrassment by Kuiper, for years now and worse and worse.

"Hoaxes" is a personal attack that should not be tolerated. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have made up this name, as there are no sources that use it. That's calling a spade a spade, not making an attack. The exomyn existing and this being a valid disambiguation page are totally separate matters. Disambiguation pages are for readers to navigate between pages, not to satisfy your own minority interest in Latin names for Swedish royalty. Fences&Windows 19:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vermillandia is very likely to have been created long ago as a Latin and subsequent English exonym because it refers so clearly, idiomatically, to the large lake that the province was named for (and where some of my family originated). I like it as the best in English (certainly much better than Kuiper's favorite Wermeland, though there is a lot of fertile soil there too), and that's my prerogative I think. We all can have favorite terms among such as do exist, and once in a while they are worth doing a bit of battle for or aganist.

If it however is a clear misdeed to combine a known, old geographic English exonym for a duke with his known personal name exonym (these Carls were dukes; in English they were Dukes of Vermillandia, as I see it), then indeed I am wrong in trying to help readers find these people that way (it's only a cross-reference, isn't it?), and I would like to apologize if so. But I did not know that, and this was done in good faith, so I fail to see why all these repeated personal attacks about "hoaxes" and such are warranted, nor why it has become so important to reprimand me over and over in a manner that infers I had bad intentions. Where is there any evidence that my actions were not in good faith? Where does my other work on English WP show us that? A "hoax", in my book, is an agenda-oriented and intentional falsarium intended to mislead people. Hoaxing is a very serious matter in this context, and something I would never do on purpose or support. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because he is asking for it: in this edit, Woodzing changed the names in a literal quote to make it fit with his own ideas on anglicization. Reprehensible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain (for now). This is a tricky one. Hellqvist's etymological dictionary is not a minor, unknown or dusty work - there are few more thorough etymological dictionaries for the Swedish language, and it is still very much in use. The Latinisation Vermillandia should be considered to be established since it is attested in that work. That said, there are also other Latinisations of Värmland that are apparently more commonly used in English, such as Wermelandia. Of course there is no harm in having a disambig page for this name if it is plausible that people might in fact search for it - but I'm not quite convinced that it is plausible that they would. Are there any sources for "Carl of Vermillandia", in addition to the source for "Vermillandia"? --bonadea contributions talk 15:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymological dictionaries give archaic forms even when attested only once, that is what such dictionaries are for. All we know is that this form was used in 1357. Hellquist mentioning this form in a list of medieval forms does not make it an "established" form, not then, and certainly not now. The reference can be used for the etymology of Värmland, but not for creating noble titles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The etymological dictionary shows that the word "Vermillandia" was used at some point in history. However, it does not say that anybody was ever named "Carl of Vermillandia", which is a peculiar mix of anglicised and latinised ingredients and I believe it's unique to this article. bobrayner (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as made up. As far as I can tell, nobody ever used the name "Carl of Vermillandia" so it's in total contradiction to WP:COMMON. There may well be sources that use an all-Latin equivalent or an all-English equivalent as well as an all-Swedish equivalent; use whatever name is common in those sources.

However, on Vermillandia - if it's used by at least one historic source, it's not a synthesis. Let's not get rid of that redirect; quite reasonable for it to point to Värmland.
I'm open to persuasion on Carl Philip of Vermillandia. On the one hand, it's a made up term. On the other hand, it's currently a redirect - readers swiftly get railroaded to a correctly-named article.
If there are any other related articles with content (not redirects) which have such synthetic names, I think they should be moved, deleted, or redirected. bobrayner (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Kid (Radio Personality)[edit]

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

Non-notable radio personality, blatant WP:COI 2 says you, says two 20:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:ENTERTAINER. I can find a few Ghits about him being fired, but nothing really about him. It doesn't help that the article is an autobiography. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's say this much; if you manage to lose a radio job in Mankato, Minnesota by insulting a cheerleader and losing every job you have from Atlanta to Chattanooga down to Mankato through bridge-burning, you have no idea how to entertain. Completely non-notable morning show host out of many (yes, he won an award, but only by throwing a temper tantrum at the local paper it seems), and probably completely irrelevant as a podcaster. Nate • (chatter) 05:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fandom Wank[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Just so the whining and weight throwing by other admins stops: same article as the 2nd nomination (resulting in a delete), with four of the eight "sources" being FW sources from either FW, FW's wiki or FW's Yahoo! group. Still non-notable. Sorry, folks. Andrewowen2000 (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC) — Andrewowen2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Again. - Still not at all notable. A single, low-quality Google News hit. A handful of low-quality hits on Google Scholar. Fails to meet the general notability guidelines. Could be speedied per G4. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. I tried that already, Scjessey. Apparently we need a new AfD because some new "sources" were added (most of them being FW related). It turns out that the person who deleted the tag was the person who created the page, and that's also against Wiki policy, which was why I kept putting it back up. (I didn't know I wasn't supposed to do that!) But that person was an admin, so... Andrewowen2000 (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

response = clearly not a G4. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The article seems to be (a) a recreation of an article that was previously deleted after an AfD, and (b) not significantly different from that deleted article. Looks like a textbook G4 situation. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speedy tag the second and third times as I agreed it wasn't a G4 candidate. I'm intrigued how the addition of at least three new sources, that can't have been available at the time of the last AfD, means the new article is still "substantially identical to the deleted version". Yes they may not meet the notability concerns of the last AfD but that's for the community to decide after discussion not for one admin to decide. It is a clear community consensus that notability (as opposed to indications of possible importance) is decided on by the community not by a single admin. The addition of new sources means the community needs to decide again. G4 is not there to be used to forever delete an article that was once decided non-notable - after all the notability of things changes. Dpmuk (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just not notable. The website itself doesn't look exactly busy, either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike the situation with the previous deletions of the article, the intervening four years have given us reliable sources that directly attest to the notability of the subject and that provide material for an encyclopedia article about it. Scjessey, why are you looking for sources in Google news when they are already in the article? They consist of four reliably published academic papers, one of which ranked it among the top 50 most influential blogs at the time of writing. I suspect it's become less influential now, but once notable always notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In view of the WP:SPA status of the nominator, it is perhaps worth pointing out that the previous AfD was tainted by a bad-faith nomination, from someone with a known antipathy towards FW who has been known to use many different identities including at least two on WP (User:LoomisSimmons and User:Rattlerbrat, the latter of which is indefblocked). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Please do not assume bad faith. You seem to be insinuating a connection between the nominator and someone off-wiki without significant evidence. That's not very administrator-like behavior, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know nothing about the nominator (obviously, since he or she is an spa). But there is significant evidence of bad faith in the previous AfD that went unnoticed at the time. I'd prefer to avoid making that mistake a second time. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete not seeing any significant notability here. A couple of passing mentions. If that's the best that can be mustered at this point then there is no reason to have an article.--Crossmr (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Still clearly non-notable, just like last time it was deleted. Salt it this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Salt? For an article created four years after the previous deletion, with four new sources? That seems rather extreme. I'd also like to see some actual reasoning for why you think it fails WP:WEB, since it appears on its face to pass criterion #1: it has nontrivial coverage in multiple academic papers, independent of the subject, one of which has the subject in its title. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coming in from the cold with no involvement in prior AFD's for this article, I see a lack of enough reliable third party sources (other than minor mentions) indicating lack of notability. It appears the subject hasn't become notable over time either. Most of the cited sources appear to be generated by primary parties of the site. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So incredibly Delete for lack of notability and reliable sources. Based upon recreation of article despite past deletions, I recommend salting so it cannot be recreated and wasting everyone's time getting it deleted again. This one should have been speedy deleted, and the people who removed the speedy tag were wrong to do so. DreamGuy (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain your reasoning? I state mine for while I removed it but you give no reason beyond "wrong". Although I accept that people disagree I find it somewhat offensive that you're calling other users "wrong" without giving any reason. Not to mention the fact the speedy deletions are meant to be uncontroversial and now three editors in good standing have said they don't think this is a G4 speedy and so it's not wrong as the whole point of speedy is that they are meant to be uncontroversial and this clearly isn't. Dpmuk (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I must say that the discussion above seems to bear minimal relationship to the actual article, which clearly demonstrates notability with references to four independent reliable academic sources, including a whole chapter about the subject in a book published by McFarland & Company. I note that nobody above has offered any explanation of what they feel is wrong with these sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The McFarland reference is simply an unimpressive collection of essays about non-notable subjects by non-notable authors, freely downloadable by anyone who wants it. I totally reject the characterization that these sources are "reliable academic sources" because it stretches the normal Wikipedia definition of "academic" significantly. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

response - How so? McFarland is a solid publisher, if not one of the biggies. Your asertion seems rather inexplicably harsh. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning the publisher (low volume outfit known for publishing stuff out of mainstream, such as obscure academia), but rather I am saying that the work is unimpressive. Incidentally, I checked to make sure that eBook publisher had DMCA compliance before posting the link, so I've edited your refactoring of my comment that included the rather accusatory "probable copyright violation" comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to insult you, Simon; but I don't find the disclaimers on that website at all convincing. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is based on your own assessment of the impressiveness of the source, rather that the publisher's assessment. We make decisions here on the basis of independent reliable sources, not the subjective opinions of individual editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, my recommendation for deletion is based on many things, not least of which is what I perceive to be unimpressive sources that do little to assert the notability of this website. Other factors include the lack of substantial, significant changes since the last time it was deleted and the reliance on links from the subject website itself for sourcing. There's no evidence of mainstream notability. And Phil, as someone with almost as much Wikipedia experience as you, I don't need to be lectured on Wikipedia's decision making processes. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain where in WP:GNG and WP:WEB it says that the sources need to be "impressive". Because I don't see that word there and frankly, it seems gratuitously subjective. Are we following what the actual notability standards say or are we making up new ones to justify our personal tastes? And why on earth should the fact that the book publishers have allowed its contents to be freely available be a strike against it? That seems a strange prejudice for a Wikipedian to have. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Impressive" is my own word choice, but essentially I am saying that these low-quality sources fall foul of the "trivial source" aspect of both WP:GNG and WP:WEB. And yes, there is a degree of subjectivity involved - that is, after all, why we have these AfD discussions in the first place. Please strike out your misplaced comment about the availability of the material for download. I made no suggestion that this was a "strike against it" (in fact, I personally feel exactly the opposite in cases like this). I mentioned it was available to download so that editors involved in this AfD could download the book and see the section that is being used as a reference in order to assess it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I misread your statement about online availability. But I believe you are likewise badly misreading WP:GNG regarding what it means for a source to be trivial. It has nothing to do with how obscure the source is; rather, it is about the depth of coverage of the subject within the source. Two of the sources contain about a page on the subject, one of them is an entire book chapter about the subject, and the fourth is indeed only a passing mention, but one that strongly asserts notability (it says the subject was at that point in time among the most 50 influential blogs in the world). That seems very far from trivial to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) - I think you're missing the point. The sources themselves aren't notable/mainstream sources. They're obscure references. There isn't a single mainstream media source to demonstrate the notability of the website. That's what I mean when I say "impressive" with respect to sources. On their own, they are not enough to assert notability. This represents the dividing line between those who say "delete" and those who say "keep". The fourth source you refer to (50 influential blogs et al) is a dead link, BTW. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the encyclopedia of celebrities and sports. It is an encyclopedia of human knowledge. There is nothing in WP:GNG or WP:WEB about the sources being "mainstream media", and for good reason. If we required sources to be in mainstream media only we would have to delete 90% of our science/technology/academic humanities coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of AfD is to solicit opinions from Wikipedians about whether or not they think an article should be deleted. I've given my opinion and I've given my reasons. I think the article should be deleted because the subject doesn't meet the guidelines for notability. I am sorry if you disagree with my view, but that cannot be helped. It's a long time since I've received this much harassment in an AfD, so I'm dewatchlisting this page immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It troubles me that certain editors commenting in this AfD have been unusually hostile. I would ask everyone to assume good faith and respect the opinions of your fellow editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fund for the Education of Women of Africa[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. no coverage in gnews [87]. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per source.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please explain how this meets WP:ORG? I could not find multiple indepth sources? LibStar (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant independent sources. Feezo (Talk) 08:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Tech[edit]

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

Unsourced page, was previously notoriously poorly sourced for years, zero demonstration of significant coverage in WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete No secondary sources means failing in WP:NOTEThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep but Elvis has definitely left the building. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Brewer-Giorgio[edit]

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

No evidence of the subject meeting WP:AUTHOR. NW (Talk) 14:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been adding sources, and I believe that she is both widely cited by her successors and originated a significant new concept (that Elvis faked his own death by pointing to specific evidence) as per WP:AUTHOR. ManicSpider (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Agree with ManicSpider. She appears to be a significant figure in the development of a conspiracy theory about Elvis Presley.[88][89]—RJH (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's nutty. Got mixed in with Elvis's death. Everyone wants to write about her (e.g., who is this nut?). That means plenty of reliable source material for a biography on her. Thus, meets WP:GNG and keep. Here's another reference (This one has her name in the article title): Larry McShane (October 23, 1990). "Elvis Lives, Author Brewer-Giorgio Says, and Here's Proof". Daybreak. The Wichita Eagle. p. 6C. Retrieved 26 December 2010. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke E. Digglera[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Has been tagged for 2 years. A search found multiple blogs, Wiki-mirrors and non-independent reviews. No WP:RS to meet WP:BIO Wolfstorm000 (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At first I though the name would reveal it was a hoax, but its not. He's probably borderline at best.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Updating my vote to delete. Someone else please opine so this can be closed soon.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After searching, can not find any reputable sources indicating notability. I agree with Milowent -- ManicSpider (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Playa (band). He was one of their members, but I don't believe he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines as a solo artist. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Clark[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject meets the relevant notability guidelines. NW (Talk) 16:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after severeal searches, [90], I literally can't find a single reliable source about this writer of coffee table books. Interestingly, he may be the same person who claims to have created the phrase "Harvard Beats Yale 29-29" [91]. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant books. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeong Seon Hye[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:N. While trying to reference this previously unsourced bio, a Google News search under both "any time" and in the Archives turned up zero hits for anyone under this name. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment While not too surprising that there are no English-language results when looking for a Korean media personality, there DO seem to be a number of g-hits under his actual Hangul name 정선혜, even if not under its Englified version. Per WP:CSB, I would strongly suggest we get input from Wikipedians able to read and translate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete voice actors who redub cartoons from their original language into some other language rarely get non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, and this woman is no exception. The news hits in Korean refer to a professor or a 1990s volleyball player, not the subject of this article. cab (call) 05:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Park Presbyterian Church (Illinois)[edit]

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

Article has been tagged with requests for additional references and questions of notability. Article is 90% copied/paraphrased from the only reference. Only reference is a genealogy website. Article has not been improved since being tagged with issues. Hasteur (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Ammended Nomination After Edison's work I still think the article is marginal on notability. Hasteur (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I rewrote the article and added some references. It is interesting that inventor Elisha Grey demonstrated a telephone in the church in 1874, but otherwise it seems an average church. Edison (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural KEEP, the article appears to have plenty of references by now. Nakon 08:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to see some more work on this article, and might take a crack at it later on... but the sourcing is sufficient, for now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Dillingham[edit]

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

Non-notable musician; one of two U of Oklahoma articles created and maintained by a pair of obvious COI editors. Orange Mike | Talk 04:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. coverage merely verifies existence at a few minor performances. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage past local interest and listings. awards don't look major. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Venture Junior[edit]

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

This character has no sources or real world coverage to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 08:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 02:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Edit Button[edit]

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

Non-notable, delete. If you remove the list of sites "using" a random software feature, take out that whole section, there is no valid sourcing. Delete. Merrill Stubing (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Site is notable, implemented on numerous widely used wiki sites, covered in notable sources (ReadWriteWeb, developed at notable symposia (WikiSym, RecentChangesCamp) by notable developer, reviewed by notable man who invented the Wiki, Ward Cunningham, used by countless notable wiki sites. All of this is already documented in the article. Sourcing is valid, has nominator reviewed fully before nominating? fish&karate 17:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well written article, with valid sources. JIP | Talk 05:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as JIP and fish&karate. It is used on many sites. mabdul 15:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, Though new, it looks legitimate and is perhaps even useful. Warrior777 17:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Alam Shah[edit]

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

Unsourced and unverifiable. Fails WP:BIO. No sources about Shah were found through Google Books or Google News archive. Article has had its problems tagged for quite a while (2008-2009). Fram (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable BLP. Feezo (Talk) 08:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 05:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Nabi[edit]

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

WP:BIO1E, fails WP:BIO. Person known for being the victim of an unusual beheading. If kept, the article should be moved to a different title (Beheading of Ghulam Nabi of something similar), but I doubt that this subject is notable enough to pass WP:EVENT anyway. Fram (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just about over the line as a stub class article. Some notability for the beheading, which has been widely mentioned on the Internet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and cited in independent sources Rirunmot (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's some evidence that this case recieved coverage, and hence should be kept. Mar4d (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overdrive (Transformers)[edit]

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

Fictional character with no apparent independent notability or significant third-party sources. Macr86 (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has third party sources. Mathewignash (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same types of sources that you have been told over and over and over and (do we sense a pattern?) over again are not sufficient for establishing notability. Seriously, how many AfDs have we been through now where your links to toy guides and fan forums have been utterly rejected by the Wikipedia community? A name drop in some newspaper's Q&A doesn't fly for this one, either. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet more toycruft that does not have sufficiently independent or reliable sources to back up claims of notability. Minor toys do not get encyclopedia articles. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ditto Tarc's reasoning. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to agree with Tarc. Fan forums and toy catalogues do not establish notability. Wikipedia is not a database of every fictional character ever invented. Reyk _YO! 06:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are books and even an article in the Palm Beach Post about him! Mathewignash (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Palm Beach Post does not have an article about him; this is why people are having a problem with you and your "work" on these articles, as said work borders on deception. The link in question is to a Q&A column, a reader asking for advice on how to deal with Hasbro's non-shipment of Overdrive and another Transformer long after the "allow 6-8 weeks for delivery" time frame. Being name-dropped in a newspaper as part of another topic altogether in this fashion does not meet the WP:RS threshold. Tarc (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Has been transwikied Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audio theatre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Audio theatre

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

The term "audio theatre" is one of many ("radio theater", "audio drama" etc.) synonyms for radio drama. If you write or produce a radio drama, an independent artform since the 1920s, it will stay a radio drama whoever will print, broadcast or publish it. To merge the article on radio drama into audio theatre contradicts all reliable references (Radio_drama#References). --Wiki-Updater 2.0 (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare the entire discussion of the article: Audio theatre and see this User talk:Soenke Rahn and see this discussion on a dictionary: http://dict.leo.org/forum/viewUnsolvedquery.php?idThread=163112&idForum=1&lp=ende&lang=de (The reason for this discussion is clear, user of the dictionary seeing that dictionaries are not perfect.) most natives will say that Wiki-Updater is wrong, he is German like me and he don't like what natives will say him. with friendly greetings, Sönke Rahn --Soenke Rahn (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, users on the page means that audio theatre should be moved to audio drama. Happy Chrismas, --Soenke Rahn (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot, it is very intersting that we have first a erase discussion there: wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#radio drama And a happy New Year, --Soenke Rahn (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Crude argument. The nationality of the author should not matter. --76.208.144.4 (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am from Germany this would be an argument, also.--Soenke Rahn (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - An argument for what? --76.208.144.4 (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That, a none-naitiv will not know each usage for a word. But this was not the only argument. please see the links. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me as if the nominator isn't advocating deletion, but a move to audio drama. I'd oppose deletion but support a move; however, this isn't the right venue for a move discussion. I'd also oppose a merge with radio drama; I do believe that audio drama (irrespective of medium) is distinct from radio drama (which, properly spoken, is medium-dependent). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:NOR (see here). --Switch-to (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it not a original research so say that a radio drama owns to 100% the same content like audio drama or audio theatre?
  The move on the simple english article was made of an German one, how strange
  look there: User talk:Kolja21
  Are you German? Your last edits I saw in the English Wikipedia were toppics in German areas! --Soenke Rahn (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you afraid of Germans ;-) I'm from L.A. --Switch-to (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lol But, you know what I mean ;o) I thing it is the best that anybody will say from which he comes. Because this could be a reason for his own opinion. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm not an expert on this subject, but the article does seem relevant, to me at least. Thats my opinion. I don't think it should be deleted.~~ --Switch-to (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not my opinion.[92] Please sign with your own name. --Switch-to (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement which was stroken out was made by User:Queen of Swords ((talk)), this is to read in the history, seems to be a typing error. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - any discussion relating to confusion over the article title has no bearing on whether the article should be deleted, as the article can always be moved/merged. Deletion is for the removal of content that does not meet the Wikipedia criteria, and at the moment, this only seems relevant for the lack of reliable sources; however, there does not appear to have been any effort made to find any, and the deletion policy only supports deletion of articles without reliable sources "for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" - weebiloobil (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC) _{PS - I'm English, but fluent in German}[reply]
Oppose - deletion or merging not warranted, but source needed (German Wikipedia?) Hugo999 (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The German article to audio drama is here to find, but looks in general different to both articles (including Old-time radio). And the German article owns only two references, but possibly general sources (not clear to see, because the section Literature is used frequently for Further reading). But it is possible that this list inspired the article audio theatre a little bit. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in the moment Wiki-Updater 2.0 made a lot of edits to implement his view into the english wikipedia. So we have now a Category:2003 radio dramas (he made it) and Category:2003 audio plays (which was made by native speakers). A German on a mission? A lot of informations in the english Wikipedia used audio play or audio drama or audio theatre as the main word which included radio drama but not into the other direction. To change it would be a language cleaning, I suppose. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean with "a German on a mission". He is trying very hard. --Wiki-Updater 2.0 (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is important, if native speakers which made important edits in this area will know that there is an erase discussion on a main article to the toppic, to help in this discussion, isn't it. The portals seems to be not visited and a lot of the users seems to be gone. I would say this is a special case, in other discussion this would be unimportant, because there are enough users active (and I hope that the users which are still today active can now help together to improve the articles.) A mission means that you will determinate your opinion and ignore the statements, especially on [93], also the statements which were made in the past to the question. – It is one thing to make a little article in the simple english wikipedia, to made a list like this simple:List of audio dramas in English speaking countries – Do you know that google will not find the simple english version. The simple english version is very unimportant. Another thing is to make a lot of edits which are contrary with the informations are before to find in the English Wikipedia. And do you think that it is not nice if you will say to me your first words "... sucks ..." (compare there)? Do you think that it is not strange that the person in the erase dicussion of the Wiktionary says that your position is realy unsourced. [94]--Soenke Rahn (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People, "oppose" is ambiguous. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes for how to express yourselves unambiguously. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I see some ambiguousness on the few negatives to the article (delete) also, especially, if you compare it with the original discussions on the talk pages to the articles. --- I will not forget to say that the first statement which gives Wikiuploader 2.0 right, was an IP, and after I answered it was very swiftly that Wikiuploader 2.0 placed the erase discussion on it. And the first statement was again an IP. This happened in view moments. But all the other statements came with longer distance, like the time before. (-: --Soenke Rahn (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep on procedural grounds as no rationale for deletion has been given by the nominator. - Dravecky (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep note that Keep can include Merge or redirect (they are certainly not delete), which seems the likely longer term outcome. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to radio drama. The material is uncited shoot-from-the-hip stuff, describing the concept applied to modern times. The lack of inline references makes the text very low quality, so a merge will only use a small part of the article, whatever part can be found to be supported in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The word theatre is the wrong word to use for audio-only media. Audio drama describes the notional concept much better. The word theatre is about spectacle, about watching something with the eyes. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Radio drama. Article is simply an unsourced WP:CFORK of that article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A statement of Absurdtrousers to the question for the discussion - he placed it on my site (I will not keep it back) here --Soenke Rahn (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (temporarily at least). The merger of this article and that on Radio drama is currently under discussion with an aim both to improving this article's content and to achieving a better organization of Wikipedia's treatment of "audio drama" in general. I don't believe that deletion of this article while that discussion remains under way would be at all helpful. I agree with the point made by the original proposer that "audio drama" is, in reality, overwhelmingly radio drama and this fact needs to remain clear. For that reason, too, I do not support merging Radio drama into Audio theatre (the latter is, in my view, a poor title in any case). However, I believe that we need to sort out the questions raised by the merger proposal FIRST. it would be precipitate simply to delete the current Audio theatre article, for all its faults, before that work has been done. -- Picapica (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried already to "rescue" some of the article but one half is redundant, the other half unsourced. --Wiki-Updater 2.0 (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the radio drama article it is the same, but you will have quotes for some unimportant quotes, he is also unsourced in generall. If it is right or not is another question. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on radio drama has 26 interwikilinks (Audio theatre 0) and is backed by 13 references + 7 books like:

Martin Banham: The Cambridge guide to theatre. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1995
Tim Crook: Radio drama. Theory and practice. London; New York: Routledge, 1999.

Since you are from "Deutshland" as you wrote on your page (strange that a German don't know how to spell the name of his country), you can also read one of these books:

Karl Ladler: Hörspielforschung. Schnittpunkt zwischen Literatur, Medien und Ästhetik. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, 2001.
Hans-Jürgen Krug: Kleine Geschichte des Hörspiels. 2. Aufl. Konstanz: UVK, 2008.

Read one (Krug's book has only 100 pp.) and then we can start discussing about the genre radio drama. --Wiki-Updater 2.0 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* To Deutshland this is not important. But you will find in the New English Oxford Dictionary the word Deutschland, Yes. I erased the "c" like in english = Englisch. (Do you know that Coverdale used douche vor deutsch (-: ) Take it with humor. Take it easy in general. (-: Yes, I am realy German.

The interwikis are not an important answer, in this question. It could be that interwikis are false linked (you know it) and I will not look into all wikipedia versions to see, whether it is an article to audio dramas which where aired in the radio and so on

How Mglovesfun said.

By the way, Do not think that this is only a discussion between me and you, a lot of natives said you are wrong !!!!!! --Soenke Rahn (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to radio drama, no evidence that it's a distinct thing. Roscelese (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other case is also not. By the way: I erase the discussion now from my watchlist. If there are question anybody can contact me. If the article will survive I would help to make the article better, but in the moment I have not the time for it (I should make a work to the Duden dictionary). --Soenke Rahn (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources indicating its a separate entity. -DJSasso (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to radio drama Purple backpack89 00:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the request of one well know user the article has been imported to the German Wikipedia: de:Benutzer:Emeritus/Baustelle/Audio_theatre. It now can be deleted without any loss. --Wiki-Updater 2.0 (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One time more he makes transparent, how he discussed ... I asked for this backup. This is a normal option in the German wikipedia, and I have reasons for it, but it is not my ego. (-: If there will placed a redrect on the article it will be a useless action, because my reason are in the this way that I think that it would be good if any person can see what was to read on it. The result of the discussion should be a result of native English speakers not of Germans in gernal, because it would be possible that Germans will implement a Calque into the English language. On the other Hand a German will not know anything about the English language. In the moment I think the discussion is very interesting and we get results. I will not interpret each answer and give contributions on it, especially the answers of natives. It is an question for the administrator how he will see the problem. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the general source of the article. It was to read in the history of the article. An agreement to use this paper is on the first page of it. In the paper is to read that audio theatre is not radio theatre and so on. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Please do not ask me anything to the paper, I will not interpret it and I can not give more help. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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