< 23 December	25 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. Nobody suggested a keep, and although it is informative, a great deal of this is already in the Eskrima article. Mandsford 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eskrima systems[edit]

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

An encyclopaedic list with poor sourcing and lack of clarity or notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be original research because no references are given for what systems are on the list or why they're significant. Jakejr (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Jakejr's comments. Papaursa (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can see value in keeping this article if it is shortened to a list of notable systems, otherwise it is just another directory. Are there any contributors with eskrima knowledge who would be able to comment further? Janggeom (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and include notable systems in Category:Eskrima. Janggeom (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Added to the correct dated log on 04-Jan-2011. Jarkeld (talk) 00:04, 4 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 Delete. Mandsford 17:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visayan Style Corto Kadena / Larga Mano Eskrima[edit]

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

A non notable martial system with no sources Dwanyewest (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I failed to find independent sources that show this is a notable martial arts style. Jakejr (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent references that show notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not demonstrate notability. Janggeom (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Added to the correct dated log on 04-Jan-2011. Jarkeld (talk) 00:05, 4 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 Delete Mandsford 17:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nihon Koden Shindo Ryu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A mediocre article which should have been deleted the first AFD nomination, it is completely lacking in reliable sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any independent sources that show this is a notable martial arts style. The articles I found were either connected to this style or mirrors of WP. Jakejr (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found the same thing as Jakejr. Papaursa (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not demonstrate notability. Janggeom (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Added to the correct dated log on 04-Jan-2011. Jarkeld (talk) 00:05, 4 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 delete. Courcelles 00:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lidia Vianu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Let's begin by running through the footnotes and showing why they fail to show the subject meets WP:GNG's requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject":

Footnotes 2, 6-16, 18, 20-22, 26-28, 30-31 and 37-38 refer to Wikipedia articles, which cannot be used to source another Wikipedia article.
Footnotes 1 and 23-25 make no mention at all of Vianu.
Footnotes 5 and 17 have Vianu's name at the top of the page, but cover her in no further depth than that.
Footnotes 29 and 32-36 are works translated by Vianu into Romanian. That doesn't necessarily confer notability upon her, especially considering that these reviews are hosted on the website of the press she directs.
Footnotes 40-42, in a similar vein, are about Vianu's own books, but being hosted on (essentially) her own website, these don't count as independent coverage.
Footnote 19 confirms she is a member of Romania's PEN club, but we have no indication of whether that implies notability. Given that its US counterpart has 3,300 members, probably not.
Footnote 3 confirms she was the joint recipient of a prize, but we have no independent confirmation of even this prize's notability, much less of the notability of its recipients.
Footnote 4 mentions two courses she teaches. Teaching courses does not a notable academic make.
Footnote 39 refers to a personal project of hers, but the coverage is neither independent nor significant.

I can't fail to mention that this article was started by Bezeauainfuriata, whose only other contribution is an article on Vianu's colleague C. George Sandulescu, and edited by Lidiavianu, whose only other substantial contribution, aside from touching up her autobiography, was to edit the article on her colleague, Sandulescu. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom's thorough analysis of the footnotes. It's clear that someone's trying to puff up the article and failing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 25 cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. All the wikipuffery makes it difficult to evaluate how notable she actually is; thanks to the nominator for spending the time to go so carefully through the footnotes. This interview looks like a reliable source, but it's difficult to use as the basis of an article because the questions are not so much about her history as about her attitudes. Other than that, the only thing we can source is that she is the winner of a prize. That doesn't seem like quite enough to me. But I could be persuaded to change my mind if additional reliable sources turn up. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of the problems with the article, she is a widely and legitimately published Romanian academic and creative writer. The article should be kept and improved rather than deleted. Qworty (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to keep if better sources can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:39, 31 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 per G11 by Athaenara. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 11:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RadioCrazy Classical&Jazz[edit]

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

Delete. Article created by User:Radiocrazy who self-identifies as Carl Flisch, owner of the self-proclaimed "largest multi-channel Internet radio services in Europe". Editor states in edit summary that he was bringing over "my own article at the [http://en.publicdomainproject.org/index.php/RadioCrazy_Classical%26Jazz". The publicdomainproject.org website further lists Carl Flisch as the head of the foundation council. Completely unsourced, blatant self-promotion. Cind.amuse 21:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is no self promotion! The radio station is part of the "Public Domain Project" that won a prize from Wikimedia Germany. Have a look: http://www.wikimedia.de/wiki/Ideenwettbewerb

So I have wrote over 20 articles in Wikipedia before I make public this article about my radio station. Have a look: My own articles

This no self proclomation "largest multi-channel Internet radio services in Europe" have a look inside SHOUTcast statistics: http://www.shoutcast2.com/TTSL/2010/TTSL-2010-10.txt

Another internet radio stations are inside Wikipedia: Swiss Groove (hobby project of Patrik Jungo in 2001), Digitally Imported (hobby project of Ari Shohat in 1999)

Carl, 23:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete...but only because the article was created by an SPA with a promotional username (plus, Google reveals only passing mentions of the station). Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree. The speedy I placed was removed and I didn't feel like going back and forth with it on Christmas eve, so I sent it to discussion and left for the evening. And a Merry Christmas to all and to all a goodnight! ;) Cind.amuse 08:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the speedy delete had already been declined, and it was not too promotional I have restored this one. Since the Wikimedia Foundation awarded this a prize, I suspect we should keep the article. SInce this is closed someone can reopen it or start again, a G4 will not be appropriate as discussion did not complete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:22, 31 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) 00:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits (Beyoncé album)[edit]

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

I've just declined the speedy on this which said it was a hoax. I can't find anything immediately which I would expect, but then sometimes these things get hidden. If a hatful of people at this AfD think it's a hoaxy enough for speedy, then I'll close it as such. Ged UK 21:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax or not, unless established by WP:RS, this is not a suitable subject for an article. Chester Markel (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not WP:NOTABLE or even sourced or confirmed in existence. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, per WP:HOAX. I stand by my original CSD nomination of speedy delete as a blatant hoax. The information doesn't make sense per comments by JohnfromPickney and Erpert. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A 16-song, 2-cd EP?!? Supposed either to have come out January 7, 2010 (infobox) or to come out January 7, 2011 (Release history at bottom) but Amazon.com has never heard of it. Due in two weeks or out for the last year, and nobody's written a word about it? Naw, smells too bad to keep. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. This search says it all. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I declined another speedy attempt because it isn't blatant, but the lack of sources indicates this is a probable hoax and at the least not notable. RL0919 (talk) 15:12, 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 speedy delete. slakr^\ talk / 10:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get ridic[edit]

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

Non notable drinking game, totally unreferenced, prod removed by page creator after a sock storm of new 1 edit accounts commented on talk page WuhWuzDat 20:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced, fails WP:NOT. Nakon 21:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage in any reliable sources. J04n(talk page) 21:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's that thing about something made up in school one day? EEng (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ONEDAY. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 21:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG. Article is OR, apparently. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 22:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can speedy delete this now because the creator has been indef-blocked for socking. I'll tag it. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:54, 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. Courcelles 00:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All About Him[edit]

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

(PROD was contested.) Non-notable single as far as I can tell. Hasn't charted (yet?), not from an album, no significant third-party coverage. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 20:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Auburn (singer). J04n(talk page) 21:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contains no useful information that cannot simply be mentioned on the artist's page. An article should not be created just to mention that a song exists. Appears to not be notable in any way. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:30, 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. Courcelles 00:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Line 47[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 20:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Probably advertising, as creator appears to be an single purpose account with a conflict of interest: Line47 (talk · contribs). OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 21:29, 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 redirect to No-win situation#In video games per Uncle G Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unwinnable[edit]

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

Dictionary definition, completely arbitrary examples. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:04, 24 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) 20:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as someone's essay. Mangoe (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility may be to redirect to No-win situation.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Redundant to no-win situation as the above IP put it. It's also biased towards video gaming and is inherently POV. –MuZemike 04:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Majority of this is OR. It's completely unsourced. This gaming term is not covered by sources enough. The mentions are just that – mention without explicit explanation past a few sentences. Added lead to No-win situation#In video games as to avoid saying Merge. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was a fairly daft thing to do, because you've just made it a requirement to keep the article so that the edit history and author attribution supporting this copied content is properly retained in order to comply with the project's copyright licences. The advice given about merger mid-discussion in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion is there for a good reason, you know. Uncle G (talk) 00:18, 31 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 00:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Snake Roulette Bet[edit]

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

Unsourced gambling article, non-notable. If anything can be sourced, it should be merged with Roulette. Kelly ^hi! 19:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge with the main roulette article, per nom. Rray (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator wants this deleted, not merged. Deletion and merger are incompatible outcomes. You can only have one or the other. Pick one. Uncle G (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 00 notability. Do not merge to roulette. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 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.

This was a poor nomination. To call something that another editor has worked on "Cruft" (i.e. "information of little value") is a a bit rude, and fails to explicitly express a reason for deletion. (See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion.) But there are no sources, so notability can not be established. Delete.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Conan sketches[edit]

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

Listcruft. Anything meaningful can be folded into List of Conan episodes —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Several of the sketches are notable in their own right; and all are notable by virtue of being tied to a notable TV show. I could and point out that there are similar articles devoted to the sketches of Late Night and The Tonight Show, and numerous other , but I don't think I have to. Precedent is pretty clearly on the side of keep in this case Purple backpack89 18:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep...if some sources are added, that is. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know exactly what's gonna happen. We'll get 30 "keep but source" !votes, resulting in a keep; the article will sit for two years in complete stasis, someone will renominate it; someone else will start the ball rolling on more "keep but source" !votes and it'll get kept again without anything happening. Let's kill this infinite loop before it starts. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no evidence of notability is presented. The absence of references doesn't help. The nominator is correct in dismissing this as listcruft. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Regent. Everyone's saying "keep but source" but not even trying to prove that sources exist. QUIT SAYING KEEP BUT SOURCE UNLESS YOU KNOW THAT SOURCES EXIST. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Everyone"? It's only two people. Calm down, Hammer. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, AFD isn't really for fixing articles... Purple backpack89 20:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I strongly disagree with the creator's assertion of "inherited notabilty". Just because Conan and his show are notable doesn't mean we need to discuss every sketch on his show. The broad topic really isn't discussed by third-party sources, so notability is lacking. If any sketches are important to the show's history they can be mentioned in the article about the show. Them From Space 18:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - These are notable in their own right, and sketch lists are included for Late Night and Tonight, as well as Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. There is no reason to delete this. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 2:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete No sources to back up the claim that these are, in fact, notable. The episode list is a much better article than a trivia-filled fancruft page. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 03:44, 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 per A7 by SatyrTN. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 01:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Shaddows[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable band that just squeaks by CSD. Prod contested by IP. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No notability established; just another band who wants their whack at a Wikipedia article. PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 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 00:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Song of Return[edit]

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

Contested PROD, which I think should be brought here. Band has apparently only had self-published releases (two songs), and only refs are Facebook, blog, and similar - so they seem non-notable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete this could be deleted due to no claim of notability, which I did one before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As fairly newly assembled, and having two tracks 'available for download', they don't seem to be there yet. I wish them luck - and in this business you don't just need talent, you need that break. Peridon (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 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) 00:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Blaine[edit]

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

Gerald Blaine is a retired secret service agent who was involved in the protection of assassinated US president John Kennedy (JFK). The article's author has a potential (not confirmed) conflict of interest as an article writer due to his real-world connections to the book's release and to the sites which are being externally linked. (The article author would benefit from traffic to the stated pages.) The concerns are:

There isn't evidence the subject Gerald Blaine is notable personally. A search for him suggests that wider notice is mainly related to the release of the book ("Agent speaks out after 47 years", Amazon links, etc). Anything JFK-related hits the media to the point that Wikipedia is not indiscriminate is relevant. Likewise a book release on JFK is not enduring news. There isn't really evidence as far as I can find it for notability of the author Blaine himself - either as author or as agent.

There doesn't appear to be notability of the book either. Books on JFK's assassination do not usually get their own articles. They are usually used as sources for articles on the JFK killing.

JFK's killing and related conspiracy theories are cultural fascinations. They regularly lead to new books, and media coverage of the event is regularly rehashed; anything new almost automatically gets coverage. So there is a strong element of indiscriminate coverage (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE). WP:GNG requires coverage but makes clear that even wide coverage in reliable sources does not automatically imply notability. Per WP:NOT and WP:N, significant and enduring attention to the subject itself is part of the acid test. Again there isn't evidence of that so far.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would agree that there are some COI issues because User:Vincebethel keeps promoting his book and blogs, the actual text of the document seems ok. It is all sourced to the new book, which has achieved some fame by being featured on C-SPAN's Q&A program with Brian Lamb (Gerald Blaine was one of the interviewees...see here). I don't know if C-SPAN coverage makes something notable or not (sometimes I feel like I'm the only one watching!). But I think the article is ok as long as the user's own sources are kept out. Johnnyt471 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there actual evidence that Gerald Blaine himself has been the subject of significant attention by the wider world? (not just attracting media attention transiently as NOTNEWS due to his book release and mentions in passing as an agent in the case?) Also note WP:BLP1E issues, he may have only had attention due to being a non-core officer in an event where any person could have equally been in that officer's role. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 11 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) 01:08, 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) 18:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's mentioned in passing in 3 books I can find on JFK -- two by the same author! Appaently he's less than notable even for the one event. EEng (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gerald Blaine was not even in Dallas on 11/22/63, thus his opinion is of no real merit. In that regard, it would serve a good purpose to delete this entry: it would take his ego down several notches: "see? you're a person of no noteworthiness." Please delete asapVincebethel (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSince I was the one who initiated this article (yes, I wrote it!), I would like to quote Blaine in another context: I am issuing a "firm command" to delete this article- that is an order. Thanks, guys: sockpuppets rule (whatever those are). :O) Vincebethel (talk) 18:50, 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 00:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Oingo Boingo: 20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection[edit]

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

No reliable sources found. Most of the other "20th Century Masters" albums have been similarly deleted for lack of secondary sources — they are not "official" compilations. The album didn't chart, it hasn't been reviewed by anyone, etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have been following Hammer's PROD's and AfD's for these various cheesy compilation albums. It's true that their notability is suspect in general. However, if this nominator came across an article that said something was "official" or "unofficial" without confirmation, he would demand a citation. I am hereby proclaiming to the nominator AGAIN that he has not defined "official" or "unofficial," has not given any evidence that this album is not official, and has not cited a WP guideline that says "unofficial" albums are automatically non-notable. Otherwise, the nominator's statement about reliable sources is legit, but I'm real close to calling for a speedy close on this AfD due to faulty reasoning. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there a policy on greatest hits/artist compilation albums? I agree that "official" status has not been defined here. What I think would make an album like this one notable would be at least one of three things: chart position, inclusion of previously unreleased material, or the artist's direct involvement in track selection and/or liner notes. That would be my preferred rule for compilations. Unless there are sources that show this album meets one of these criteria, I'd say it's not notable. ReverendWayne (talk) 02:33, 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) 18:03, 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 00:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold R. Peters[edit]

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

Unable to find coverage of this bibliographer in any reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC J04n(talk page) 17:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this article some years ago, and have learned a lot about Wikipedia's policies since then. I can't find anything about this bibliographer in my sf references, and can find nothing in online sources. Mike Christie (talk – library) 18:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the article's creator. Qworty (talk) 00:58, 31 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Z. Castillo[edit]

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

Autobiography by User:Michael.castillo18. Non-notable athlete, not ranked by any recruiting service (ESPN, Rivals, Scout, MaxPreps). Basically all of the facts in this article are false. bender235 (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a strong possibility that this article is a hoax, as I can't find this person on Google News or in any of the references provided. Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. As Cullen328 stated, none of the references mention this person at all. In addition, the only source I can find that mentions a person under this name as a player on the LSU Tigers is this, which is a Wikipedia mirror. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ((db-hoax)) comes to mind...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources appear to refer to the subject of this article. Highly likely this is a hoax. Cbl62 (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with reasons stated above. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:01, 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. Courcelles 00:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martial arts equipment[edit]

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

This article was created in 2006 for advertising, the advertising links come off and get put back on, (which is not cause for deletion, just history). The article fails WP:NOTDICT, as it offers little beyond a brief description of a group of products, most of which have stand alone articles. The article has been tagged as prod and speedy, Other then the off and on adverting links it has been unreferenced since creation. Jeepday (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inconceivable that any of its content wouldn't belong elsewhere. EEng (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicates the category. Maybe listify? Mangoe (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here that is not (or could not) already be duplicated elsewhere, and insufficient material to justify a stand-alone article. I have merged the list of items into the martial arts article. Janggeom (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOTDICT is specifically for articles that only serve as a dictionary definition for the subject, yet this article goes (slightly) beyond that by having a list of equiptment used in the martial arts. I think semiprotection might be necessary if there is a long history of spam, but I still think this article can eventually be helpful. And I would prefer that it be in prose to a list. Lists degenerate very quickly and are less encyclopedic than prose articles. I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping the article in its current state until its worked on some more. Them From Space 18:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been tagged as unsourced for over 4 years. Its contents are listed in the more appropriate article on martial arts. There is no reason for this standalone article. Jakejr (talk) 05:58, 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. Courcelles 00:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Steve Earle[edit]

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

No sources outside a terse review from Allmusic. Fails notability for albums. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:NALBUMS "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." A quick google search brings up this review http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/earlesteve-bestof20th -- this review has to be one of the most interesting I've read in a long time and probably should be incorporated into the album's article. Overall I feel that this article should be improved, not deleted. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Punkrocker1991. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Punkrocker and per WP:OSE. It's bad practice, and contrary to the encyclopedic nature of this project, to arbitrarily punch holes in otherwise complete discographies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:21, 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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of The Velvet Underground: The Millennium Collection[edit]

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

I see lots of content, but I see no reliable sources outside Allmusic. The album didn't chart and was never reviewed. Also, the 20th Century Masters parent article was deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator continues to insist that since the parent article on the series was deleted, then all of the albums within the series should be deleted as a matter of course. Wrong. That fact is irrelevant. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of sourcing is still a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, but your deletion argument also includes something that is irrelevant. Nominations should be done with the proper procedure and then others can vote accordingly. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OSE. It's bad practice, and contrary to the encyclopedic nature of this project, to arbitrarily punch holes in otherwise complete discographies. And, despite the nominator's palpably false assertions, links in the article show both sourcing and reviews. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the obviously self published fansites that in no way meet WP:RS? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, as would be evident to any reasonable editor acting in good faith, I'm referring to Allmusic. And I'm not so sure that the Velvet Underground "fansite" [1] which has apparently been endorsed by several members of the band can be so casually dismissed, either. Particularly since that site and its maintainer/webmaster are credited/cited in about a dozen books. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the real question is, what do we lose when there is an article that is not notable? I feel that if the parent article on the group was deleted, and there is no outstanding reason granting it notability, the offspring articles should be deleted. Cheers! -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the parent article on The Velvet Underground were deleted, it would be an easy call—WP:CSD#A9. But since The Velvet Underground hasn't been deleted, your argument is fallacious. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Reading the above an editor mentioned that the series had been deleted. In that case, I need to rethink this. -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:OSE isn't a argument for keeping things. This article fails WP:V, as it is not based on independent, third-party sources, and I don't see any method for correcting that.—Kww(talk) 14:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. That's why it says that "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items" and points out that providing entries/articles for full sets of such items "serves the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that the parent article on the series being deleted doesn't mean that each article about an album in the series should be deleted. Articles should be judged on their own merits. That said, sourcing is the chief concern and I wasn't able to find any reviews other than Allmusic (though I admit I only did a cursory search; no prejudice against anyone else conducting a more thorough search & coming up with better results). A lot of these kinds of "best of" compilations suffer from a lack of sources available from which to write good encyclopedia articles. That doesn't prevent us from listing the release in The Velvet Underground discography, and citing Allmusic as a source. It just means there isn't enough to say about the album to warrant a stand-alone article. It's a pretty common situation around here. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I agree with the nominator that this compilation has been mostly ignored by third parties. It's surely a quickie from the record company and most of the rest of the world doesn't care. But a review by AllMusic provides the barest glimmer of notability (per precedent at WP:ALBUMS) and the record's existence has been noted by fans of the group, as can be seen in a basic web search. As Hullaballoo said, this is supposed to be an encyclopedic project and there is no evidence that deletionism is the only valid way to assess what's in Wikipedia. Though I will concede that this article has some fancruft that is unsupported and can be removed. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doomsdayer520. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I have no strong feelings about keeping this particular article, I am worried about the potential consequences. IMO an Allmusic review establishes the necessary notability for an album, and lots and lots of album articles are based on this as the only reliable source, especially older albums that pre-date the internet era. This includes studio albums from highly notable artists, like Elton John's Christmas Party, A Biography, and Sons and Fascination/Sister Feelings Call. If we delete this one, someone could easily come along and claim we also delete those for consistency, and probably a few thousand others. I wouldn't want this to happen. – IbLeo ^(talk) 20:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one would argue that a studio album is non-notable, with very few exceptions. Compilation albums are a whole different animal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by this last comment by Mr. Hammer. Why are compilation albums a whole different animal? On what grounds? Once again some more detail is necessary if you want to make claims like this. You might have a point about quickies like this album, released by a record company with no promotion in order to make a shifty buck, and with little or no input from the artist. But then I'm not the one making all these nominations. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because compilation albums come as close to inherently non-notable as you can get. The music world's version of a clip show, they don't constitute an original work and don't prompt the release of singles.—Kww(talk) 00:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That argument makes no sense whatever to me. That's just not what Wikipedia-notability means. We're not giving out medallions for creative achievement here; we're trying to write an encyclopedia, and that means we're trying to write the articles that people who want to use an encyclopedia would find useful. I don't see any rational reason to believe that encyclopedia users don't want, or wouldn't find useful, articles on compilation albums. There's a stronger argument, to my mind, for treating most singles as inherently nonnotable -- they're not over the last 40 years or so, independent creative works, but components of albums, and they're principally used as marketing devices by record companies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've argued for years that singles should be covered in the parent album, and should essentially never receive articles. I lost that battle long ago. Notability has nothing to do with usefulness, though. Wikipedia notability simply means that independent sources took note of the topic and wrote about it. If you could convince me that this article is based on material from independent, third-party sources, as required by WP:V and elaborated on by WP:N, I'd change my !vote to keep. —Kww(talk) 03:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sub-discussion started because Mr. Hammer said "Compilation albums are a whole different animal" and Kww said "compilation albums come as close to inherently non-notable as you can get." Despite the rhetorical flourishes, no WP guideline of policy has been offered to define things like "whole different animal" and "inherently non-notable" or why those qualities are grounds for deleting an article. Outside of this sub-discussion, the matter of reliable sources is still relevant and can be debated accordingly. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kww. --89.211.181.22 (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: this !vote was !cast by indef blocked sockpuppeteer User:Magpie1892. See here [2] for related ANI discussion and here [3] for the initial report of multiple account abuse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: the !above !supposition is just that. Untrue and !unfounded. There is, was !and has never been any connection between this user ID (male, I think) in the !UK and me, a female, in !Qatar. Questions !need to be asked of the supposer, it !seems. Bad, bad form. --89.211.181.22 (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article definitely lacks in sources, and that is a concern of mine. While I will not immediately vote for its deletion, I would like to state that it certainly is an unexemplary wikipedia article. If this article should be kept, it must be equipped with more sources and more verification. If this does get deleted, though, it isn't that big of a loss. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 08:21, 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 Delete --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barratt Developments in Woking[edit]

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

Inherently non-notable subject. I would also question whether this article is a bit POINTy, or an attempt to circumnavigate the deletion process, seeing as in the last few days both buildings featured have been nominated for deletion, both being well on the way to deletion at this moment in time. role^player 17:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A10 The bulk of this article is a cut and paste from The Centrium, Woking and New central, both of which were created by the same author and are currently in AfD. Arguably this is a pre-emptive G4 speedy, as they are re-creating pages which at this time look pretty certain to be deleted. Even if the article is in good faith, it is far too commercial to stand. If it were moved to remove Barrat it would probably end up as 'tallest buildings in Woking', which was another page created by the same user which was deleted in AfD the other day so we are back to G4 again. Note that they already recreated that article once after AfD, and it was speedy deleted under G4--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where else do I move this info EXPORT HOUSE?? At this rate I will have none of my articles left and I am thinking about deleting my wikipedia and find a diffrent online encyclopedia to place this info somewhere people may be grateful for it unlike here. — {Willrocks10 (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

By far the best place is your own website - make one! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per ThePaintedOne. Note to Willrocks10, there is no crusade or vendetta against you or articles you have created, you are just being asked to look at wikipedia's policies about notability and to create or add articles that meet those policies. Just being a new office or residential development in Woking is not notable. There are hundreds of building sites across the UK, by your criteria they should all have an article just because they are building sites. Sorry but that's not a high enough threshold to justify inclusion. NtheP (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ThePaintedOne and NtheP. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Willrocks10, I will attempt to explain where you are going wrong with article creation and what you can do to change this. One thing that Wikipedia counts on for its reputation is some degree of reliability. A lot of people think that if they add their bit of local knowledge to Wikipedia, this will be permanently added and built on. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. There is no knowing who is accurate, who is mistaken, and who is making things up. This is why we need information in pages to be verifiable by being referenced to third-party reliable sources.

And this is the recurring problem with your articles - very little of the information you are providing is easily verifiable. A lot of people have the idea that Wikipedia is a good place to add information not available anywhere else on the Web, but that's almost the opposite of what Wikipedia is for - Wikipedia summarises information about buildings/people/companies already published in reliable sources (although not necessarily Web ones). You will have to make a decision. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you will need to read the notability guidelines, starting with this one. This may mean you will have to contribute to different articles than you originally intended. If, however, you want to contribute your own information about your preferred buildings and don't want to be restricted to what's covered in reliable sources, Wikipedia is the wrong place for you. There are other open wikis that accept articles on everything if that's what you wannt to do. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic local information. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:03, 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. Courcelles 00:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Simondini[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO jps (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: poorly sourced BLP. No indication that any sources "address the subject directly in detail", so no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hrafn, no reliable independent sources apparent. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources cited in article, and none found via google search. LK (talk) 07:45, 31 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. Although there are still many sources in this article which are not reliable by WP standards, there are an equal number which are. These sourcing issues, as well as unsourced or poorly sourced claims, should be dealt with outside of this AfD. The evidence presented in a variety of reliable sources is enough to qualify as WP:Verifiability of potentially contentious claims, which themselves display that the subject meets WP:BIO. As it stands the nominator's main issue, has been proven incorrect and all delete votes appear to be based off of this (now) erroneous claim Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ademar José Gevaerd[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. jps (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of references to reliable independent sources in the article. I see Spanish language news mentions, but am not in a position to evaluate their reliability. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you are not in a position to evaluate the potential sources (most of which seem to be in Portuguese) then how are you in a position to make an informed !vote? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Because the article is an unreferenced biography of a living person and I made a good faith effort to find reliable sources without success. In addition, I do not consider this process to be "voting" but rather a discussion about policy leading toward consensus. I will be glad to withdraw my recommendation if anyone establishes notability through references to reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search for sources shows plenty in Portuguese (Google translate to the rescue), some in English. I have added a "find sources" above for his name without the "José", which gives more results. The subject is clearly a big name in the UFO world, regularly brought in as a UFO expert on any TV / newspaper stories relating to UFOs and a regular speaker at UFO conferences. A notable ufologist, if there is such a word. I agree that the article needs improvement, but that is not a reason to delete. I may add some content. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreferenced BLP. No indication that any sources "address the subject directly in detail", so no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some content from the "news" sources, and from one "scholar" source. There are also mentions in books, but only snippet views. A general web search would probably turn up a lot more. The subject is a leading and respected UFO expert in Brazil whose views are widely sought after by journalists writing UFO stories. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that is the problem (per Hans Adler below). All the news reports are simply getting a comment from Gevaerd on this or that issue -- resulting in very biased coverage. We just get Gevaerd's side of the story. There are no sources analysing or commenting on Gevaerd. As I said above: "No indication that any sources 'address the subject directly in detail'" -- therefore no "significant coverage" & no notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not examined the sourcing situation, but as currently written the article is not a biography but a coatrack for pushing UFO beliefs. Hans Adler 07:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the first two CV-type sources, I just went through all the news sources for Ademar José Gevaerd, Ademar Gevaerd and A.J. Gevaerd and stuck in what I found in roughly chronological sequence - a fairly mechanical process. This is what the newspapers and magazines have said about the guy's views and activities. I am personally slightly skeptical about one or two of the assertions, but am not an expert on UFOs. The subject apparently is. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the above comments, this is not an article about flying saucers and little green men. It is an article about someone who has made a career out of writing and talking about these subjects, and has received widespread media coverage. The coverage, which directly addresses the subject in considerable detail, demonstrates notability. The article describes his views and activities as reported by reliable independent sources. Many would say the views are ridiculous, but they are what have made the subject so well known. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is an article about what Gevaerd says "about flying saucers and little green men." If this topic indeed has "coverage, which directly addresses the subject in considerable detail", then what "analytic or evaluative claims" do these sources make (per WP:SECONDARY about Gevaerd and his work? Because the article contains nothing of this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses the subject in terms of positions held, activities and statements as reported by reliable independent sources. Secondary sources often make analytic or evaluative claims about their subject, but are no less acceptable if they simply state the facts. A few of the sources do give opinions, but given the nature of the subject most prefer a deadpan form of reporting, as do I. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only "positions held, activities and statements as reported" = NO DEPTH WHATSOEVER. Lacking any such analysis or evaluation, it is an inherently VERY BIASED article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Really these nominations without research have got to stop. This person easily meets requirements per the sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Per the sources?" ROFLMAO! Have you taken a look at the sources? The English ones are absolute junk, and what I've seen through Google Translate of the Portuguese ones to date doesn't give me much more faith in them (they appear to be puff pieces). So which of these sources would you most like to put forward as credible & detailed? Really these blind "per the sources" keep !votes have got to stop. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are reliable for the statements made in the article. A press release for a movie is a reliable source for the cast of the movie, but not of course for an evaluation of the movie. A UFO magazine is a reliable source for a statement published in that UFO magazine, but not of course for the accuracy of that statement, and so on. Most of the sources are, of course, mainstream newspapers. It is reasonable to assume that when they report that so-and-so said such-and-such, that is factual. Whether such-and-such is true is a different question. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A PR blurb would generally considered only as a reasonable source for filling in details on a matter already discussed by third parties, not as a stand-alone source. A journal, self-published on the ISP-user webpage of one Andrew Milani (members.ozemail.com.au/~amilani) is ONLY usable for information on Milani himself, per WP:SELFPUB. "Most of the sources" appear to be credulous puff-pieces, simply regurgitating Gevaerd's claims without the slightest skepticism or attempt to scrutinise his claims. I don't know if this is because the newspapers in question are tabloid, or because the Brazilian media does not like the facts getting in the way of a good story, or what, but they do not come across as credible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O Globo, Jornal Pequeno, Sol, El Pais, O Mirante, or for that matter the San Jose Mercury News are typical mainstream newspapers. When they get a story about crop circles or mysterious lights in the sky, they write it up. When the UFO crowd launches a campaign for release of government information, they write that up too. Often the reporter will contact Gevaerd for a statement, since he is "Mr. UFO" in Brazil. I assume that when the Flat Earth Society holds a big meeting, they would write that up as well, reporting what the speakers said, and may not bother to point out that the Earth is not in fact flat. They assume some level of intelligence in their readers. Again, the article attempts to describe the person, his activities and opinions. The sources are reliable for that purpose. For example, he clearly did give his views in the Fastwalkers conspiracy-theory movie. I would not see that movie as a reliable source for an article on UFOs, but this is not an article on UFOs. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The independent reliable secondary sources mention the name of the person incidentally (The sources are actually trivial on the biography), but may or may not belong to the same person. There are no intersections of non-trivial information on the biography, so it should be deleted as Original research. Algébrico (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that the Ademar Gevaerd who edits UFO magazine also runs the Brazilian Center for Flying Saucer Research (which shares the same website), is head of the Brazilian Committee of Ufologists and initiator of the "Liberdade de Informação Já!" campaign. Many of the sources mention two of more of these positions when introducing a quote from him. If there are any sources that do not list at least one of these positions, perhaps they are talking about some other prominent Brazilian ufologist with the same rather unusual name, so should be removed. But delete the entire article? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:53, 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 00:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eminoior[edit]

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

The article fails to meet WP:GNG, as there is a lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Footnote 1 is Iordache's personal site, which doesn't count as independent coverage.
Footnote 2 merely tells us that he appeared as one of dozens and dozens of individuals featured in a dictionary of writers from one Romanian county. This may seem promising, but keep in mind that this is a work of local interest (he does not appear in the General Dictionary of Romanian Literature, which would indeed have implied notability). Plus, we have no means of consulting the source to see what it says.
Footnote 3 mentions him once as part of a group of people—in a forum post, again not a reliable source.
Footnote 4 reprints a poem of his, which does not count as independent coverage.
Footnote 5 indicates he heads an NGO for children, but says absolutely nothing else about him: not "significant" coverage.
Same with footnote 6, which is, in any case, a press release.
Footnote 7 mentions him once as the NGO's president, but fails to add anything except that he promotes using a toll-free number to report child abuse: again, not significant coverage.
Footnote 8 mentions him once as NGO president, and nothing else, and in any case is a press release.
Footnote 9 is one of Iordache's private Google Docs and not accessible by us.
Footnote 10 makes no mention of Iordache.
Footnote 11 is a review of Iordache's debut volume. If he were better covered in other sources, this would be citable; on the other hand, OC does review numerous works every month and not every one is by a notable author; note in particular that this 2002 mention is the only one they've made of him.
Footnote 12 is the website of a publisher and has nothing directly to do with Iordache.
Footnote 13 is a long, long list of works appearing during 2009. Yes, one of them is by Iordache, but having one's name on such a list is hardly substantive evidence of notability.
Footnote 14 indicates he won a prize as a high school student, but merely as part of a table of other winners, without giving any coverage to him in particular.
The external links are mostly the same as the footnotes, except for this (his book at his publisher's site: not independent) and this (his name as part of a long list: not significant)

The case for notability is weak, and the bulk of the above does little to advance it. Even if his appearance in a dictionary of local literary figures indicates small-scale repute, WP:BURDEN requires actual citations from there to demonstrate notability; otherwise, we really don't know what is said there and have no idea of the depth of coverage. Same with the book review: could be interesting as part of a pattern, but in isolation, it means little. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability, unless you count helping to develop "a manual of best practices for teenage leaving national social protection system." EEng (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the 15+ reasons provided by nom. Qworty (talk) 19:42, 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 00:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Turner[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. jps (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article violates the neutral point of view and lacks reliable sources. Though Google News shows a number of mentions of this person, most seem to be brief descriptions of speeches she gave. Books by and about her are by fringe publishers. Cullen328 (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This person has books written about her? Which books? Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not entirely about her, but for example, a chapter of Wake Up Down There by Greg Bishop is an interview with her. She is mentioned in several other pro-UFO books also, per Google Books .Cullen328 (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mentioned to what depth? Uncle G (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hard to judge the depth because Google Books doesn't let readers go very deep. Most appear to be unreliable UFO cult books. One possibility is The lure of the edge: scientific passions, religious beliefs and the pursuit if UFOs, by Brenda Densler, University of Califirnia Press, 2003. Impossible to see how detailed the coverage is. Cullen328 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The small number of news reports do not "address the subject directly in detail" & the books appear to either (i) also fail to "address the subject directly in detail" (ii) lack reliability and/or (iii) lack independence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable independent sources in the article, and none found via google search. LK (talk) 07:49, 31 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Keel[edit]

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

A journalist who seems to fail WP:BIO. Doesn't seem to have all that much acclaim nor are there any awards, distinctions, or third-party sources written about him. jps (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've all convinced me! Thanks for the help. jps (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the lengthy article in The Daily Telegraph in the UK following the death of this American. Move that article from "external links" to a reference. This reliable source establishes his notability. It seems that a film starring Richard Gere was based on his work. A fringe figure to be sure, but appears notable to me. Cullen328 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More precise searches than the ones linked in the nomination (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) lead to many reliable sources. Just checking the news sources finds the Daily Telegraph coverage mentioned above, this piece in the Skeptical Inquirer and this extensive article explaining that Keel was a pioneer in his branch of pseudoscience. That's easily enough to demonstrate notability, and I haven't even looked at the hundreds of book and academic journal sources yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - famous and significant author of books on the paranormal. Ergative rlt (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and keep scrupulously maintained with material limited to independent, reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 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. Courcelles 00:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ECETI Institute[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:ORG. Making outlandish claims to get yourself on television can confer notability, but only if there are third-party sources documenting it. In this case, there does not seem to be such things. jps (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: none of the sources cited for the article appear to be independent or reliable. No sources through Google News/Books. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched yesterday and could find nothing to back notability for this article. Dougweller (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no reliable independent sources that can be used to establish notability or construct an article with. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:07, 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dean (ufologist)[edit]

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

~~Not notable outside of the UFO community which means that there are no third-party independent sources vouching for his notability. See WP:BIO and WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn on the basis of WP:SNOW. jps (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We've been here before, and nothing has changed.--Michig (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would that WP's policy was that only truly important people and topics were written up, but alas the standard is that if someone is reported on in multiple reliable sources, as Mr. Dean has been, then an article is possible and should not be deleted if started. References cited in the article include books published by the Cornell University Press and the University of California Press. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig and Kitfoxxe. This gentleman may well be a kook, but if so, he's a notable kook. Cullen328 (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why isn't the 2007 AfD debate, mentioned by Michig and resulting in Keep, formally referenced in a box to the right?Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the old AfD was for Robert Dean (Ufologist) (note the caps). I would have considered this one closer if I'd seen the previous debate. Article does need a cleanup, though. jps (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Dean (Ufologist). Changing the capitalization of one letter in the disambiguation won't result in a different outcome. Chester Markel (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a reference to an article about his claims in the New York Times. That would seem to an reliable third party source. Keraunos (talk) 00:18, 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. Courcelles 00:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas E. Bullard[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Not known of outside the UFO community. As an academic, definitely fails WP:PROF. See also WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: poorly sourced BLP, lacking any third party sourcing. ((find)) does not appear to turn up any sources that "address the subject directly in detail". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sourcing found about this person. --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 31 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 00:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Bloecher[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. No notice outside of the UFO community and seems to have "retired" from the "field". See WP:FRINGE for why insular notability cannot be generated from within fringe fields. jps (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of third-party sources in article, lack of sources that "address the subject directly in detail" in ((find)). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article provides many references but they are not to Reliable Sources. A Google News search finds an occasional passing mention in news stories, but no significant coverage about him. --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 31 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 00:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbert B. Smith[edit]

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

I think this one fails WP:BIO. He is noted by other UFO-enthusiasts as an important person in their circles, but he doesn't seem to have received the outside notice we require for WP:FRINGE bios. jps (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with your argument here, jps, is that WP:FRINGE discusses how to write and edit articles about fringe theories, but doesn't directly address biographies of fringe theorists. I agree that fringe sources shouldn't be used to establish notability and that discussion of these people's theories in such articles should comply with WP:FRINGE . But standard practice on biographical notability and sourcing should cover all biographies, including those of UFO theorists. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, precedent at Wikipedia is that WP:FRINGE is a notability criterion for theories and proponents. The reason for this is because fringe communities are notorious for synergistic self-promotion. It's an "I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-mine" sort of thing. If a person gets coverage by another fringe-enthusiast who publishes about them in a fringe periodical, journal, or on-line source, that doesn't necessarily give them the notability required. It is peculiar, but fringe theorists actually tend to be over-fit for our typical WP:BIO criteria for this reason. That's why it's important to take this into account. In the past, people have been hoodwinked by simple Google-news searches or even Google-scholar searches which can and do index fringe theorists the exact same way as they would normal sources. The problem arises when you actually try to use these sources to write an article. You just can't and fulfill the requirements of WP:NPOV. That's why WP:FRINGE exists: to forestall this issue. jps (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My concern expressed above doesn't change my conclusion that this article fails to cite reliable sources and relies at least partially on primary sources connected with the subject. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not have wide notability that's independent of his posthumous popularization within the UFOlogy community. He may rate mention in a UFO-related article, but not an article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 17:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Foreman[edit]

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

I don't see and can't find any reason this person is notable per WP:BIO. —Mike Allen 01:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 10 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) 01:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's comment: Can we move this to WP:Article Incubator? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:53, 23 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a well-known businessman in the world of toys, see the media coverage of him. His most recent venture to gain press is a Justin Bieber doll, and "He's the man behind the Spice Girls dolls (11 million sold), the Britney Spears doll (7 million sold) and the wildly successful Hannah Montana doll (17 million sold)."[4] Fences&Windows 16:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fences. Toys are big business, folks. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fences. Also, I can't blame the nominator much for this because the subject's google news juice is buried under hits for this Jay Foreman. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am inclined to say keep but it needs a little work. --Kumioko (talk) 17:42, 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 00:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Volke[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, bald assertions about being the most famous Estonian ufologist notwithstanding. jps (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete- I see some limited recent coverage of this person in an Estonian newspaper (which Google Translate does an unusually wretched job of translating), but I cannot judge its reliability. There's also a few books written by this person and some passing mentions in Google books but I don't think any of it rises to the level of significant coverage. I'm aware that this may be pro-English systemic bias at work so I am open to changing my vote if someone comes up with useful sources. Reyk _YO! 02:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete until notability is established. It isn't "pro-English systemic bias" to insist that the burden of showing the topic passes WP:NOTE lies with the article creator. --dab (𒁳) 13:57, 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 00:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eng. Sanad Rashed[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. jps (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Should have been speedied (A7). -- Alexf^(talk) 15:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually avoid speedy because I've been burned in the past for doing this since I tend to focus on WP:FRINGE theories and people who support such pages often don't like it when there is no conversation. jps (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any evidence of notability under either "Eng. Sanad Rashed" or "Sanad Rashed". --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 31 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 00:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of châteaux in Languedoc-Roussillon[edit]

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

List consisting almost entirely of redlinks, to be avoided: WP:LIST#Development. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating the following articles for the same reason. Note that all these articles were copied from French Wikipedia and were borderline WP:CSD#A2 anyway, except for the partial translation performed on some of them.

List of châteaux in Languedoc-Roussillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of châteaux in Limousin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of châteaux in Lorraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of châteaux in Nord-Pas-de-Calais (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of châteaux in Normandy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of châteaux in Overseas France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of châteaux in Picardy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of châteaux in Poitou-Charentes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of châteaux in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of châteaux in Rhône-Alpes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of châteaux in the Centre region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of châteaux in the Midi-Pyrénées (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of châteaux in the Île-de-France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Largo Plazo (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The vast majority of these châteaux are likely to be designated as of historic importance (In the UK we have listed buildings, the Netherlands has Rijksmonuments, in the United States there is the National Register of Historic Places, I'm not sure exactly what the French is, but would expect it to be Monument Historique or similar). There is little difference between these châteaux and the List of castles in England. The individual buildings are notable enough to sustain articles, and therefore the redlinks are valid per WP:REDLINK. Mjroots (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLINK, which you cited, supports deletion of these pages, agreeing with WP:LIST#Development when it says "However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mjroots. It appears that a majority of the buildings in these lists are notable and can/should have articles. As a matter of fact, a majority of them have articles in French Wikipedia. --Oakshade (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my deletion proposal was not based on any claim that these castles in question aren't notable. My objection is based on the lack of existing articles, which WP:REDLINK and WP:LIST#Development both address, and both say that this should not be done in article space. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If all the articles in these lists were redlinks, you'd have a point. However, there are so many existing châteaux articles within each list, these lists are valid. That cherrypicked WP:REDLINK line you quoted above are for lists with all redlinks. There are just too many bluelinks to delete these lists. --Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose we may as well discard all of Wikipedia's guidelines altogether, since by your definition, finding precisely the ones that apply to a situation and citing them is "cherrypicking". As for the links that are' blue, by your logic, given a list consisting of 100 redlinks, as soon as two or three of them have articles, the page is suddenly ready for the article namespace. I disagree. The vast majority of links on all these pages are red. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well I counted over ~~200~~ 300 existing articles in these lists and that is by far enough existing articles to have lists for. --Oakshade (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - most, if not all of these should exist, many lists have redlinks, or have had red links which were later filled in, for example List of cattle breeds and you'd be completely out to lunch to delnom one like that. Note that WP:REDLINK would not support removal of the redlinks, therefore suggesting it should be deleted, an even harsher result, is not likely to be sustained. In fact, if you did remove all the redlinks you'd probably have something very similar to a split out of List of castles in France. Whether each province needs a separate list is debatable, but these could be merged into or out from List of castles in France and even if merged in, I would not support removal of the redirects, so deletion is just pointless. I may take on that mission shortly if can decide which way to go. BTW, there is no language in WP:REDLINK that supports deletion of these pages, rather the contrary, it says under "When to create redlinks": "Please do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve more treatment than just a dictionary definition, or topics which should obviously have articles." (bold added by me) And later under when there undesirable: "Do not create red links to articles that will never be created". These are all valid articles and should all be created and probably will be. In fact, in this case most of the articles have been written (see, ), they just need translation; so the articles are not at all speculative. Their notability has been discussed above and is not in question. Further, WP:LIST#Development is a very very tiny section of the MOS dealing with people making lists of a project they are working on and deploying the list in article space before substantially any of the articles have been written, often in an obscure area that nobody else may be immediately interested in. Moreover, the tendency has existed before for people to just create lists, never writing the articles at all then moving on to other lists. Also, if we followed everything in the MOS like it was a policy, we'd go nuts and we'd delete a lot of valuable stuff for arbitrary reasons. There are guidelines that we treat like unbendable policy (e.g. WP:DELPRO) and there are style guidelines that we deviate from whenever people can't come up with a better way to handle the article, the MOS is the latter, we don't normally delete things that don't comply with the MOS, we fix them; in this case that means we create the articles. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I appreciate what you say, but the fact that WP:REDLINKS discusses other aspects of redlinks besides lists in the main article space that were initially constructed with (virtually) nothing but redlinks with the idea of filling them in later, doesn't mean that what it specifically says about such lists goes away, as though it didn't exist. Again, "However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Encouraged = yes, must = no. REDLINK is a guideline, and may be deviated from. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sufficient valid articles listed to just remove the red parts. No reason to delete them per nomination. On another note, some of these imported lists might still soon be prodded for not having been translated within two weeks. See WP:PNT. De728631 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a proper procedure for the translation of articles from other wikipedias outlined at Wikipedia:Translation, as they stand these articles are pretty much candidates for a2 or reduction to one line stubs--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition these articles have been listed at WP:PNT for the standard 2 weeks with no progress and therefore can be nominated for deletion based on that--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well List of châteaux in Languedoc-Roussillon List of châteaux in Limousin. List of châteaux in Picardy, List of châteaux in Normandy and List of châteaux in Overseas France all look close to translated or totally so and a ton of work has just been done by an anon on the others. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]--Oakshade (talk) 02:28, 31 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 Mandsford 18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taiwanese travel agencies[edit]

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

List of non-notable businesses. Each should have an article first, before a list should be created. Alexf^(talk) 14:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add that OP removed a PROD tag, therefore to AfD we go. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nominator, also this list article is also rather promotional in tone E. Fokker (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional tone isn't really the main problem here, it's mostly that the agencies listed have no WP articles and probably wouldn't meet the notability requirements. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 15:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. Tavix | Talk 20:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Indiana Wesleyan University as a plausible search term. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hodson Hall[edit]

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

A single dormitory at Indiana Wesleyan University. It's definitely possible for some dormitories to be notable (e.g. Elliott and Stoddard Halls), but there's no evidence that Hodson is notable. Almost the entire article consists of trivia only interesting to residents, and the few exceptions are still not enough for notability. Additionally, no references are present, except for a few sources that deal with topics not directly related to the dorm: overall, there are no references that specifically cover the dorm in depth. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most college dormitories are not notable. The ones that are are usually notable for their architecture (as for any other building) , and very occasionally, because of their being a major longs-standing constituent of a famous university with multiple famous residents; in either case, there will be good third party sources. The present article is neither. It has no particular architectural distinction, judging by the articles, and was only built in 1996 , with no Wikipedia-notable residents listed in the article. The content is proof of non-notability: a paragraph of PR about the donors, an paragraph about the religious significance of building in the shape of a T, a list of the various masters and resident advisors, none of whom are notable , and then a long discussion of all the dormitory water fights and similarly significant events. None of this is of any possible interest to anyone outside the University--most is of even more limited significance, because only those dorm residents immediately concerned will care about the timing of the intramural competitions to do the most push-ups. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article suggests notability. Independent media search identified no indicia of notability. ^Bongo_matic 06:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete full of non-notable trivia. Reywas92^Talk 18:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Indiana Wesleyan University There is no evidence that the building itself is independently notable. There's very little here that's worth keeping, but the details regarding some of the historical details might be extracted to the university article. Alansohn (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in the article suggests content of encyclopedic value. Kudpung (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Indiana Wesleyan University. Not sufficient info for an article from what I can find, but enough info for merger.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Veljković[edit]

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

Unable to find coverage of this Serbian musician in any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. The English and Serbian Cyrillic spellings, Драган Mapc Вељковић, of his name were both searched without success. It does not appear that he has a page on the Serbian Wikipedia either. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 12:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, a listing of his bandmates and pages on two of his albums, all unsourced:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a native speaker, I can't find WP:RS in Serbian either. Somewhat unsurprisingly, the articles are apparent WP:AUTOBIOs by Dragan74 (talk · contribs) alias Gandra74 (talk · contribs). No such user (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per No such user. Can't find any reliable sources in Swedish either, considering the claim that he would be a Serbian/Swedish musician. Tooga - BØRK! 21:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced BLP. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:00, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soliny Védrine[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient non-trivial coverage of this clergyman in any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. The article's external link provides the most coverage of him, two sentences, the rest list him with other clergyman who met with politicians or as the clergyman presiding over a funeral. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. J04n(talk page) 11:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Haiti was notified of this discussion. J04n(talk page) 11:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, did my own searches, my results matched those described by the nominator, insufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability under the GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No claim of notability is made. Pburka (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He seems to be reasonably influential as a pastor among the Haitian community, at least according to the Boston Globe. However sources are not proving easy. JASpencer (talk) 20:12, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gol Para Mi[edit]

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

Unreferenced article basically describing what kids all over the world do when they can't get together a football pitch and two teams of eleven players! Google search returns Wikipedia clones and Facebook videos etc but no reliable sources. At best, a bilingual dicdef. Emeraude (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article itself admits it's original research. Roscelese (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, full of OR. Giant Snowman 12:35, 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. Delete and Salt. (Sound policy argument presented in favor of salting, no arguments presented against salting.) j⚛e decker ^talk 16:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Palmer (liver disease specialist)[edit]

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

Non-notable doctor. This article has been deleted and recreated under many names. There was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Palmer (doctor), closed July 12, 2009. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Palmer was closed July 27, 2009. It was userfied the next day Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 28. Melissa Palmer, M.D. was speedy deleted August 29, 2009. Another DRV confirmed that deletion: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 30. The userfied but unchanged User:Augie58/Melissa Palmer was deleted on September 23, 2009. Many speedy delete requests have also been removed from the various editions. Numerous socks have been involved with these articles, and they appear to have been created by a now-banned paid editor for promotional purposes. At the moment, I can't say for sure that the latest creator is also a sock but editors can draw their own conclusions. I suggest that this be deleted and salted. Will Beback talk 10:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine CV of a successful specialist and researcher. Statements such as "nn of her research papers were selected for inclusion in Google Scholar" suggests subject has poor judgment in hiring PR staff and/or prefers to attract patients who are easily gulled by meaningless claims. Special note: She's a 52-year-old heavyweight bodybuilder, so keep your guard up! EEng (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. Can article title be salted, given repeated resurrections?[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads as naively written vanity page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No specific notability. Seems like deletion and salting will be needed if recreated frequently. JFW | T@lk 17:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No evidence of passing WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diverse significant achievements (books etc.), all verified. Enough to stay in. Anyone agree?Dotty'sgoinglikethis (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, everyone disagrees Why don't you stop before you embarrass Dr. Palmer any further with these ham-handed efforts? Note to closing admin: Don't forget to delete the various redirects, listings of Palmer as "Notable graduate" of her high school, etc., as seen at [15]. EEng (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of anything even close to meeting notability guidelines. It always amazes me when we get people such as doctors and lawyers and academics, who must have some degree of intelligence to have achieved their positions, making themselves look stupid, and so damaging their image, by insisting that they should be written about in an encyclopedia even when they clearly don't meet the requirements. If Dr Palmer can't even grasp this simple fact then I certainly won't be letting her anywhere near my liver. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The previous versions were deleted as copyvio, and then as making unsubstantiated claims. However, looked at objectively, she is notable, though the article would need rewriting to be free of the gross promotionalism. Her book "Dr. Melissa Palmer's Guide to Hepatitis & Liver Disease"" is in almost 1000 WorldCat libraries. She is apparently moderator of the hepatitis forum at WebMD, a leading professional health site. She is Clinical Professor at NYU Medical School, one of the very highest ranking medical centers in the world (though Clinical professor is ≠ Profesor) But much of it is exaggerated:

She is, technically, head of Hepatology at NYU Plainview on Long Island, essentially because she is the only physician there: [16]; the building has a number of doctor's offices, she is the only one affiliated with NYU. Were she head of Hepatology at NYU, she would indeed be notable, but she does not seem to practice at all at the main hospital. . She is not editor of Practical Gasteroenterology, but just a member of the editorial board. [17]--and it at any rate is an exceedingly minor journal, subsidized by drug advertisements to be distributed free to physicians. She is one of the three coauthors of Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease Nutrition Desk Reference, but the book has not yet been published. She has published some peer-reviewed papers: there are 4 in Scopus, all from her time in medical school., & they've been cited (one, where she was junior author, "Effect of weight reduction on hepatic abnormalities in overweight patients, 322 times, (the others, 39, 31, 25).Since then, the other papers are her participation as one of a number of physicians in drug trials, or articles in the journal where she's on the editorial board, or papers for a patient-oriented magazine. Some of the "Google Scholar" entires linked to in the article are not papers she wrote, but ones in which she has been cited.

The possible notability would be as author of her popular book. The book was reviewed in Library Journal--apparently twice--one regular, & one in a popular med books roundup).I would often be prepared to argue that this is notability, but not in this case, considering the repeated outrageous hype. The utter foolishness in thinking an article subject to this repeated discussions will do any possible good is, as Phil says, a little amazing. But it does not necessarily reflect on her as a physician: maybe she just has an incompetent PR agent. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG. Your scholarship is awesome. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as subject is not notable.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamcruftisement. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:45, 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 all Mandsford 17:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of centenarians (businessmen)[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR. Grouping people by a characteristic that has no relation to their notability or isn't otherwise a common form of grouping them is a strictly defined but non encyclopedic list. The fact that they lived long enough didn't make them more notable, and the fact that some businessmen reach 100 doesn't make the concept of "centenarian" any more notable. We wouldn't keep lists of businessmen with three or more marriages, or businessmen who own an island, or businessmen with three syllables in their first and last name, even though these are also verifiable and limited lists. Fram (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the exact same reason are the "sister" lists and the parent list:

Fram (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has already survived Afd at least twice (when there was a single article). The criteria for the lists is explained and is clearly not merely a "(g)rouping people by a characteristic that has no relation to their notability". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide links to the other AfDs, and please explain why it is "clearly not merely" etcetera, as it is not clear to me at all. Fram (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We seem to have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of centenarians, which was a no consensus two years ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of centenarians (2nd nomination) which was a keep one year ago, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of centenarians (3rd nomination), which was a keep some 8 months ago. However, the nomination gave a different argument than mine (size vs. WP:NOTDIR), and the article has now been split into new articles with a specific focus. I don't think the earlier discussions should be taken into account when looking at this one, as they focused on a different problem, not on my reason for nominating them. Fram (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I created all the sublists as a solution to the size problem because at AfD3, other editors seemed unwilling to put in the effort. Other orderings would also be possible, such as List of centenarians (A-B); I simply did it the easiest way. If there's a consensus that this particular ordering scheme is inappropriate, then any editor is welcome to rewrite them to use a different scheme.
As for WP:NOTDIR, that doesn't apply because these are lists of bluelinked articles (see NOTDIR point #2). Their purpose is navigational, per WP:CLN, and they're encyclopaedic for the same reason that paper encyclopaedias have contents and index pages. The correct guidelines to apply are WP:SALAT and specifically WP:LISTPEOPLE. (Note that where any reliable source notes that someone is exceptionally long-lived, then their age is a contributing factor to their notability.)—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I wasn't thinking about NOTDIR #2, my concern is NOTDIR #6, "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y"" This is "People known for occupation X with characteristic Y". This is not a logical, encyclopedic navigational method. List iof businessmen (a-b) is a logical index / navigational aid, but a list of businessmen by age isn't (and you would need pages for businessmen who died when they were between 70 and 80 and so on as well, to get a good navigational system: an index that only lists a few people from a category, based on an irrelevant characteristic, is a bad navigational system). Fram (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a reasonable criticism to make, and in order to address the problem you're very welcome to rewrite them using an alternative categorisation method (e.g. the previously-suggested List of centenarians (A-B)), after which the versions I created can be deleted under G6.—S Marshall T/C 12:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Later) Incidentally, could we unbundle List of living centenarians from this multiple-article AfD? In that particular case it seems to me that the fact that they're very old and still alive is a logical and notable intersection and deserves separate consideration.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It satisfies WP:LISTPEOPLE, which states that the members of the list must meet notability guidelines (which they do, as all the members of the list consist of bluelinks); and that membership in the group is notable, which it is, as reaching 100 years of age is not a very common thing for a notable person to do. Bcperson89 (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - There is no reason to delete these. --Kumioko (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE, no attempt is made to show how notability is established. LibStar (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the lists I would offer one bit of advice though. Most are quite short so we could probably group them into one article rather than a bunch of lists of less than 10 people each. I would also disagree that being over 100 years old lacks notibility. Less than .5% of the population lives to be that age and there is usually quite a few references for each person so I would contend that would meet the notibility index. --Kumioko (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Being over 100 years old lacks notability" is true, but that is specifically NOT the only criteria for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all agree with nom, there is no real reason to group people by being a centenarian, why not create an additional group for people in their 90s? LibStar (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Clearly defined lists, with clear inclusion criteria, on a notable topic. Becoming a centenarian is notable, and all these people are notable in their own right too. These lists were split out from a main list of centenarians sometime ago, due to article size issues. Lugnuts (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Where people are otherwise notable per coverage in WP:RS, surpassing the age of 100 is relevant to their notability. Chester Markel (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization by area of notability is a good thing from the research point of view and is notable in its own right–consider the number of articles on longevity of orchestra conductors, for example.Ma^t_chups 00:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subjects are notable, as is reaching the age of 100. The organisation of these lists is a different discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we group people by lots of characteristics that have nothing to do with their notability, who says it has to? We have lists and categories for their home towns, their universities, and the cemeteries they are buried in. Look at the categories for any president. We don't add them to list and categories because that is what made them notable, we do it to aid in navigation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as stated here earlier, whenever a person has an entry at the wikipedia, clearly there is some notability and besides that, it isn't that everybody that is over 100 years old automatically is included. For instance, I created a same sort of list for my discussion page on the Dutch wikipedia, because some of those people are not notable enough to be included in this list. And besides that, I find it a bit annoying that some people find it necessary to nominate this page for deletion every few months. Every time the consensus is very clear to keep it and somehow another person - without really consulting the history of the page I suppose - gives it another try to get rid of it. It's getting ridiculous. Guidje (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to Fram, few of these further comments address his actual nomination. Fram is not saying that Wikipedia shouldn't have lists about these people. He is saying that we shouldn't have these lists.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of x who are centenarians. - Reaching 100+ draws newspeople to that person to write about them. However, there would seem to be only a limited way to write up information on their age. "They are 100!" "They are 100 and still practicing medicine!" The rest of the reliable source content would be about the person and their medical career, not the age 100+. Wikipedia's bread and butter is reliable source content, not concepts. While age may play a role in generating reliable source content, the main thrust of that reliable source content won't/can't be their age due to the limited ways you can address such matter. In that regard, the above lists have misplaced emphasis. For example, instead of "List of centenarians (sportspeople)", it should be "List of sportspeople who are centenarians." I think that will move Wikipedia forwards in this centenarian intersection area. Once these are renamed, any future AfD disucssions would be less reactionary and more contemplative. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly per Lugnuts, Chester Markel and R.A.Norton above. Reasonable splitting of what would be otherwise an enormously long list. Obvious navigational aids. Being >100 is usually a reason that adds to notability or is anyway discussed. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, the nom simply doesn't understand these lists or how lists are handled generally on Wikipedia. There are innumerable lists that index biographical articles based on shared biographical facts, not simply the facts for which those people are notable. These include lists for places of origin, year of birth or death, alumni of educational institutions... So the fact that the organizing concept of this list is not the basis for the notability of its entries (i.e., they do not have articles because they are centenarians) is not recognized as a valid deletion rationale and is extraordinarily contrary to practice.
As for subdividing by occupation, it's not an unreasonable way to organize the lists, and that's sufficient when all you're doing is subdividing something that would be too long otherwise. It has nothing to do with whether being a businessman is related to being a centenarian, a really ridiculous straw man argument that, again, shows that the nom does not understand these lists. I'd prefer them to (also) be subdivided by nationality, as that is a much more standard and more clear cut way to subdivide a classification of people, though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish centenarians shows at least a couple people don't think that's valid either. Luckily it doesn't look like that view will win the day. postdlf (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reaching 100 in itself is not notable. Being a businessman is not notable. By what synergy might reaching 100 and being a businessman be notable, or even worth putting in an encyclopedia. In my view, none. All of these lists by profession tell the user of wikipedia precisely nothing new. Continually creating new longevity lists, filtered by irrelevant factors, like profession, birth country, country of residence simply puts all of the same subjects on multiple Wikipedia pages. Listing centenariand by profession makes no more sense than listing the by the pets they own(ed) or the vehicles they drove. Centenarians who owned dogs, Centenarians who owned cats, Centenarians who drove Buicks, Centenarians who drove Yugos, etc. David in DC (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed solution—How about if Fram and I, and anyone else willing to do the work, collaborate on replacing these lists with an alphabetised version or a version by nationality (either of which does seem like a better way). Once that's done, let these lists by profession be removed under G6.—S Marshall T/C 17:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a great solution and thank you for proposing it. I think alphabetical is best. But I've been involved in some tangential contentiousness here that might cause some to find my infuence suspect, so I'd defer to you on this. I'd be happy to help, too, but at least until the ArbCom case is over, my help might similarly be viewed with suspicion. David in DC (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If my proposal gains consensus to implement it, then Arbcom will not censure you for helping with the resulting work.—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I apologize for being unclear. It's not ArbCom that I think would view my participation as suspect. It's my fellow editors. The World's Oldest People WikiProject sometimes reacts reflexively to the participation in longevity-related edits of anyone they've concluded has an anti-expert bias. I've definitely made it onto that list, despite the fact that the conclusion is inaccurate. As best I can tell, neither you nor Fram have earned their enmity. In my view, editors uninvolved in the current dispute over WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND as it relates to longevity-related articles have a better chance of improving these lists if the editors are clearly untainted by association with the likes of me. If consensus jells to accept your generous offer, it could go a long way toward cutting through the whole longevity fustercluck. I'd like to help, where I can do so without exacerbating the current level of tension. David in DC (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Goodness me, that's a can of worms that I'm really not anxious to open. :) Let's just say that I would personally welcome any help in implementing this solution if it gains consensus, and I really don't mind who participates as long as they're being constructive.—S Marshall T/C 01:39, 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 Mandsford 19:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Terry[edit]

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

I was unable to find any significant coverage of this person not related to Clarett. Thus, I think this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Chick Bowen 06:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete agreed. If any noteworthy information comes up, I'll change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:13, 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 Keep Mandsford 19:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BMTC routes[edit]

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

I had nominated the article List of AC buses Bangalore for deletion. In the discussion this user stated that Wikipedia is not a public transport info page. So on the same criteria, I have nominated this article for deletion. It contains route info of BMTC. Abhishek191288 (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perfectly encyclopedic list of transit routes in one of India's largest cities. What a single user said on an AfD of a different topic has nothing to do with notability nor consensus of this one. And bizarrely, the nom was also the nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AC buses Bangalore in which he stated "There already exists an article listing the various routes of BMTC. I do feel that it is not required to have a separate article just to mention which of the routes are operated by AC buses. A separate section in the article Feeder and Metro BMTC Routes about what routes are operated by AC buses is quite sufficient." The nom seems confused as to his own preference. --Oakshade (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - Abhishek191288 need to understand the policies of wikipedia not on somebody's comment regarding a deletion as its his own personnel opinion. Dragging another users comments to some other topics is not a good decision moreover you were the nominator of that one. This article can be merged to Transportation of bangalore topic...--...Captain......Tälk tö me 16:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and this article is just a directory. WP is not supposed to be a "complete exposition of all possible details" and a list of bus routes is not encyclopedic to me. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Precedent has shown that verifiable lists of bus and other transit routes are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia, and I see no reason why this example should be any different. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 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 keep and improve. Any rename discussion can take place on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sociopaths in Society[edit]

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

Essay / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (vote changed, see below) - Essay / original research, and an invalid content fork of sociopath. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a content fork of a page that we've never had an article at, nor, indeed, is it a content fork of sociopathy, at which we've never had anything more than what amounts to a disambiguation without any sources. Indeed, the major criticism at both talk:sociopathy and talk:sociopath is that we've never had a decent article for either. This would actually be such an article, and the only problems with it as it stands are that sociopathy exists and only an administrator can rename over it, to put this article in its place. That's what should happen, here. (As far as I can tell, there's no edit history at sociopathy that's ever been used anywhere else. There's barely ever been any content to use.) The only problem here is the article's title. It is otherwise a useful contribution to the encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The appropriate action is still delete. What you are saying is this: (a) we need article X. (b) This is article Y. (c) It has a different title from article X. (d) It has different content from article X. (e) Its current content is fundamentally encyclopaedic because it is original research. (f) Let's keep it anyway because we need article X. - Surely you can see the problem with this logic? Just delete it, and make a real article on sociopathy with a correct title. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Once again at AFD you are wrong on just about every point of your argument. This is a real article on sociopathy, and from all appearances is based upon sources discussing the subject and is not a novel thesis on the subject at all. Stop being so desperate to delete something that you'll bend policy out of all proportion to maintain your position. The only problem with this article — the only problem — that makes it not a valid stub article on the subject of sociopathy is that it isn't at that title, because there's an edit history that is largely useless standing in the way of it simply being renamed there with the page move tool.
    First you claim that this is a content fork, and when that's proven wrong, by simple dint of pointing out that you didn't check to see whether there was in fact an article there in the first place for it to be forked from, you want it to be original research, based upon nothing more than unsupported assertion of the same. (Name one of the sources that the article's creator cited in the article that you have actually read and checked to see whether the content is unsupported by it.) Stop flailing around trying to make any arguments that you can fit the foregone conclusion and try actually looking at the article at hand on the basis of content and deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep and Rename (on basis of improvements since nomination) - I think the last time that we disagreed on a deletion discussion, consensus was wholeheartedly on my side, so I'm not quite sure where this "once again" is coming from. But look, my initial argument was completely correct at the time I made it (which I could elaborate on, but in view of what I'm about to say would be a waste of time). Since then, you've significantly improved the article, which I hadn't noticed, to the point where it is STILL an awful article on the unallowable topic "sociopaths in society" but is actually a pretty good starting point for an article on "sociopathy". Procedurally, the correct path is to delete this article, userfy it to your user space, and then allow you to use the content to create an article of sociopathy. However, practically speaking, I think an WP:IAR approach of renaming it to a name befitting its new content would be better, both for involving less bureaucracy, and as preserving the edit history. I have accordingly changed my vote to rename, on the basis of the work you have done. What it gets renamed to I don't much mind as long as the name accurately reflects the new content. And next time, you can get the same result with a polite notice "I have improved the article", rather than a personal attack on me. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, your argument was as wrong when you made it as it is now. (Pretending that that's a personal attack on you is yet another error on your part, by the way.) The irony here is that I've done very little to the content of this article except trim a superfluous section heading from the start, use templates for citations, and fix some wikimarkup. There is no new content, and no need for any such notice. The content is the same as it was from the start. You just didn't look at it without having already formed the conclusion to delete before reviewing the article and thinking about how to work on it. And you're even wrong about the procedure, too (not least because userfication doesn't involve deletion, and userfication here is completely wrongheaded and contrary to the principle of collaborative editing on articles in article space, which I appear to be the only person putting into action, by collaboratively cleaning up someone else's writing, in this particular case). The procedure, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is to use editing tools to edit articles in the normal manner. The only thing that requires an administrator here is the renaming over the useless edit history at sociopathy. Everything else to improve the article requires only the ordinary editing tool. Per deletion policy, if an article has the wrong title, one renames it, rather than have it deleted. Per deletion policy, if an article has a spurious and unnecessary section heading for its introduction, one just takes that off with the edit tool, rather than have the whole article deleted. My goodness the repeatedly erroneous argument here is saddening evidence that you aren't even thinking about cleanup and collaboration! All of this is ordinary cleanup activity and collaborative work on article writing, that people who do such cleanup in collaboration with other editors in order to help improve their work should have no problem in recognizing in an article. It wasn't as if there wasn't a big clue, with the boldfaced word in the opening definition in the first sentence of the article, as to what to head for in this case. Uncle G (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The article wasn't capable of cleanup in that the article title was not a suitable title for an article; it was not capable of establishing the notability of its topic as to do so it would need to show that there was sufficient content to justify a sub-article of "sociopathy" rather than a merge into that article. There was no such article, and at the time of nomination none of the content met WP:V, so the article title was invalid and the content was valueless, hence delete. What you've done is not fix the article, but rather use the article topic as a container for unrelated, but worthwhile, content. And "once again [...] you are wrong" is the very definition of an ad hominem attack - attacking the argument by reference to experience with the person. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The opening sentence, A sociopath is somebody who exhibits sociopathy, who behaves in a way that suggests they have no conscience, shows that whatever's here needs to either find a home in the main article on sociopathy, or disappear. EEng (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good grief! There is no main article, and never has been. I just pointed that out. Please read discussions before adding to them. Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. It never occurred to me that there would be no such article. Apologies. EEng (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:45, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and merge some content with sociopath. This is not original research as suggested by the nominator (see references in article). Biophys (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Somebody (with more time than myself) should check those references. I checked one (an article that I authored myself) and it is used to source a statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote in that commentary. --Crusio (talk) 17:42, 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 00:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WebJS[edit]

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

Not notable. Does not have any third-party sources establishing notability. Just an advertisement. — ^Fatal Error 05:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement. Can't establish notability. Creator's only edits have been regarding this product: Lubino2000 (talk · contribs · email) (I have fixed some of the promotional speak in the article. Also, is this a candidate for speedy delete nn?) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 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 The result was Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:N#Academic, though people have claimed that it is notable, no evidence has been presented. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Checklist and Census Catalogue of British and Irish Bryophytes[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Does not establish notability. — ^Fatal Error 05:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable within the field of bryology; it's one of only two current publications which describe the British distribution of bryophytes, and many published works on the British distribution of bryophytes quote the catalogue as their primary source of distributional information. As FatalError says though, that's not clear within the text, so we ought to fix that. SP-KP (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SP-KP. Certainly notable in its field. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable in its field. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's notable in its field, no one's noted that beyond the usual "books received." EEng (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think notability for books is the best fit, but as a key landmark or census of a group of organisms I think it should be kept. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what guideline is the best fit? EEng (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking something like Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - a key work on british bryophytes. Agree sources are needed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, WP:ACADEMICS is for animals (specifically, human animals), not vegetables (like Bryophytes) not minerals (like books on Bryophytes). Care to try again? EEng (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC) (I'm aware that most papers are derived from vegetable matter, but that spoils the symmetry of the arch joke.)[reply]

Yeah, I know. It was the closest approximation to what I had in my head. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important work in the field of bryology. mgiganteus1 (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it is probably a valuable work. However, first of all, "valuable" does not necessarily equal notability. Second, there is not a single source that confirms that this is actually an important and valuable work. If it is, there should be reviews in (specialist) journals, for example. Without sources, this does not meet WP:V. --Crusio (talk) 10:58, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber of Furniture Industries of the Philippines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Non-notable organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I'll resist the urge to make fun. EEng (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel the urge to make fun of the trade association of a major industry in the world's 12th most populous country? Is the very idea that an encyclopedia should have an article about such an association in a country largely inhabited by not-quite-white people self-evidently funny? You seem to have a very strange sense of humour. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have the urge to make fun of the trade association of [etc etc -- what you said]. I had the urge to make fun of an organization with an amusingly unlikely-sounding name -- I had a similar urge when I encountered the "National Crushed Stone Association." (See their "50 Fascinating Facts about Stone, Sand and Gravel" [18]; highlight: "1987 - National Sand and Gravel Association becomes the National Aggregates Association.") Why do you feel the need to make a fuss? EEng (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep when the US Dept of Ag. states that "is the premier furniture show in the country", that makes a significant claim of notability in my book. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty more significant coverage is found by the searches linked in the nomination, such as [19], [20] and [21] and many others. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. Plenty of coverage. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMPANY: The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. What exactly will be drawn, from the sources cited, to make this more than a stub, ever? EEng (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I linked above to three sources with substantial depth of coverage - two lenthy newspaper articles and a 5-page academic paper all about this very topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I invite anyone reading this to actually examine the sources linked. The academic paper reviews the negotiations between the Chamber and a conservation organization over forest stewardship. One of the newspaper articles is a puff piece on "green" furniture covering the negotiated agreement in 4 of its 20 paragraphs. The other newspaper article is about the Philippine furniture industry and, yes, quotes a Chamber official at length. Except for (possibly) the academic paper, none of these articles is even primarily about the Chamber. It's just who you would talk to if you want to talk about Phillipine furniture manufactures. Aside from mentioning the # of members it has and so on, none of these articles even tells you much about the Chamber, its structure, or what it does, except that it sponsors a trade show. I ask again: what material would be used to get beyond a stub? EEng (talk) 19:45, 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) 00:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperzionism[edit]

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

Non-notable term or political movement. If this is a political group, it's an insignificant fringe one; as a term, I can't find any use of it in reliable sources. It only seems to be used as a pejorative by non-reliable ones.Robofish (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(See also discussion for Avraham Shmulevich below.) Robofish (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This neologism does not appear in any reliable sources that would have showed in a Google News or Google Books search. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one broken source. Non-notable is a compliment. How about "unheard of"? Poliocretes (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Chester Markel (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. Number 5 7 17:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous commenters—neologism with no basis in reliable sources. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:02, 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 00:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham Shmulevich[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person. I'm unable to find any significant coverage of this person in reliable third-party sources; the Russian-language interview given as a reference appears to be the extent of it. The article claims his organisation has also been covered by programmes on Israeli television, but it doesn't seem like there's enough to pass our notability guidelines. (I'd almost consider this a WP:A7 candidate, but a previous AFD ended in 'no consensus', so clearly some people thought it was worth keeping.) Robofish (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(See also discussion for Hyperzionism above.) Robofish (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I read the AfD debate that took place nearly five years ago and can see how the article was kept back then. However, our policies on biographies of living people are much stricter now. Google search in English fails to show notability. Solid references in other languages are lacking. This fringe activist is not notable by our current standards. Cullen328 (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure - The article in the Russian Wikipedia cites a lot of sources, mostly in Russian, and some of them are rather notable. This may mean that he is notable, but strangely enough, i couldn't find any sources about him written in Hebrew. I don't really know what to say. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of coverage in WP:RS cited in his Russian language Wikipedia entry, such as [22]. Chester Markel (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced, the person doesn't even appear in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Panoramix303 (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—seems to be created in tandem with Hyperzionism to promote (or demote?) a certain point on Wikipedia. The topic is non-notable and not covered by reliable secondary sources. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, given the nature of the sources in ruwiki, I'm suspecting hoax or viral self-promotion. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:02, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abhay Raichand[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable TV show character. E. Fokker (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable charachter with no significant secondary sources proving that it should fork from the main article, Sadads (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to warrant a separate article--Sodabottle (talk) 09:38, 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 redirect. Any content worth salvaging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marque[edit]

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

"Marque" is nothing more than French for "brand". This page is a content fork from Brand, where it pretends that an Automotive brand is somehow different than other kinds of brands. In fact, the only difference is that car brands are often called marques. That difference does not justify having a whole other page. Wiktionary and Marque (disambiguation) are more than adequate. Dbratland (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is original research about branding in the automobile industry, and its conclusions are entirely unsupported by the "references", which are nothing more than lists of "prestigious" brand names. Cullen328 (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Put a fork in me. EEng (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Marque" shouldn't be a red link - it should be redirected to another article with relevant information added there, or kept to allow improvement as a separate article. Most of the article is unreferenced and possibly original research, but improvement is possible. Brand is probably long enough, and a split would eventually be needed, and although there is some overlap with badge engineering it isn't entirely the same topic, so it can probably stay separate. Maybe it should be moved to a more descriptive title, such as "Automotive branding". Peter E. James (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

88Response Good points, Peter E. James. Let's delete this article and redirect Marque to Brand. A section on automobile branding could be written, based on reliable sources, and that section could mention the term "marque". However, this material doesn't make the grade. Cullen328 (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'Marque' is still used in British English to refer to 'brands' of car, motorcycle, etc - but not to brands of soup, tyre or computer. It's not as common in everyday talk, where 'make' is more used. The word is French in origin - but so is 'garage'. It is now by adoption an English word, so its French origin and current use there are not grounds for deletion. I am against a simple redirect to 'brand' as in British English there is a distinction perhaps not found in America. Peridon (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically, is the distinction? We don't create content forks just because British and American English have synonyms that mean the same thing. Mini is a brand of car owned by BMW. Marlboro is a brand of cigarettes owned by Altria. Brand and marque are synonyms, unless you can cite a source saying they're not... ?

Currently the article makes no assertion that car marques are any different than brands; it talks about fashion and market segments, and consolidation, the halo effect, and so on. But every single thing it says is equally true of brands of everything, not just brands of automobiles. --Dbratland (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, now tends to be used more in connection with the more expensive or 'desirable' motors - some random examples of its use: http://www.topmarques.co.uk/ http://www.daimler.co.uk/ http://www.searchwellsetc.com/site/pages/vintage_cars.php The Free Dictionary gives "A model or brand of a manufactured product, especially an automobile." Wiktionary gives the English meaning as "A brand of a manufactured product, especially a model of motor car." The article does make the point that the term 'marque' applies mainly to cars and thus is only a synonym for 'brand' in that context. It's not only the prestige aspect - the Fortnum and Mason label is a brand and would never be referred to as a 'marque'. In my opinion, there is enough distinction to merit at least a short section in 'Brand' with a redirect from 'Marque'. Peridon (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn and Chevrolet are not a prestige brands (or marques, if you like), but the BBC Telegraph [23][24], Guardian routinely call them marques, along with Cadillac and Bentley. And if you notice, these publications blithely substitute "brand" for "marque", e.g. "GM needed to slim down and strengthen its eight brands [...] It also sees a focus in North America on Chevrolet and Cadillac, with the other six marques - GMC, Pontiac, Buick, Saturn, Saab and Hummer - focused on targeted niche markets." --Dbratland (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC, Guardian and Telegraph would be expected to use this terminology. The Sun wouldn't. Saturn is a 'brand' virtually unknown in the UK. Chevrolet is, but now associated with the former Daewoo models. I'm not saying it is a universally applied terminology. I am saying it exists in a special usage and needs to be recorded in some way. Note that while I have quite a record myself of voting '!Delete', I also go against the trend and have supported the article of a rapper (a form of music I detest). Whatever its usage, it exists and is documented. I'm not saying the article is perfect - few are - but that the term needs mention despite the dislike for it of some Americans. Peridon (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any distinction from "mark" can be handled by a single sentence in the brand article. Redirect there. EEng (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to brand. I think there is some useful content here that could be used in another article if sourced. For this reason, I do not see a need for a full-scale deletion. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:44, 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 speedy delete. Article's creator tagged it for speedy deletion, in the absence of any argument to keep I went ahead and did it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Greenwood[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, claim of notability based on appearance in one as yet unaired episode of TV series; fails WP:ENT. Prod removed by author. GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 02:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article kind of says it all... "background roles" on Waterloo Road, Hollyoaks, and Moving On, with his one appearnce on Waterloo Road not to air until 2011, or so days his management.[25] And in checking the IMDB cast lists for those series in which he was allegedly "background", his roles are apparently so minor that he is not found among the listed cast. So then I also thought to check and see if he received and recogntion for his stage work. Nope. "Best known for"?? Unknown for is more like it. At the very best, this over-fluffed and unsourced article on this youngster is waaaaaaay WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Schmidt, clearly does not meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Goolge search revealed nothing to sway my position... Pol430 talk to me 20:59, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Ganey[edit]

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

Unable to find coverage of this Somali poet in any reliable sources. Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 02:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tooga - BØRK! 18:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Qworty (talk) 19:43, 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) 01:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McCulloch[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the views of the subject and his writings, that isn't the point: the point is that he appears to be non-notable and there is no evidence of any third-party coverage of him at all. However it is asserted that a Swedish political group used his ideas, but I can't find any reliably sourced evidence of this and furthermore there isn't any evidence that the group in question is notable either. I don't support censorship of ideas. I just believe this page is inappropriate for Wikipedia because the subject appears almost completely non-notable which seems to have been overlooked until now. X sprainpraxisL (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hey, you beat me to it. Person is indeed non-notable, which I found confirmed after wading through ten pages of this. Google Books confirms that he wrote a book, and while I can't wait until I can order the book from Google, notability requires secondary literature. There is plenty of chatter on the internets, but we're building an encyclopedia, not a chatterbox. He must not be a very important racist, since I couldn't find him on the SPLC's website. How sad for him--that would have increased his notability somewhat, I would imagine. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting that his concept of "racial preservationism" does not entail hatred of other races per se, but rather is more explicitly about the support of the continued existence of the 'Nordish' race (and, for that matter, all other races), and he says that he does not associate with 'neo-Nazis'. Therefore it would be relatively hard for a group like the SPLC to nail a claim against him for 'hate'. Whatever the case, all evidence points to non-notability and that's the bottom line.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is fixable and the guy is notable. Click on "Books" in Find Sources (above) and add "racial" to refine the search. He gets a fair amount of discussion. I may just strip the article down to remove all self-published content and add what the sources say. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvement. I changed 'supremacist' to 'nationalist' as I feel it is more accurate based upon what he has written.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I undid that change, since that is not what the source says. This article is likely to become an edit war battlefield, and the rules must be established up front and then rigidly enforced: Only reliable and independent sources, nothing self-published (except where quoted by the sources), what the sources say but only what the sources say. Thems the rules on this one. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is verifiable that McCulloch advocates the creation of all-white nation states, for example in the USA (see here) but does not advocate supremacy of white people over other races (see here). Should verifiability trump truth? It's verifiable by his own account. Personally, I don't really care that much, but I believe that the article is inaccurate and misleading to describe him as a 'supremacist', even if that's what the third-party sources say, because the self-published sources say otherwise. What I would also like at this point is that if no one else comments, that the AfD be closed as no consensus, default to keep, but would value further opinions on whether to keep or delete.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability does indeed trump "truth". Wikipedia should just report what has been said about the subject by reliable independent sources, citing the sources. This is what they have said. Maybe the sources have access to information other than the self-published material. You could soften the statement by saying "He has been called a noted white supremacist", but if every statement is qualified like that, the article gets unreadable. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:36, 10 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) 01:10, 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) 01:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:BIO, not notable in general, and even less notable as an 'academic'. -- Meanpineapplefritter (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites three books and a scholarly paper that discuss the author and his theories at some length. A web search on "Richard McCulloch" racial throws up a mass of commentary, positive or negative. You may not agree with the guy, I certainly don't, but he is clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, just has some seriously bad views.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequate sourcing for notability. Would be without even the Swedish connection & translations, but that adds to it. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shilpa Mehta[edit]

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

I would say delete this, and if someone has more to say that this, the article can be re-created. But I doubt there is anything more to say D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is more to say. Sad as the nominated article is in its current state, the individual appears to meet both WP:GNG [26][27] and WP:ENT.[28] Rather than toss an improvable article, why not actually improve it through regular editing? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mehta is a fairly common south asian name, and I don't see in indication in MichaelQ's list of Google results that these are all for the same person, let alone this person. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While "Mehta" might perhaps be a common surname, Shilpa Mehta seems a bit more unique. Since others have not, I'll dig through them and add sources to the article.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:00, 26 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) 01:23, 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 Redirect to West Albury, New South Wales. Non admin closure RoninBK _{T C} 19:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Hill, New South Wales[edit]

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

Having doing some researching online, I've not found anything about "Forrest Hill" other then the name of a few organisations, a park (Forrest Hill Park) and a street (Forrest Hill Avenue) but I've not found anything about it being an area. The Census data cited is West Albury which has nothing about Forrest Hill's population, not does the Australian Bureau of Statistics has any data on Forrest Hill.

Now looking on the most important website which is the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales, the only result I can find is Forrest Hill Park and Google search only shows Forrest Hill Avenue and Forrest Hill Tennis Club Inc.

My feeling is that if it does exist it would be an estate similar to Wiradjuri Residential Estate which is not a suburb or an area but it is located in the suburb of Wagga Wagga or another example is Gracelands (in Wagga Wagga) which is again not a suburb or an area as it is located within suburb of Kooringal but "Gracelands" is used by Real Estate Agents for their marketing. Since I can not find anything about Forrest Hill the content here is largely based on OR and notability fails due to the no gazetting found on the GNBNSW and the City of Albury websites. Bidgee (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 23:39, 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, Courcelles 00:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable, per wp:notability. -- Meanpineapplefritter (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- but merge info from article into West Albury, New South Wales. -- Meanpineapplefritter (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete not notable and merge as above (Crusoe8181 (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Merge and Redirect, but please avoid delete and merge suggestions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 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 delete. Courcelles 00:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IFRS, Inventory[edit]

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

I'm not sure what this article is. It appears to be a giant instruction manual on keeping an inventory for your business. It also shows all of the signs of being a WP:COPYVIO, although a brief search didn't reveal the source. Article has no wikilinks and was created in a single edit by a WP:SPA, and it continues to be the only edit by this user. Fails WP:OR and WP:NOTHOWTO. SnottyWong ^prattle 19:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs more context and wikifying but it looks to me to be specific to IAS2 rather than inventories in general. I'm not entirely convinced that it's copyvio; I didn't find any matches when googling, and I doubt that we should delete on the basis of "No idea what it's a copy of, and we haven't found any actual copyvio, but my gut feeling is that it's copied from somewhere...". It certainly needs some work (making the language more professional, rather than using the colloquial "you begin your calculation..." should remove overtones of HOWTO) but I don't think deletion is the best answer. This area is the subject of much coverage by reliable sources in the outside world. bobrayner (talk) 23:24, 18 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 00:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete. The essay (a glorified FIFO and LIFO accounting) is absolutely alien to the spirit and word of IFRS; in fact, the four-letter acronym does not appear anywhere apart from title. The essay barely touches a single aspect of IAS2 (the IFRS standard on inventories), and misleads the reader into believing that LIFO is acceptable (or even first choice) in IFRS. In fact, IFRS outlawed LIFO in 2003. If wikipedia (not wikiversity, not wikisource...) ever needs a how-to tutorial on LIFO-FIFO (I doubt it), it belongs to FIFO and LIFO accounting. NVO (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I want to start by saying that some of my best friends are accountants, and I have nothing against those kinds of people. Nonetheless this combines a numbing how-to on inventory accounting with shocking and contentious non-consensus-based assertions such as, A repeal of LIFO for taxation purposes could have a devastating impact on the U.S. economy due to the sheer value currently reserved within LIFO inventory. While a global standard of accounting regulations would be beneficial in comparing financial statements across borders, the United States government must weigh the risks involved in completely eliminating the LIFO method of inventory valuation. Remember, WP:SOAP, even for accountants. EEng (talk) 21:37, 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. Courcelles 00:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undamma Bottu Pedata[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a 40+ year old film. Not finding any coverage on the internet, there may be some print sources but I certainly don't have access to them. Unless sources can be identified to pass WP:GNG, then this needs to go. SnottyWong ^gossip 17:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search indicates a number of potential English-language sources, but a search using Telegu script may be more productive. See the second "Find sources" above. Director, cast and singers are all notable, and the movie and soundtrack album both did well. I may add a couple of English-language sources. Perhaps a Telegu-speaking editor can find sources that provide more depth. They do not have to be English language. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:47, 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 00:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements already made[29] and allow continued improvement through the course of regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Current version is well sourced and shows subject passes WP:GNG. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:14, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luminus (musician)[edit]

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

No real claim to notability in the article, Google news search for 'Luminus "amir dvir"' returns zero hits, and I cannot find any evidence that WP:MUSIC is met. Thanks sparkl_!sm ^hey! 13:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl_!sm ^hey! 13:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 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, Courcelles 00:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. label not good enough for wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources needed for notability are inexistent. Using primary sources as base for notability is not acceptable. Ubot16 (talk) 09:58, 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 00:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celler Scene[edit]

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

Contested prod; non-notable local magazine; has no 3rd party references that discuss the subject, nor can good faith searches find any. Fails WP:N. (Note: the article on the same subject on German Wikipedia has been deleted: article, discussion; from the dodgy Google translation it seems to fails their notability guidelines for magazines.) Tassedethe (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually there are a number of independent 3rd party German sources that refer to this magazine, so please could you explain which notability criterion this fails. German Wikipedia's decision was only based on one vote and may not be very relevant. Finally note WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reliable notability gauge. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Then could you please add some? I haven't been able to find any, just blogs and the publication's own pages; my reason for not advocating deletion has been that there may well be press mentions I can't see, being located outside Germany. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:37, 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 00:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can come up for sources that support notability. There's nothing here so far. Qworty (talk) 19:36, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Tadros[edit]

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

An ordinary businessman who has started non-notable businesses. He was profiled in his alumni magazine, which is not sufficient to establish notability. This article was apparently written and maintained by a paid editor or PR company. It's competently written, but there is nothing to show that the subject is any more notable than thousands of other entrepreneurs. It has been nominated for speedy delete,[30] and prodded,[31]. It's been tagged as an advertisement,[32]. Despite improvements to the article, the subject still does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Will Beback talk 09:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Tadros is the creator of a leading internet marketing agency in Chicago and one of Chicago's foremost voices in internet marketing. His work at such a young age has led to the creation of nearly 100 jobs and served to put Chicago on the map as a leader in the digital age. This entry is valid & necessary to document the evolution of Chicago as a player in the digital arena. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.12.192 (talk) 05:14, 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 00:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of which makes him a bit part player in Chicago! There are countless thousands of businessmen and women who have created 100 jobs - it's not a big deal - so he is not exactly a suitable Wikipedia subject in that regard. As for his notability beyond the confines of Chicago, there do not appear to any sources in national US or international media; one must conclude that he an entrepreneur who has done well *according to this PR puff) but nothing out of the ordinary. Delete Emeraude (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, among Wikipedia's goals "documenting the evolution of Chicago as a player in the digital arena" (whatever that means) doesn't number. EEng (talk) 21:32, 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. Courcelles 00:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zike (company)[edit]

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

This company fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). A Google News Archive search for the company and its founder, Nathan Scolari, returns no results. This article (full text here) from the local newspaper Greenville News is the only secondary source about the company. The other sources, such as this one, are either passing mentions or primary references. One secondary source is not enough coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability. If a second source that provides nontrivial coverage about the company can be found, I will withdraw this deletion nomination. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 18 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 00:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gnews returns nothing, as described. A regular search seems to produce the same tow or three articles, reproduced over and over. Mangoe (talk) 01:33, 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) 01:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kine[edit]

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

Unable to find any sources for author or books thus seems to fail WP:AUTHOR The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A first time author who got some good reviews. Maybe later but his notability is pretty limited: I couldn't get the reviews to show up directly in Google. Mangoe (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 18 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 00:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:AUTHOR. None of the references used are reliable, including a blog and goodreads.com, which has user-generated content. I looked for something in a reliable publication, but to no avail. Valfontis (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nor could I find any references, even to the claimed review. The book is in exactly 1 library, a/c worldcat. I was not able to identify the NYT

references alluded to. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why we have NEVER used the Internet. Send us an email, if you would like to see our catalog. Still, I can not think of why people have found it necessary to make SLANDEROUS accusations about a small publishing house, or the authors we represent. Yes, our initial entry could have used a little work, but we have never used Wikepedia prior to this entry. As for the unfounded and mean-spirited accusations posted here, the book was mentioned in the printed issue of The NYT Sunday review. A total of eight words were devoted to the book, yet it attracted enough attention for us to do a second printing of 2,000 books. Please just delete the page if it is that bothersome to you. Slander and unfounded quips are unnecessary. Jaimecooper (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Jaime Cooper SHP[reply]

Please show where there is slander. Also where any comment here is unfounded. If you do, it might provide us with evidence that could change our minds. Yes, we can change. On the other hand, if you just want webspace for answering people's queries, why not use LinkedIn, which has a (rather brief) piece on Paul Roades already? (If it's not LinkedIn, it's AboutUs. Both do the same sort of job and are free, I think.) BTW I have nothing against small publishers per se - I have worked with them, but those haven't gone for Wikipedia 'status'. Peridon (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we here at smallhand press can answer any questions, and verify any references. contact us at: smallhandpress@gmail.com. we want the article up, for the reason that we receive too many letters asking the questions about the author, which we answered on this wiki page. also, the author turns down every interview offered, and so this is really the only form of information eluding to his personal life that he has approved. Thank you, Paul Roades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimecooper (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So put up your own website and post an author biography. Don't expect us to do your work. Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The greatest work of fiction described in this article is the notion that this book was ever reviewed by the New York Times. Qworty (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. The "debut" novel is his only novel. Hardly anything for him to be "best known by". Further, the only people supporting this article are people with connections to the author, and possibly sockpuppets or meatpuppets to boot. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both the user creating this article and the user currently supporting it are under investigation for sockpuppetry here. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You guys can go ahead and delete the page. We never intended to cause any inconvenience. We don't do much on the Internet, so perhaps we stepped on toes, unintentionally. Sorry for the trouble, Jaimecooper (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Jaime Cooper, Smallhand Press[reply]
Delete It's a bit hard to get a 'cult following' in a maximum time of just under two years (assuming January 2009 as the issue date) - especially with "less than 5,000 copies being released". How many less? Two, two hundred, two thousand? A small cult following, maybe, but hardly enough to be notable. It's got to be less than 5,000 anyway... Oddly, I can't seem to find much else that's been published by Smallhand. Even when researching them with a '-kine' in the box, all I find is this one book. There is an email address at gmail, and I found "smallhandpress. net" (sic) which disn't work even with the space removed. "We don't do much on the Internet" - looks like they don't. A reclusive author and a reclusive publisher, too? Peridon (talk) 21:35, 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) 01:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Operator[edit]

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

A search for references had difficulty (term cross over to Apple Computing) in finding published support for the content of this article. The position appears to exist, but did not find anything significant beyond that. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Prod on creation in 2006 was removed by creating author.

Article content "A Mac Operator will often do much of the less creative work in a design studio, or publishing house. This can include marked-up text corrections, spell checks and formatting documents to pre-arranged templates. However, in a pre-press or print environment, the role can be a much more technical one and being a Mac Operator is rarely a route to becoming a graphic designer."

Jeepday (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really only a dictionary definition, "a person who operates a Mac." Unless sources are provided that give a more substantial meaning then WP does not really need an article. Borock (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This 3-sentence article is between misleading and downright wrong. ISBN 9781921106194 pp. 62 tells us that the proper name for the job described in the first two of those three sentences is finishing artist. ISBN 9780262112239 pp. 46 tells us that even 20 years ago the professional distinctions between graphic designer, finishing artist, photo-retoucher, et al. were disappearing; and it was no longer the case that a specialist profession of "the computer technician who handles the part involving the computers" existed. By the time that this article was written, it was more than a decade out of date, and it had already become clear that being the "computer operator" was not only not not a route to being a graphic designer, contrary to the third sentence, it was in fact part of being a graphic designer. Uncle G (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- sourceless permastub whose entire contents are bollocks. Reyk _YO! 00:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't appear to be a valid job description, even if it was in the past. It doesn't even provide sources as a definition. No need for this article on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Pnm (talk) 04:40, 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 and improve. Notability appears to have been established, WP:COI issues can be fixed through editing the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Springs[edit]

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

Shoestring-budget zombie flick that satisfies neither WP:NOTFILM nor the general notability guideline. Article created by the film's publicist (see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4197654/) presumably as a promotional tool. -- Rrburke (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 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 00:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You forgot to mention that the publicist was also an extra in the film. EEng (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Through meeting WP:NF per coverage. While it's a a Wikipedia-pity that someone might create an article on a subject in which they are interested, now that the article belongs to Wikipedia, we look beyond its author to the topic itself. In even a cursory search, I note articles in Kingsport Times News,[33][34][35] Dread Central,[36] Bloody-Disgusting,[37] and even a review of the film in Variety (imagine that),[38] and so far have found it screening at the Anaheim International Film Festival,[39] and Dances With Films. There's more... they simply need being added to the article through cleanup and regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but perhaps you and I are looking at different WP:NFs. The one I'm looking at calls for e.g. "full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Could you perhaps quote a particular disjunctive criterion of NF, and pair it with the coverage satisfying that criterion? EEng (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's you who are looking at WP:NF incorrectly. You're quoting an "atribute" that is set to encourage our looking for sources as if it the attribute were a required mandate... and that's not the case. Further, that phrase, while often mis-interpreted to mean that only the likes of Roger Ebert may review a film, allows reviews by sources qualified to speak about the genre being discussed as suitable. Wikipedia is not intended to include films only of big-budget major-studio blockbusters. Its not a popularity contest. We do not give special consideration to only those films who have the biggest advertsing budgets. Big budget or small, all may be considered, if as with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline. Film Threat confirming the film is suitable. Variety, Kingsport Times News and Bloody-Disgusting writing articles about the film is suitable. Variety reviewing the film is suitable. It being written up in multiple reliable sources (even if not ALL sources) is suitable... and coverage is coverage, whether for a studio film or an independent.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingsport Times News pieces appear to be self-published articles by the film's publicist. The Variety review is a single paragraph in the online edition. The Dread Central and Bloody Disgusting "reviews" are just as short, of sub-professional quality, and one seems to have been entirely cribbed from the other anyway. The Film Threat coverage amounts to a repost of the Anaheim International Film Festival's own press release[40] about their lineup and a mention of the film's title and its director's name (i.e no extended coverage of the film at all) in another article. The film's inclusion in the Anaheim International Film Festival, an event of uncertain importance in its inaugural year, didn't seem to me to establish the film's notability.

In short, such "coverage" as I was able to locate was self-published, trivial (i.e. brief mentions without any significant treatment of the topic), or otherwise fell below the standards set out at WP:RS#Overview. The sole exception was the Variety review, but it was brief and, being solitary, couldn't in itself add up to "significant coverage".

And while it's true that the criteria listed at WP:FILMNOT#General principles are only examples of the kinds of attributes a film meeting WP:FILMNOT might be expected to exhibit, when, as in this case, a film meets not one of those criteria, presumably some other generally agreed-upon criteria of equal merit need to be substituted for them in order to judge notability. What are they here? -- Rrburke (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was adressing the comments of User:EEng, but appreciate that you answered for him. You failed to acknowledge that the film also received coverage in sources accepted as suitable for its genre. Wikipedia does not demand nor expect that New York Times or Washington Post review low-budget horror films, nor does it demand nor expect that horror genre RS Faqngoria or Film Threat review big-budget Disney films. We editors are expected to look for suitable sources where suitable sources for the subject being discussed might best be found.

Neither WP:GNG or WP:NF require "substantial" coverage, as "significant" does not mean the same thing. "Significant" means the subject must be addressed directly and in detail, which it is by Variety and the suitable genre sources Dread Central and Bloody-Disgusting... which sources are not simply trivial listings in a database. "Significant" coverage does not demand that the detail itself be all-emcompassing or substantive. Wikipedia is not intended to be the lackey of major stidios or big dollars. And while certain editors might wish it, guideline does not or expect nor demand that a low-budget independent horor film will have the same coverage as would a big-budget, highly-touted, big-studio-financed film. For what it is, Broken Springs has sufficient coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In further respose to Schmidt: I mentioned that the attributes listed in the guidelines are disjunctive -- and invited you to point to any other than the one I quoted. Beyond that, it's true that the various notability guidelines are only guidelines, but if you want to break out of them you should have a good reason. What's the reason here? EEng (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "breaking out" of policy or guideline, and I do not think I could have been more clear. The topic has met policy, and the subject has been addressed directly and in detail in reliable sources... Variety and the suitable genre sources Dread Central, Bloody-Disgusting... and quite likely others as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per coverage in RSs, sufficient to reflect notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, which exactly are the reliable sources? The blog-posts by the movie's publicist, or Dread "review" reproduced in its entirety here? EEng (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC) The Dread review:[reply]

Anybody reading this ever drink moonshine? Let me warn you from personal experience it is some potent shit that you should be really careful with. Some batches are strong enough to raise the dead, I tell ya! Speaking of which ...A new clip from Neeley Lawson's indie zombie effort Broken Springs just hit online today, and it features a few tasty bits of CGI carnage. Get used to it, folks. It's here to stay! Dig on the clip below. Broken Springs tells the tale of three teenage boys who have their world turned upside down by tainted moonshine. They must rescue their loved ones and battle a marauding horde of zombies while fighting their way out of town.

Perhaps he read my comments, and felt that WP:NF has been met. You are always welcome to disgree, but do you feel compelled somehow to now question everyone who does not agree with you? So far, we have Variety and the suitable genre sources Dread Central, Bloody-Disgusting... and quite likely others as well. The burden of notability per policy and guideline has been met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I seem to have cut my own comments off in my post a bit above -- now completed by text shown above in underline.) I feel not compelled, but rather justified, in continuing to point out that despite your insistence (a) none of this matches anything called for in WP:FILM and (b) FILM is, in fact, the appropriate guideline (for all films, big-budget or not) absent some sensible justification for putting it aside. Setting up legalisms as links doesn't doesn't change any of this, and "V" is a content policy, not notability guideline. EEng (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any experienced editor will tell you that WP:V is a CORE policy, and verifiability is always required. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But citing it in a deletion discussion, promotes the misconception that just because something verifiably exists and has been reported on (regardless of how trivially) it qualifies for an article here -- which appears to be the sticking point in this very discussion! EEng (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Denigrating the articles written by Jeff Bobo as "blog posts" shows a total lack of research or understanding on the part of User:EEng, as even the least bit of research shows that Jeff Bobo is indeed a real journalist, and not simply some online amateur... specially as we can find articles authored by him for many years as a staff write and reporter for the hardcopy The Harlan Daily Enterprise examples:1996 1997 1998 and he was writing as a staffer for the hardcopy Kingsport Times News for 4 years [41] before they began their online Times News and encouraged amateurs to submit articles. So he IS verifiable as a real journalist. That said, yes... he had a role in the film. Is Roger Ebert not allowed to write about the work of Roger Ebert? Or do we automatically discredit anything Ebert might write about his own work beacuse it involves him? Do we automatically cast suspician on any journalist who writes knowledgably about a topic of which he has personal knowledge?? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, the situations are not quite parallel: since the film's publicist appears to have both created the Wikipedia article Broken Springs and authored the pieces from the Times News which are being put forward as sources(!), it's rather more as if Roger Ebert, writing under a pseudonym, had created an article about his latest book and was trying to cite Roger Ebert's review of the book as a source. Once that ruse was discovered, I'm sure there'd be a race to see who could remove the reference fastest, and the entire article would probably be deleted as spam... (pregnant pause).

In fact, Roger Ebert is quite restricted in the kinds of contributions he can make to articles about the work of Roger Ebert: Roger Ebert would be expected to restrict his editing on topics related to his own work to uncontroversial edits. I wish the creator of this article would observe the same restrictions instead of doing things like creating spam autobiographies and articles about movies he's employed to publicize.

But as for the merits of the sources: first, they're useless for establishing notability because they are not "independent of the subject" (WP:GNG); second, they're unsuitable as sources for the article, partly for the same reason ("Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources" WP:RS#Overview -- emphasis mine), but more importantly because they lack the kind of editorial oversight that would qualify them as reliable -- that is, "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS#Overview): the online edition of the Times News is not such a source, because it permits users to create and post their own articles on its website. So irrespective of whether Jeff Bobo has been employed in the past as a journalist, for all anyone can tell these pieces are nothing more than self-published sources. Self-published by the film's publicist(!). Who also created this Wikipedia article about the film(!). -- Rrburke (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply My remarks inre Bobo were to address the claim made by an editor who did not look before speaking that he was some amateur blogger. And, as repeated above, and even discounting the involved journalist's (NOT using a pseudonym) articles in Times-News, we still have Variety and the suitable genre sources Dread Central, Bloody-Disgusting... and likely others as well. And while I understand some editors always desire the same substantive coverage as we might find for a big-budget studio blockbuster with the financing for a promotions blitz, Wikipedia is not a popularity contest and does not expect nor demand that same big-budget coverage for a low-budget independent horror film, and it is not a guideline mandate... specialy as "significant" and substantive" do not mean the same thing. Thst sources address the subject directly and in detail, even if not in great deatil, is per guideline. The burden of notability per policy and guideline has been met, and it actually serves the project to allow this article to remain and be further improved over time and through regular editing. Better for us all to research and expand and better source this article, than to rush to delete it out of a preconception that it is somehow unimprovable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please! EEng (talk) 22:36, 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) 01:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bobo[edit]

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

Declined speedy. Self-promoting autobiography of non-notable person. Single film appearance as actor in low budget zombie flick. Races cars. Has a few bylines in local media. Some of the references are to raw video shot by the subject and hosted on his YouTube account. Nothing remotely approaching significant coverage -- Rrburke (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 18 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 00:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unintentionally self-deprecating autobiography. Note: I've restored Afd tag removed by someone. EEng (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No matter its author, the article now belongs to Wikipedia and an article's syle and appearance can always be addressed through regular editing. Has anyone actually looked to see if his asserted awards meet WP:ANYBIO? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi, Michael. Although the article lede describes the subject as an "award-winning journalist" etc, the claim is unreferenced and no awards are specified. Similarly, while the article includes a subhead entitled "awards and nominations," that section is empty. In short, as there are no actual awards asserted, there's nothing to evaluate. Nor could I find any evidence of such awards myself: if I'd been able to, I wouldn't have nominated the article for deletion.

I should have mentioned I did look. I couldn't find any such awards either. EEng (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be worth mentioning that his claim to being a journalist looks a little dubious: he appears to have large numbers of articles at the online edition of the Kingsport Times-News, a site that allows any registered user to "create and publish articles[42]. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have no doubt that Jeff Bobo IS a real journalist, and not simply some online writer... specially as we can find articles authored by him for many years as a staff writer and reporter for the hardcopy The Harlan Daily Enterprise examples:1996 1997 1998 and he was writing as a staffer for the hardcopy Kingsport Times News for 4 years [43] before they began their online Times News and encouraged amateurs to submit articles. So he IS verifiable as a real journalist... but his awards are not themselves souurcable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put the subhead there in case the asserted awards could be sourced. I appreciate that you looked... though you were no more successful than was I. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure to meet WP:CREATIVE, WP:ENT, and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find evidence of notability in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 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 redirect to Charitable_contribution#Types_of_Contributions. Any content worth merging can be pulled form the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microgiving[edit]

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

This was tagged as G11, but the history relates that the article's been here for a few years, and I don't like axing articles that have been here for that long without some discussion. I site advertising/promotion as the reason to delete this article, given the way it currently reads, I would not be all that surprised if copyright or plagerism aspects were a factor too. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is currently a bit spammish, but I think it can be re-written. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 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) 01:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seems like promotion for a website, trying to coin a new term themselves without any organic basis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmehrabi (talk • contribs) 00:51, 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, Courcelles 00:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term Microgiving is a fairly common term in the world of Finance, particularly with regards to fundrasers. I think we should keep this one. --Kumioko (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charitable_contribution. The term is real, and deserves some coverage, at Charitable_contribution#Types_of_Contributions, but it is used as a veneer to cover a non-notable company (see WP:CORP). At the target article, it may be justifiable to mention the company in passing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. The article seems to conflate the concept with the eponymous specific implementation; the former could be notable, but the latter sounds like self-promotion. Merge it into microphilanthropy? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:38, 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 00:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sadavoy[edit]

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

No references, no hits in Google News. If any Sadavoy is notable, it's Dr. Joel Sadavoy--see the results of this search. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 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, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – In addition to GNews archives, I also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was unable to find any sources about this radio personality that would help to support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:04, 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. article withdrawn by only significant contributor DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inverted Pendulum using Arduino[edit]

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

Contested Prod-Wikipedia is not a how-to guide →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - nothing of encyclopaedic value here. andy (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same criteria as Andy - he said it all. User keeps removing deletion templates, as well. --Manway (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May be a moot point - author blanked the page and I requested a G7 speedy delete. --Manway (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 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 nomination withdrawn. I see no reason to keep this open any longer, as it is pretty clear now that my search was incomplete. Thanks to Richard for his research. NW (Talk) 04:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Keddie Murders[edit]

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

I am fairly certain that this article is a hoax/viral marketing of some sort. A quadruple murder would have been reported in newspapers, but LexisNexis and NewspaperARCHIVE.com aren't coming up with anything.

The bizarre thing is that this article, from the San Francisco Chronicle, seems to be reliable and about the murders. But it was written 20 years after the event, and the fact that that article is the only reliable source that I can actually access (others aren't available in archives and links to them are dead) seems a little strange. NW (Talk) 00:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also pt:Os Assassinatos de Keddie and ru:Убийства в Кедди. We should probably alert admins on both sites if we decide that the article is indeed a hoax. NW (Talk) 00:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found (only) two GBook references, including this one that is fairly in-depth. I, too, am surprised that there is not more on this. Not sure what to think yet. Location (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you can't find coverage because you are searching under the name it is known as now in 2010 here in Wikipedia. You just have to search under the victim's names and there it is. The Court TV article is enough to meet notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is backed by reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, and there appears to be no reason to conclude that it's a hoax. Alansohn (talk) 04:18, 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.